After President Barack Obama’s ideologically-driven and cowardly press conference in which he made clear that the Paris attacks would not influence his policies and declared that the United States will be taking in numerous Muslim refugees,at least 25 state governors have stood up and said that Syrian refugee resettlement will not happen in their states. And they’re right to do so.
So far, 25 Republican governors and Democrat have pushed back against Obama’s plan to import Syrians.
“Our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents,” Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) said in a statement. “It’s also important to remember that these attacks are the efforts of extremists and do not reflect the peaceful ways of people of Middle Eastern descent here and around the world.”
Snyder had been working with the federal government to resettle the refugees, but has decided to stop doing so until there are better security measures.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) echoed Snyder’s statement.
“After full consideration of this weekend’s attacks of terror on innocent citizens in Paris, I will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. As your Governor, I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way,” Bentley said. “The acts of terror committed over the weekend are a tragic reminder to the world that evil exists and takes the form of terrorists who seek to destroy the basic freedoms we will always fight to preserve. I will not place Alabamians at even the slightest, possible risk of an attack on our people. Please continue to join me in praying for those who have suffered loss and for those who will never allow freedom to fade at the hands of terrorists.”
These governors should be applauded for doing this. Letting in a massive influx of Muslim refugees would be national suicide. Here are six reasons why they’re right, and why the rest of the West should follow suit.
1. We don’t have an adequate vetting process in place.
FBI director James Comey said recently in a Senate Homeland Security hearing that he was concerned about the vetting process. “My concern there is there are certain gaps … in the data available to us,” Comey said. “There is risk associated of bringing anybody in from the outside, but specifically from a conflict zone like that.”
Nicholas Rasmussen, head of the National Counterterrorism Center expressed similar concerns. “The intelligence that we have of this particular conflict zone is not as rich as we would like it to be,” Rasmussen said. “We’ve got a much more streamlined and effective system to make sure that all of our intelligence holdings are brought to bear as these decisions are made, but you can only review against what you have.”
These comments echo what Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, told Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday. “There’s virtually no vetting. There are no databases in Syria. There are no government records,” King said on Fox News Sunday. “We don’t know who these people are and when you meet with the people doing the vetting, they tell us that. They are rolling a dice here and we know that ISIS wants to bring in terrorists with these refugees.”
ISIS has declared openly that they’re going to use the refugee process to smuggle their members into the West. One of the terrorists in the Paris attacks was in fact somebody who claimed to be a refugee, and the Daily Mail has demonstrated how easy it is to obtain a fake Syrian passport. Since there is clearly not a reliable screening process – in the U.S. and the rest of the West, it seems – it would be extremely difficult to determine if the refugees are affiliated with ISIS. It’s not worth the national security risk.
2. Our immigration system is vulnerable.
Kenneth Palinkas, president of National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, warned in a press release that the current immigration system can be very easily exploited by Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS:
Unfortunately – and perilously overlooked in Washington – our caseworkers are denied the urgent professional resources, enforcement tools, and mission support we need to keep out those who are bent on doing us harm. In fact, this Administration has widened the loopholes that terrorists could use to gain entry to the United States through our asylum system. The Administration has also blocked our partners in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from enforcing visa overstays. The 9/11 hijackers got into the U.S. on visas and now, 13 years later, we have around 5 million immigrants in the United States who overstayed their visas – many from high-risk regions in the Middle East. Making matters more dangerous, the Obama Administration’s executive amnesty, like S. 744 that he unsuccessfully lobbied for, would legalize visa overstays and cause millions additionally to overstay – raising the threat level to America even higher. There is no doubt that there are already many individuals in the United States, on visas – expired or active – who are being targeted for radicalization or who already subscribe to radicalized views.
Many millions come legally to the U.S. through our wide open immigration policy every year – whether as temporary visitors, lifetime immigrants, refugees, asylum-seekers, foreign students, or recipients of our ‘visa waiver program’ which allows people to come and go freely. Yet our government cannot effectively track these foreign visitors and immigrants. And those who defraud authorities will face no consequence at all in most cases. Our caseworkers cannot even do in-person interviews for people seeking citizenship, they cannot enforce restrictions on welfare use, and they even lack even the basic office space to properly function. Applications for entry are rubber-stamped, the result of grading agents by speed rather than discretion. We’ve become the visa clearinghouse for the world.
Palinkas points out that immigration officials don’t have the proper resources to enforce immigration law, and are obstructed by the Obama administration from doing so. That means that if the U.S. were to allow a massive influx of Muslim refugees into the country, they can’t be properly tracked and monitored to make sure they aren’t going to commit acts of terror. The administration was warned about the terror threat from the Boston bombers, yet they didn’t do anything about it, showing that our immigration laws can’t be properly enforced under this administration when they need to be. Europe has even more lax immigration policies than the U.S. does. Refugees can’t be effectively monitored and will be hard to remove if it is believed that they are at risk of committing a terrorist attack. That’s a recipe for disaster.
3. Importing values that are antithetical to a free society is irrational.
These are Syrian refugees, which are naturally from a heavily Islamic country. As HotAir’s Allahpundit points out, Pew Research polls show that the vast majority of Muslims from countries in North Africa and the Middle East believe in making Sharia law the law of the land (although not as many want it to apply it to non-Muslims), which include supporting the death penalty for those who leave Islam as stoning as punishment for adultery. The polls do not include Syria, but it is very likely that Syrians would share these views because they’re a Middle Eastern country dominated by Muslims. The tenets of Sharia law are not compatible with the values of individual liberty and freedom under the Constitution that the American people hold dear. Since assimilation often does not happen under the current immigration system, this could lead to further self-segregation of the West.
4. Violent crime will increase.
Since allowing in an enormous influx of refugees, Germany has been experiencing a significant increase in violent crime. Crime has increased by 65 percent. The refugee shelters are also hotbeds for rape and forced prostitution. Here is a portion of a letter written by four social work organizations and women’s rights groups:
“The practice of providing accommodations in large tents, the lack of gender-separate sanitary facilities, premises that cannot be locked, the lack of safe havens for women and girls — to name just a few spatial factors — increases the vulnerability of women and children within the HEAE. This situation plays into the hands of those men who assign women a subordinate role and treat women traveling alone as ‘wild game’.
“The consequences are numerous rapes and sexual assaults. We are also receiving an increasing number of reports of forced prostitution. It must be stressed: these are not isolated cases.
“Women report that they, as well as children, have been raped or subjected to sexual assault. As a result, many women sleep in their street clothes. Women regularly report that they do not use the toilet at night because of the danger of rape and robbery on the way to the sanitary facilities. Even during daylight, passing through the camp is a frightful situation for many women.
The Gatestone Institute compiled numerous examples of Muslim refugees raping women in Germany. Here are a few of them:
On August 28, a 22-year-old Eritrean asylum seeker was sentenced to one year and eight months in prison for attempting to rape a 30-year-old Iraqi-Kurdish woman at a refugee shelter in the Bavarian town of Höchstädt. The reduced sentence was thanks to the efforts of the defense attorney, who persuaded the judge that the defendant’s situation at the shelter was hopeless: “For a year now he sits around and thinks about — about nothingness.”
On August 26, a 34-year-old asylum seeker attempted to rape a 34-year-old woman in the laundry room of a refugee facility in Stralsund, a city near the Baltic Sea.
On August 6, police revealed that a 13-year-old Muslim girl was raped by another asylum seeker at a refugee facility in Detmold, a city in west-central Germany. The girl and her mother reportedly fled their homeland to escape a culture of sexual violence; as it turns out, the man who raped the girl is from their country.
5. The refugees would worsen the debt.
Over ninety percent of the refugees would be on food stamps and nearly 70 percent would be on cash welfare. The U.S. already faces nearly $19 trillion in fiscal operating debt and $210 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The European Union is dealing with its own debt crisis. Putting more people on welfare programs would only blow an even further hole in the countries’ finances.
6. Most of them are young men.
The vast majority of the refugees are young, physically capable men, not women, children and families. Not only does this suggest that in many circumstances they have left the women, children, and families behind, they are fleeing from conflicts in which their own culture desperately needs them. Why would we import so many of them given the above risks?
Image (via AP): Migrants wait to register with the police at the refugee center in the southern Serbian town of Presevo, Monday, Nov. 16, 2015.