The Syrian refugee crisis, coupled with the ISIS attacks in Paris, have created a conundrum for political leaders across the Western hemisphere. While some evidence suggests at least one ISIS thug posed as a refugee to get to Greece, and from there traveled to Paris, the links between the refugees who need assistance, and the terrorists are still speculative for now.

President Obama continues to press Americans to welcome thousands of Syrians into our country. Many governors (24 at last count, with 23 being Republicans) have made efforts to limit their states’ refugee intake. During the Democratic debate on Saturday night, there was a race to determine who would take the most refugees, with Bernie Sanders saying there was no magic number, while O’Malley and Clinton were willing to take up to 65,000. Republicans, predictably, attacked the President and the Democratic field, arguing our focus should be on security. Ben Carson called on Congress to defund any efforts to re-settle such refugees in the U.S.

Christians have also fallen on opposite ends of the spectrum. Richard Stearns, President of World Relief, argues we should show Christian love to refugees, regardless of their religion. He fears the Parisian attacks will harden our hearts to our Christian obligations. Franklin Graham asserts that Islamic immigration must be checked due to severe security concerns.

What to do with all this? There are no simple answers and the biblical teaching is not determinative. Yes, it is true we are called to love our neighbors, welcome the sojourner, and care for widows and orphans. These principles can be applicable to constructing a policy on this issue, but they are not dispositive. Those teachings are within the context of a sovereign state and none of them demand the eradication of borders or free and open immigration as an act of compassion. Put differently, loving my neighbor does not necessarily provide a political obligation for the government, but a social obligation for the believer. Of course, governments can and should show compassion and love for those in need. When in power, Christians should be motivated by those ideas, but they must always be balanced against competing obligations.

Governments pursue justice, protect the defenseless (including their own citizens), punish evil, and reward the good. Government’s pursuit of these goals has to be considered when crafting policies, even as they relate to weak, vulnerable, needy people, like those seeking to resettle from Syria’s barbarism.

As I have noted before, we do not ask government to love our neighbors when they are stealing from us, nor do we seek its compassion when it confronts a rapist. Government’s fundamental function is not to turn the other cheek, or to walk the extra mile, but to wield the sword of justice in defense of order and stability. To the degree it can accomplish these obligations humanely, it should, but only so long as its primary functions are not degraded.

The simplistic approach, either close the borders because some Syrian refugees could be terrorists, or welcome all refugees even though some could be terrorists, assumes the United States, or other nations, cannot achieve both objectives. We are in an enviable position compared to our European allies who are having to make decisions at their borders on a daily basis. We have the luxury of space and time to make choices that could mitigate the crisis and secure our own citizens. We have the resources, and the infrastructure, to screen refugees for between 18 and 24 months. The system is not perfect, but it is far from an open border to whoever wants to be a refugee. In some ways, we can do both prudently. The Republicans need to recognize this and stop sucking up cheap political points, while the Democrats need to admit there are valid security concerns present and that not all of their opponents want to oppress people of color.

Before I skedaddle, I would like to reference a couple of random arguments floating around the blogosphere regarding this situation. I have seen lots of memes and snarky comments that suggest this situation is equivalent to the American rejection of Jewish refugees prior to World War 2. There is a Washington Post blurb that highlights this analogy and mildly tries to equate the situations. I have a one word response–poppycock. As Kevin Williamson notes,

Appeals to historical parallels such as Franklin Roosevelt’s callous response to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany are inapt inasmuch as there was at the time no worldwide Jewish supremacist movement engaged in massive acts of terrorism on every continent save Antarctica. “The exact same arguments were made against welcoming Jewish refugees” is a sentiment that mistakes trivial rhetorical similarities for substantive similarities.

The other simplification is that this is just another episode in the long running series of, “White Americans Hate Immigrants.” The Republicans, in this scenario, are the new “Know Nothings” all the way down to the secret handshakes. No matter what you think of Syrian resettlement, there is a categorical difference between this situation and others. There are valid security concerns related to the immigration of potentially radicalized Muslims. I know that probably a very small number of Syrians fit that profile, but I am guessing the number that do is greater than zero. This situation demands prudence, not outrageous and misplaced rhetoric from both sides.

***Update. A couple of commenters have questioned whether or not I am linking Syrian refugees to murderers, rapists, etc… I think, perhaps incorrectly, it is clear that I am not doing so. My only expressed concern with Syrian refugees is that it is possible that some are radical jihadists. My comment about murderers and rapists, which one commenter laughably equates to Trumpisms, is in reference to how government, when it confronts such people, wherever it finds them, is not called to marshall compassion, but justice. It is only meant to argue that government’s fundamental obligations do not revolve around compassion. There are competing obligations at work, at minimum, and we have to remember that as we consider government’s behavior.