The Syrian refugee is an incredibly complex and emotional issue. Further, this issue has reached a boiling point recently with President Trump’s recent executive order banning refugees from certain countries. David French is opposed to allowing refugees enter the United States of America. Professor Serena Parekh is supportive of helping refugees and allowing them into America. However, each author relies on narrative and uses elements of Robert Reich’s four types of the Democratic narrative. David French argument against accepting Syrian refugees relies on refuting the narrative fidelity of “the left”. Narrative fidelity is the concept of evaluating “facts” in a story and determining if they are accurate. French believes that leftists who quote the Bible to justify accepting Syrian refugees are violating narrative fidelity. French states that advocates for open borders or refugees frequently cites Mosaic Law which states, “Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners …show more content…
Parekh relies heavily on the concept of the scene. The scene of Syria is depicted as bleak in both pictures of the country and in description. The scene of Syria is described as one of “random violence, of death, destruction, and chaos,” Further, Parekh describes the scene of the refugee as so grotesque that many refugees would rather return to the violent Syria. This argument is very careful to avoid abstraction—failure to achieve a shared understanding. Parekh defines our moral obligations to refugees as a “Good Samaritan obligation”. Meaning, that we have a responsibility to help refugees when the cost is low. Thus, Parekh has clarified what she means as a Good Samaritan obligation to readers. Further, Parekh admits that there is no worldwide accepted moral or legal obligations to refugees. Thus, this concept is to abstract and results in refugees being unevenly distributed to certain