Thread: America Already Has A Refugee Problem On Its Hands

1:13 AM 09/09/2015
Scott Greer

The United States is now being called upon to help Europe deal with its migrant crisis.

With hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants continuing to swarm into the cradle of the Old World, the New World is looked to grant asylum to their fair share of refugees.

Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and The Wall Street Journal are a few of the prominent voices urging America to take on this task.

In a Friday editorial for the Journal, Robert Litan relies on platitudes inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and an unrelated incident from the 1940s to argue America must take in the Middle Eastern migrants.

Litan admittedly bypasses the “practical” concerns over letting thousands of migrants into the states in favor of reaffirming America as the place that welcomes the tired and poor of the earth. But many of the young men (and the migrants are predominately young men) flocking to Europe are flocking there for economic reasons, not to flee violence.

At the moment, President Obama’s only response to the migrant crisis has been to double down on his fantasy of finding democracy-loving, ISIS-fighting rebels in Syria. In other words, Obama is still committed to not finding a real solution to the Syrian civil war.

But, like in Europe, the answer does not lie in opening our borders to all who may want to come — especially with our own illegal immigration problem.

That measure would only encourage more people to come here illegally. If we take in hundreds of economic migrants masquerading as war refugees, what’s stopping us from welcoming in millions more who break our law to get here?

Additionally, there’s the strong possibility that Islamic militants are hiding among the refugee masses. Even our own State Department admits that dangerous elements probably lurk within the exodus.

If our country does (foolishly) bring in these Middle Eastern migrants, the federal government’s refugee resettlement program will will likely handle them — which is a disaster in of itself.

The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program brings many immigrants here under the pretense that non-government organizations will cover the bill. Shockingly, the bill is usually passed on to taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Moreover, the United Nations — not our own government — recommends the vast majority of refugees who will resettle in America.

The towns where these refugees are settled often have no say in the matter, even though the communities must provide the services for the migrants and deal with the consequences of the population transfer.

Even the powerful South Carolina Republican congressman Trey Gowdy wasn’t consulted before his district was selected to host Syrian refugees earlier this year — to the chagrin of Gowdy and his constituents.

To deal with the unplanned cost of mandated settlement, cities like Wichita, Kansas, have to resort to emergency funds to cover this expense foisted upon them by the federal government.

Some of America’s refugee communities have even become breeding grounds for violent crime and radical Islam. For example, the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis, Minn., located just east of downtown Minneapolis, has earned the nickname “Little Mogadishu” due to the large number of Somali refugees residing there.

Little Mogadishu plays host to violent Somali gangs who have a penchant for child sex trafficking, according to USA Today. The neighborhood also has become a prime recruiting area for radical Islam and as many 40 former residents have joined terrorist groups in the Middle East. Meanwhile, several current residents have been arrested trying to join ISIS.

The prospect of thousands of young Muslim men settling in unfamiliar towns and cities across the U.S. — in a stagnant economy no less — does not bode well for our country. There’s a strong potential for radicalization, and the possible large number of radicals already among the migrants only strengthens that fatal chance.

The communities where the Middle Eastern refugees would call home are cut out of the process of determining if they can handle the new arrivals.

Exceeding America’s present refugee quota would only exacerbate the problems already associated with our flawed immgration system. You don’t fix a broken program by assigning it more tasks to do, especially when taxpayers have to foot the bill.

The “nation of immigrants” rhetoric favored by those championing Syrian refugee resettlement does not justify taking on the project. The interests of our citizens should come first.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/09/am...-on-its-hands/

The “nation of immigrants” rhetoric favored by those championing Syrian refugee resettlement does not justify taking on the project. The interests of our citizens should come first.

We need to support Russia with their support of the Assad Regime to restore stability in Syria so all these Syrians can go back home.

This role of the US in starting "rebellions" in countries whose citizens aren't willing or able to fight is wrong and causes many more problems than it solves. This should never ever be a part of US foreign policy and not one dime of US money should be spent on it.

Do you suppose that President G. Bush was intelligent enough to consider that if his 30 day democratization plan failed that these were the problems that would abound? Did anyone in his administration warn him of these possibilities? If so, why were not those possibilities shared with the public?

Bush and Obama have made it clear, the United States cannot afford any additional democrat or republican presidencies, haven't they?