The Washington Post Editorial Board has gone all in on protecting Obama when it comes to his plan to let in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, but, does forget a few things
Canada gets it right on Syrian refugees
WHEN THE photo appeared Sept. 2 of Alan Kurdi, a lifeless 3-year-old boy facedown on a beach, the plight of refugees from Syria’s civil war shocked the world. In Canada’s election campaign, rivals responded with pledges to accelerate their resettlement. The election winner, Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party, outlined the most ambitious agenda, to bring 25,000 refugees to Canada by year’s end. Mr. Trudeau has extended the deadline eight weeks out of prudence over the logistical challenges. It is a small adjustment to a generous response that serves as a rebuke to the senseless xenophobia heard lately in the United States, and that should serve as a model.
Huh. Xenophobia. The Post forgets to mention that multiple polls show Canadians are against the plan. One is 51% against, another 60% against.
Canada has long welcomed refugees and immigrants. A timeline published by the government shows an amazing parade of beneficiaries: waves of Poles, Italians, Jews and Ukrainians in the first half of the last century; a quarter-million displaced persons from Europe fleeing Nazis and Communists in World War II; 37,000 Hungarians in 1956; 11,000 from Czechoslovakia in 1968 and 1969, fleeing the Soviet and Warsaw Pact invasion; 60,000 boat people from Vietnam; and Kosovars, Bhutanese and others in more recent years. On top of this, the country is a crazy quilt of immigrant communities that are diverse, vibrant and a source of national strength.
This is meant to say how mean America is, conveniently ignoring the massive amounts of the same, and others, America has taken in. They also forget to mention the assimilation issues surrounding the most recent immigrants, such as the Somalis, who are committing violence and joining gangs. And that these “Syrians” do not speak the language, and will not hold even close to the same values.
Contrast this alacrity with the cold-shouldered hostility that has been ricocheting around the United States. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who had described himself as the most pro-immigration governor in the country — and in September said of accepting Syrian refugees, “Isn’t that part of a being a good Michigander?†— slammed on the brakes after the Paris terrorist attacks. He announced he was suspending the state’s effort to bring refugees from the Middle East to Michigan, where there is a large Arab American population. On Nov. 20, 27 Republican governors (although not Mr. Snyder) wrote to President Obama asking him to suspend resettlement of Syrian refugees. The president wisely defended the plan to bring them to the United States, pledging that the country will take 10,000 next year. It is a start — but more could be done.
I told you this was about slamming America, and, in particular, Republicans. Interestingly, the WPEB forgets something else
Single unaccompanied men will be excluded from the government resettlement program for now. However, government officials say those individuals can still apply to come to Canada through private sponsorship programs or could possibly be resettled through a government-sponsored program later in 2016.
Those single young fighting age men make up the largest portion of these “refugees” streaming into Europe. Of course, the danger is that many of these women and elder men may hold radicalized Islamic views, and will teach that to the children.
When people flee war and upheaval, they reach North American shores with immense gratitude and eagerness to succeed in their new home. Properly screened, very few ever pose a security problem. Canada is showing the way, with compassion and sound judgment. The United States could use more of both.
We can use more people who refuse to assimilate, do not speak the language, hold values very, very different from Americans and all the previous waves of immigrants and refugees? Properly screened? As Charles Krauthammer notes in a dueling opinion piece (which slams Obama for creating the refugee problem by his inaction)
Obama’s own officials have admitted that the absence of thorough data makes it nearly impossible to properly vet Syrian refugees. In response, many Republicans (and some Democrats) called for a pause in admitting Syrians until alternate vetting procedures are developed. In my view, it would have been better to differentiate among the refugees: Admit women, children and the elderly under the current procedures, while subjecting young men of fighting age to a new regime of far stricter scrutiny.
Yes, if they were properly screened. They aren’t, and can’t be. Just for starters, here are 12 that we know about who went through all the screenings and still became terrorists and/or terrorist supporters.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Even if we assume that the screening process excludes every last Da’ish infiltrator and Islamist sympathizer, the vast majority of the refugees will speak little or no English, and have few, if any, job skills which translate into the American economy. All of these refugees will have to be fed, clothed and sheltered, and have no means to pay for those things themselves.
Translation: we will be admitting thousands and thousands more welfare recipients! We are running half-trillion dollar deficits, and American workers are already stretched too thin paying taxes now. The refugees will make real American citizens poorer!