The Internet is for Xenophobia

Last weekend's tragic terrorist attacks in Paris have naturally garnered a great deal of attention and scrutiny from news outlets. More significantly, the connection between the heinous violence and emigration from Syria has created a particularly raucous debate on social media.

First off, a Constitutional issue: Upon reading that various governors do not want to allow Syrian refugees into their states, my first thought was "Okay, so?" Certainly they're aware that the federal government dictates the immigration policy for the entire country, right? Thankfully, New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo is aware of this and pointed out the same, whilst voicing his support for a continued tradition of immigration into this country.

His reference to the Statue of Liberty may seem cliche, but it's relevant. With the exception of Native Americans, everyone's ethnic lineage in the U.S. can be traced back to other countries, many within only a few generations. It's disappointing, then, to see such knee-jerk xenophobic reactions to the mere idea that we as a nation offer refuge to people from a country torn by civil war. The Paris attacks understandably strike a nerve with those living in U.S. cities, who fear similar violations on our soil. But the notion that the terrorism in France is inexorably connected to those seeking refuge from Syria has been rebuffed by the revelation that many of those responsible were actually radicalized Belgian and French nationals. Here in the U.S., more deaths have resulted from "homegrown" right-wing extremist attacks than from Jihadist terrorism.

That said, everyone should note that those in favor of accepting Syrian refugees are not necessarily suggesting that we simply let anyone waltz into the country without any investigatory screening. Gov. Cuomo himself expressed that immigration should only continue so long as authorities are able to thoroughly vet potential refugees. In fact, there already exist several layers of vetting for those seeking asylum, beginning first with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and then various U.S. federal agencies and departments. Nonetheless, it's disgustingly intolerant to suggest that religion or ethnicity serve as a screening criteria. While some acts of terrorism have been carried out in the name of Islam or by adherents to the same, dangerous radicals represent a tiny proportion of the world's Islamic population. Instead, counterterrorism experts use forensic interviewing techniques to gather background information, comparing refugees' answers to one another and to existing documentation. In addition, priority is given to vulnerable populations such as single mothers, orphaned children, and special-needs individuals.

As Gov. Cuomo sought to remind us, this country was founded by immigrants, and has accepted waves and waves of people fleeing various hardships in their home countries - the Irish potato famine of the mid-1800s, poor economic conditions in Japan in the late 1800s, persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe in the early-to-mid-1900s, and the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran in the 1970s, to name just a few. Having not been alive during any of these prior eras, I have only secondhand accounts of the political and cultural climate of those times. I'm sure that those whose families had been in this country for more than a generation feared that new immigrants might encroach on their jobs or other economic opportunities, and that certain groups were inherently fearful of others. Human beings are naturally wary of the unfamiliar, which unfortunately includes people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

This tenor is magnified now that we live in an age of constant information. Perpetual access to news media has the potential to make us more informed, but it also leads to the spread of misinformation and unfounded fear. For example, certain headlines, politicians' and pundits' quotes, and popular Facebook posts make it sound as though the United States offered to accept Syrian refugees in direct response to the Paris attacks. In fact, the aforementioned policy geared towards refugees has been in place for several years, and (as also mentioned above) prioritizes asylum for those who are most in need of help. Up-to-the-minute reporting has also created a climate in which news outlets rush to report stories as they break. Most regrettably, this often leads to sensationalist headlines which spread incorrect information before they can be corrected. In this particular instance, some reports initially declared that one of the Paris attackers was a Syrian refugee; later it was clarified that the individual was carrying a forged passport.

Finally, the news media tend to make anything a politician says into a short quote or sound bite that can be taken out of context and interpreted in a variety of ways by the lay public. The ongoing Presidential primary season has provided an unnecessary platform for overly simplified grandstanding by candidates who see an opportunity to look "tough on terror". Immigration is a serious and complex area of policy. The answers are not as simple as "build a wall to keep out the Mexicans" or "don't let in any Muslims"; nor does support of refugees equate with reckless and unfettered immigration. It's unfortunate that people are able to skim a few headlines or short blurbs and buy into such overly simplified rhetoric.

If I could ask anything of my fellow Americans right now, it would be that we react with compassion first. Xenophobia and isolationism will only breed more hatred and fear. Relatedly, I'd urge everyone to remain skeptical about what you hear on the news and read on Facebook. The loudest voices are not always right, nor as self-assured as they may seem. Investigate further and give both sides of an issue their due. Even if you're positively against a certain policy or issue stance, we'll be a better society if people are educated about their views, instead of merely parroting overly simplified quotes from talking heads.

Tip of the Xmas-berg

By now, worldwide news coverage has been devoted to backlash over Starbucks' unveiling of plain red cups for the winter holiday season. Here in New York, Roosevelt Field Mall rolled out a new winter-themed display featuring glaciers and snowmen, instead of Santa and reindeer, then bowed to consumer pressure that Christmas-themed elements be restored. 

These instances of public outcry seem gross overreactions, to say the least. Though they changed the design, Starbucks continued their annual custom of offering a different cup - not to mention specialty drinks! - come November. People's outrage would seem somewhat more justified had the company withdrawn any and all merchandise geared towards the upcoming holiday season. Similarly, the mall endeavored to evoke a seasonally themed display; its management could very well have decided to forgo any special decorations altogether. 

As a lawyer, it is amusing to hear people underscore these arguments in terms of their "right" to religious freedom. Equating the removal of quasi-religious symbols with an infringement of rights is absurd for several reasons. For one, privately held businesses have no legal obligation to offer religiously celebratory decor. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Moreover, the amendment blatantly provides just as much protection of religion as it does from religion. That is to say that people are equally justified in being offended by the presence of religious symbols instead of their absence. 

Finally, it should go without saying that these pseudo-controversies involving holiday decor are not what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when implementing the first amendment. In recent years, numerous issues involving religion have arisen which bear some actual import to functioning society, such as:

• the permissibility of religious headware for armed service and uniformed police force members (though this, too, delved into the ridiculous);
• closure of public schools for religious holidays; and 
• the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. 

Individual humans are certainly entitled to their reverence for a make-believe gift-giving fat guy in a red suit; the constitution does not require that every mall in America provide such a man for photo opportunities. People who are offended by the lack of overt Christmas displays don't need to shop at such establishments. OR they can simply use the mall to fulfill its intended function as a place of retail, and engage in festive/seasonal/religious practices in their homes and churches. And if people care that much about the cup their coffee is served in, Starbucks invites them to bring their own - to the tune of a ten-cent discount. Furthermore, the coffee chain continues to sell various Christmas-themed merchandise, including an Advent Calendar, stuffed Santa bears, candy cane mugs, ornament tumblers, and mug ornaments. If the company was really as "anti-Christian" as some critics have asserted, wouldn't these offerings have been pulled as well?

In the interest of full disclosure, this blogger is not of the Christian faith, and partakes in celebrations of Christmas only to the extent that she is invited to other people's homes to exchange gifts and drink egg nog. From this perspective, it is easy to roll one's eyes at the disappointment associated with the above events. True religious persecution still exists in numerous parts of the world, and in our own nation discrimination often inhibits the practice of certain faiths. In light of these circumstances, it's disheartening to see so much attention paid and energy devoted to superficial matters.

But if it means shorter lines at Starbucks (whose coffee this blogger would drink out of an old shoe, if necessary), maybe it's not such a bad thing.