The writing was on the wall for this one for a while now it seems. Over the weekend, Secretary of State John Kerry – with the backing of the White House – stated that the number of Syrian (and other) refugees who will be heading to America will not be in the thousands or the tens of thousands, but the hundreds of thousands. (New York Times)
The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017, a significant increase over the current annual cap of 70,000, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday.
“This step that I am announcing today, I believe, is in keeping with the best tradition of America as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” Mr. Kerry said, adding that it “will be accompanied by additional financial contributions” for the relief effort.
Granted, that’s a global total, but the targets underlying this policy change should be pretty obvious. We’re not talking about tens of thousands of additional people fleeing the collapsing economy in Greece or the disastrous soft cheese market in France. The global refugee crisis right now is coming out of ISIS held territory with the largest numbers coming from Syria and Iraq. They are swamping the resources of western Europe already and there doesn’t seem to be much slowing in the flood.
Hillary Clinton decided to toss her two cents into the debate more than a week ago and (for once) staked out a position on an issue of the day. How do you suppose the Democrat frontrunner would like to proceed?
Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the United States to take in 65,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees who have flooded European shores fleeing violence, accused Donald J. Trump of “fueling a level of paranoia” in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, and vowed that she had “no interest” in running negative ads against Senator Bernie Sanders who has topped her in some recent polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.
If I could, I’d like to take a moment to thank Secretary Clinton for at least giving us one glimpse of what she plans to do if the nation decides to reward her with the office which she clearly feels she so richly deserves. But all of this generosity, while noble in spirit I’m sure, still doesn’t address any of the fundamental questions. Ken Dilanian at the Washington post explains:
The Islamic State group and other terrorist organizations “have made it abundantly clear that they will use the refugee crisis to try to enter the United States. Now the Obama administration wants to bring in an additional 10,000 Syrians without a concrete and foolproof plan to ensure that terrorists won’t be able to enter the country,” said U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
“The administration has essentially given the American people a ‘trust me.’ That isn’t good enough,” according to a statement from the lawmakers, who head the congressional judiciary committees.
I have a lot of questions remaining about this plan, but fortunately for me many of them have already been asked by William Teach at Right Wing News.
A goodly majority of these refugees/migrants are fighting age men. By all reports, only one-half to one-third are women and children. You look at all the pictures, and see barely any women and children. A good chunk of European countries are shutting down their borders, especially the prosperous northern EU nations.
What skills do they bring? What of their culture? How many are part of the Islamic extremist movement? How many are violent? We’ve seen more than enough rioting in European countries that have seen these folks stream in. Why are they not streaming into other Middle Eastern countries and Africa? Why only prosperous Western nations? Why are we responsible for them?
The point being made here is that the popular perception in the media, both across Europe and here in the United States, is that these are primarily economic refugees from collapsed nations and those seeking sanctuary from war. It’s a sympathetic cause to be sure. But as the article notes, people comprising those categories may only represent a third of the total flow of immigrants. Many are from other regions who have been looking for an opportunity to move into Europe and North America. To be sure, some of them may be legitimately looking for refuge and may even have at least some interest in assimilating. Many others will not and a few will almost doubtless be interested in fomenting terror. Somebody has to sort out the wheat from the chaff here and it’s not going to be an easy task.
I’ve asked the same question repeatedly. How are we going to vet this many refugees, many of whom are young, fighting aged men from one of the most volatile places on the planet? As we previously reported, even DHS has no idea how we’re going to manage the feat. But apparently none of that is going to put the brakes on Obama, Kerry or Clinton. Have they answered the question of where this flood of people will be housed when they arrive? How many workers do we have who speak their languages to even process them and begin collecting their vital information? Where will DHS come up with the manpower to do the background research on them, assuming we can even get a fixed ID on them? Or is the plan to simply collect names as if this were some sort of 21st century Ellis Island? I suppose in that case we could just sign them all up for a court date, give them directions to the nearest public information office for subsidized housing and send them on their way. A bunch of them might even show up for a disposition hearing once the background checks were finished, but it’s the ones who won’t that you really need to be worried about.
Hopefully there will at least be a list of names. The first one of these people who shows up with a rifle at an Army recruiting station is going to be the sole responsibility of Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. I’d love to be wrong about that, but history has been a harsh teacher of late.