This letter is not for publication. ADVERTISING This letter is not for publication. That’s typically the subject line, usually in all caps or with several exclamation points, when a reader wants to unleash on the paper for editorial content that
This letter is not for publication.
That’s typically the subject line, usually in all caps or with several exclamation points, when a reader wants to unleash on the paper for editorial content that deeply upsets them.
And several readers have reached out — both in private emails and phone conversation — that some letters to the editor and My Turn columns advocating that Hawaii and the United States tighten rules accepting Syrian refugees were too despicable to print, even for the Opinion page.
It is a polarizing topic, and one that touches on hysteria because a Syrian passport was discovered on one of the Paris attackers responsible for the urban ambush that left 130 dead.
It’s understandable that hysteria can creep in when the possibility of Friday evenings out on the town can turn into war zones. It’s understandable, but not desirable, that that fear can affect a person’s beliefs and thoughts.
But before we dwell there, let this editorial be clear that we don’t support singling out rules for Syrian and Iraqi refugees — as our Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard does — because the 18-24 month process in place now is thorough. And even though it’s country specific in its intentions, the House bill is way too close to singling out a specific religion, which is a slope so slippery, it feels more like a free fall.
It’s why we highlighted two front page stories last week: “Bearing witness,” on Sunday about Ocean View resident Brigitte Cooper’s compassion for the refugees because she lived for six years as one after World War II; and “At home in Hawaii,” on Friday, about residents trying to raise money so former exchange student Mehrengez Rahmatova could flee an arranged marriage in Muslim-based Tajikistan and go to college here.
“This week is a great week to be talking about it,” the Rev. Richard Tardiff told a reporter about why Christ Church Episcopal in Captain Cook joined the drive to raise money, referring to the polarization around the refugee debate. “We’re hearing leaders call for screening people by their religion before we let them into the country. I think it’s a good thing that people in the community are opening our arms.”
But back to the letters.
Just because an opinion letter or column on the refugee issue runs counter to ours, doesn’t mean we won’t print it. Especially on a topic like this, where a fair number were upset that Gov. David Ige said he’d welcome Syrian refugees with aloha.
And one where our congresswoman voted in favor of tightening security around refugees.
Gabbard was one of the 289 House votes in support of American Security Against Foreign Enemies, or SAFE, Act. Her reasons, she outlined in an open letter to her constituents, weren’t to make it more difficult for Syrian refugees, but to ensure the screening process is as safe as it can be for residents and refugees alike.
An ultimate travesty, she cautioned, would be if an extremist did slip through the refugee cracks and attack Americans on American soil. Blowback would be so severe, the program would likely be shut down for a long time, whereby everyone would lose.
“When looking at how to vote on this measure, I considered two things,” she wrote, “1) the safety and security of the American people, and 2) the long term viability and continuation of our country serving as a place of refuge for those who are truly in need of shelter.”
She doubled down on the safety component in a New York Times profile that highlighted her House vote and her position on combating ISIS, which runs counter to the White House’s policy.
“My responsibility is to the people of Hawaii and the American people to stand up and fight for what is right and what is in the best interest of our country,” Gabbard told the reporter. “That has nothing to do with party politics.”
She saying she represents her constituents, and in this case, helping protect them, too.
That’s something all politicians vow, but in this case, who knows, maybe she’s right. Maybe it is the will of Hawaii’s residents. But on the other hand, maybe it’s not. One of the ways to figure that out is through dialogue.
And we’ve had that, in news articles, Man on the Street surveys, and on this page — 29 opinion letters and columns — since the House vote Nov. 19.
What’s the tally?
We’ve printed four columns and nine letters to the editor against allowing refugees into Hawaii and the U.S.
Meanwhile, eight columns and 10 letters to the editor have advocated for accepting them. Given that columns are longer than letters, the advocates have it, not only in sheer numbers, but newspaper inches as well.
They also lead both sides in threats of canceled subscriptions. So distasteful they find the other side — and we’ll be the first to admit some, but not all, have sounded a bit ineloquent if not hysterical — they’d rather just not see them.
Fair enough. We’re sorry to lose you. But if elected officials are voting this way and saying it’s in the best interest — and safety — of our citizens, we’ll quote the officials saying exactly that.
But we’ll also have those citizens tell you in their own words why they feel they need protecting.
