wshaffer

A couple of days ago, I used a contact form over on the International Rescue Committee's site to contact my senators, asking them to vote against H.R. 4038, which would place additional restrictions on resettling refugees in the United States.

I got a reply from Senator Feinstein this morning which was reasonably reassuring in its substance, but also startling in its missing of my point.

Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, there are currently more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees seeking assistance after fleeing five years of conflict in Syria. Over 2,500 Syrians have lost their lives while taking dangerous journeys to European countries. The Syrian conflict has led to the world's worst ongoing humanitarian crisis and the worst refugee crisis since World War II.

I understand you are concerned that the U.S. Department of State may initiate a new program to resettle Syrian refugees in the United States and that you believe this poses a threat to our national security. The President has said, for fiscal year 2016, the U.S. would accept up to 85,000 refugees, 10,000 of which would be Syrians. All U.S. refugee applicants, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, or religion, are required to meet strict criteria, including security checks through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence community, and the U.S. Department of State, in order to qualify for admission to the United States. Additionally, refugees from certain countries must meet additional clearance levels. For example, biometric information, such as fingerprints and photographs, are collected from refugees coming from Syria and compared to the U.S. vast biometric holdings on foreign nationals.

This was followed up with some additional stuff about the Visa Waiver program and how Senator Feinstein thinks that that is the real security threat that needs to be addressed. Which frankly makes me uneasy as well, but I haven't researched that properly, so I don't know how I feel about that.

I think I can probably chalk this up to a clerical error somewhere. I did write back to Senator Feinstein:

Dear Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for your message. I'm afraid my original email might not have been clear - I was writing to you in support of resettling additional refugees in the United States. I do not believe that Syrian refugees represent any kind of security threat to the United States, and I'm glad that you share my opinion that the existing screening process and security checks for refugees are thorough and adequate.

I very much appreciate your reply to my email, and the additional information that you have provided about your work in ensuring the safety and security of Americans.

Sincerely,

Wendy A. Shaffer

Since the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday, I have been gripped with the vague feeling that I ought to Do Something. The question is, "What?" There is a school of thought that seems to think that it is very important that we should go out and Fight Terrorism. I am bothered by the extent to which this seems to translate into "bomb civilians" and also I am not the sort of person you would send to fight anything. The last thing I fought was a house fly - we went three rounds and then negotiated a settlement whereby I waved it out the front door and it left me in peace. This does not seem applicable to the current geopolitical situation.

And then I thought about changing my Facebook picture, but really what the situation seems to call for is an icon of Marianne in an Eagles of Death Metal t-shirt, and I don't have the Photoshop skills for that.

And there is a strain of thought that says that We Must Not Let the Terrorists win by continuing to be unafraid as we go around living in cities, and drinking in bars, and going to rock concerts. I can do this with great gusto, but it's hard to feel virtuous about it since it's exactly what I was doing before the Paris attacks. And as much as it entertains me to imagine little terrorist cells exchanging urgent communiques along the lines of, "Wendy is going to see Behemoth again! Will nothing stop this woman!" I cannot really imagine that they are that bothered.

But then I was looking at the news about all these state governors saying that they don't want their state to accept Syrian refugees. And I'm glad that California is not among them. I want California to accept Syrian refugees. I want California to *welcome* Syrian refugees.

So, I made a donation to the Northern California chapter of the International Rescue Committee. The IRC helps refugees all over the world, but the Northern California chapter is helping refugees find housing, education, health care right here in my own community. I can't really think of a better way to Not Let the Terrorists Win than to help the people that they've driven out of their homes makes new homes here.

(If you want to see if IRC has a chapter in your city, go to their website, click on "Where We Work", and select your location.)

Like a lot of people, I'm disappointed by the verdict in the Zimmerman case. However, based on my own experience serving on a jury, I'm not entirely surprised that it turned out the way it did.

First, on a jury, you have to find that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't recall the exact instructions we were given on what constitutes reasonably doubt, but it's a tough standard to meet. In the case that I was a juror on, I know and I suspect that most of my fellow jurors knew, that the defendant was probably guilty. It was a domestic violence case; he had prior convictions. Statistically, he was guilty. But because of the specific details of the case, there was room for doubt.

Second, you can only find the defendant guilty or not guilty of the charge or charges brought against them. Second-degree murder has a very specific definition, and I'm not surprised that the jury didn't find that the prosecution had proven Zimmerman's guilt there. I'm more surprised that they didn't go for the lesser charge of manslaughter, but apparently they asked a lot of questions about that charge, so maybe that definition isn't as simple as it looks either.

I don't think any of the people on the jury I served on felt good about essentially saying to our defendant, "Okay, you're totally innocent, walk on out of here and hold your head up high." Sometimes I still wonder if we did the right thing. In a general sense, I think a justice system that reduces the risks of the innocent being wrongly condemned at the expense of occasionally letting the guilty go free is a good thing. Knowing that I was a juror who probably let a guilty man go free is a harder thing to sit with.