Heartless: With Reason

WHY THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT WILL EVER SUPPORT GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT

It’s easy to view the refugee issue – which this website exposed many months ago here in our home state – exclusively through the reflexive lens of the recent terror attacks in France. Doing so is natural. And there’s no doubt the national security implications of this debate will be front and center for the foreseeable future.

As they should be …

Seriously: Who wants a repeat of the last time we dropped this particular ball?

But our emphatic rejection of refugee resettlement in the United States (along with other “open borders” nonsense) has always been fiscal in nature. Namely, we do not believe that a nation (or state) drowning in red ink should force those already being pushed under the waves to support additional dependents.

Especially not in a state as dirt poor as South Carolina …

“We explicitly reject the use of federal tax dollars – especially those routed through liberal foundations – to impose long-term obligations on South Carolina taxpayers,” we wrote early-on in this drama. “If faith-based organizations wish to host legal immigrants on their own dime, that’s great – but their activities cannot be subsidized by government revenue. Nor can they be permitted to impose affirmative new obligations on already over-taxed citizens.”

Or to put it another way: Compassion cannot be compulsory – especially when people are already struggling and suffering to subsidize a soaring dependency culture (corporate and otherwise).

“Faith-based compassion is a wonderful thing, but just as one’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be imposed on another without consent … neither should taxpayer obligations based on those beliefs,” we wrote.

More