We Must Protect Refugees and Protect National Security

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

The refugee crisis arising from the often savage conflicts raging in the Middle East and North Africa poses one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. On the one hand, we have an affirmative obligation to offer protection to people who are in imminent peril. On the other, we have an affirmative obligation to protect the security of the American people.

To be sure, the vast majority of people fleeing Syria and other war-ravaged countries pose no immediate threat to national security (although, as we have seen, some become susceptible to radicalization through Saudi-financed mosques after arriving here). But as officials within the Obama administration testified, including National Intelligence Director James Clapper, we do not presently have the capacity to identify and screen out security threats. We have seen the tragic consequences of these intelligence gaps in Europe, where ISIS operatives posing as refugees helped carry out the deadly attacks in Paris in November 2015.

Read the rest at Jewish Journal.

Share.

About Author

avatar

Dan is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)'s President after joining the organization in 1982. He has testified more than 50 times before Congress, and been cited in the media as "America's best-known immigration reformer." Dan has appeared on virtually every significant TV and radio news/talk program in America and, in addition to being a contributing editor to ImmigrationReform.com, has contributed commentaries to a vast number of print media outlets.

16 Comments

  1. avatar

    To Ed – I believe that compulsion comes from the elected’s desire for re-election, and the elite’s desire to keep the rest of us struggling and incapable. I am not a liberal, but I agree with you, and I too see this difference. My plight is as all of the middle American class – tired of being classified as a bigot, a racist, a fascist, a communist, or any other name, when all we are is hard working Americans who love our county, tired of financing the incredibly rich and poor of many nations. Help the ones in need when you can, but not to such a degree that your own home, values (no matter what they may be), or country cannot stand.

  2. avatar

    Jewish liberals cannot but note the readily observable increase in anti-Semitism being directly proportional to the increase in Muslim immigration, but they still insist “we must protect refugees,” thereby gratuitously placing their fellow Jews, and other Americans, in harm’s way. America has no obligation to protect “refugees” or to accept immigrants, especially since immigration has long ceased to be of any meaningful value to America.

    What kind of logic impels people to support unnecessary but potentially deadly immigration?

  3. avatar

    Leave the refugees in a safe area near their homes……..It is expensive and foolish to haul them half way around the world and put them on welfare……..

    • avatar

      I agree. There are other ways to help other than moving them all here which is impractical. Many smaller countries like Denmark are already limiting who they take in before they take on more than they can handle.

    • avatar

      Now, there’s a good idea! Take care of our own before taking care of others. Plus, with our astronomical debt, what are we doing creating more &more debt letting in more people to take care of? It simply makes no sense.

  4. avatar

    Too bad that the Oscars don’t have separate comedy acting awards. Chuck Schumer’s sobbing and Nancy Pelosi warbling This Land Is Your Land were hysterical. But when it comes down to it, the Democrats, whose leading candidate for party chairman is a Muslim, seem to be in denial. Hillary flat out stated numerous times that “Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism”, when obviously it does, whether here, Europe, or in Muslim countries.

    All this talk of people being vetted for two years is just that, talk. They may spend a couple years in camps but that means nothing when there are no reliable records for most of them. The 9-11 Commission criticized the admittance of the hijackers, pointing out that they never should have been let in because they were single young men with no obvious ties to this country and from countries that were designated sources of possible terrorism, and provided incomplete into on their applications. We have had plenty of plots stopped. What happens when another big ones succeeds. Will Schumer be shedding more crocodile tears?

    • avatar

      Leland why is this happening? what is the reason all these people are leaving their countries?

      • avatar

        Answer this question. Can we take in all the millions/billions of people who want to come here?

          • avatar

            Our situation is vastly different than the early years of our country, even after WW2. In the early years, we needed and wanted immigrants to become Americans and help our young country grow and develop. The people coming here then (and after WW2) had a strong desire to become Americans, so they learned English, took classes to learn about this country, its constitution, laws, etc, and became loyal Americans. In those early years, we had lots of space and resources. Today, our resources are limited and constantly being drained as millions more people come here. Today, too many people coming here have no desire to become Americans, instead they bring their country with them & have no loyalty to ours. They take everything we have to offer, without thanks, without contributing, yet, demand they they have rights and they we must change to accommodate them. This situation is not good for the USA and it’s people. We do not need, or want, people who will not assimulate into our society/culture. They refuse to do this, remaining Mexicans, Somalis, Iranians, etc. This is bad for our country.

        • avatar

          If we continue to do this, our country will not survive. Any land mass can accommodate only so many people. Ours is full. But, more importantly, our resources are limited and most are not renewable. At present, our schools and hospitals/clinics are overwhelmed and over run by all the non-English speaking and non-citizen people here. Our welfare programs are under seige. All of this while millions of American cituzens live in poverty and/or on the streets or have no jobs. Yet, our country’s policy for the past many years seems to have been (and still is) to place priority on helping others rather than its own cituzens. Just consider the billions given to other countries every year.

          • avatar

            What is ironic is that it is the same thing in families……they take care of others but their own…same similarities…..

          • avatar

            I would like to understand your position on refugees. If I read correctly, our organization opposes entry of 10,000 Syrian refugees, who would statistically be mostly women and children, fleeing an unspeakably horrible war and the evil of ISIS, because of the burden it would place on our country. We are speaking, in numbers, of one family of four in a city of 120,000 people. Or, to put it another way, you believe that accommodating four small families fleeing war and possible death would place an unacceptable burden on hearts and wallets of the good American people of a city the size of Atlanta? Does that really make sense?

            In addition, I would like to ask why your explanation of the proposed travel ban does not mention the worldwide temporary ban on all refugees and the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees? did I miss it?