Can America Really Claim To Be The Home Of The Brave?

“Oh, say! can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming;
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:
Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave”

These are the words to the American national anthem, and what’s always stuck with me is the final phrase: “the home of the brave.” What does it mean to be “the home of the brave”? Can I have one brave person in my home and claim to be “the home of the brave”? Or do I need a set number of people to be considered “the home of the brave”? The biggest question of them all though is, “Is America really the home of the brave?”

Historically, yes. It can be argued that it is. Defeating the British in the War of Independence can be seen as brave and courageous. Becoming one of the first nations to gain independence from the British Empire was no mean feat, and has to be commended.

Having said this, is the current stance on refugees brave? With the passing of the Security Against Foreign Enemies Act (SAFE) in the House of Representatives, it would make it almost impossible for Syrian and Iraqi refugees to enter the U.S if the act also passes in the Senate and is signed into law by the president.

The logic behind the passing of the act is the fact that it would be difficult to screen the refugees. That is, it’d be difficult to determine the terrorists from the refugees. This logic provides the argument that the U.S isn’t “the home of the brave.” If America is afraid to save millions of lives, due to the fear of there potentially being a terrorist in and among these people then that name “the home of the brave” should be taken away.

This fear of terrorists among Syrian refugees is misplaced. Of the almost 2,000 Syrians the U.S has accepted since 2011, not a single one has even been arrested on terrorism charges, let alone removed.

The SAFE act was passed due to fears from the Paris attacks which would have been reasonable. Except only two of the attackers had entered Europe under refugee status. Five of the attackers were French. Do two refugees out of the reported 4 million who have fled Syria since 2011 really constitute enough to be considered a threat? Let me re-phrase; does one refugee out of the reported 4 million who have fled Syria since 2011 really constitute enough of a threat to a country known as “the home of the brave”?

It is important to note that the act has not officially been put into law as of yet. It still has to go through the Senate. In spite of the attacks on Paris last week, France is still taking in refugees from Syria. So why should “the home of the brave” take the cowardly decision to stop saving lives because ONE terrorist came from there? Can America still call itself “the home of the brave,” if this act passes? This tweet says a lot about the matter.

Featured Image Via U.S Army under the Creative Commons Licence

After graduating from City University London with a degree in law, Craig is now a freelance blogger and writer. He works on his own blog that speaks on social and cultural millennial issues.