The top newspaper in our capital city, the Washington Post, is mouthpiecing a Refugee Industry campaign to convince Congress to welcome thousands of Syrians fleeing their civil war. But you can bet they won’t be resettled in Georgetown.
On April 4, WaPo front-paged the suffering Syrians story, with kiddie photos prominent, blatantly written to manipulate emotions:
BEIRUT — It was 10 p.m. on a chilly recent Wednesday, and the bars of Beirut were just getting into full swing. So was 10-year-old Mohammed Huzaifa’s working day.
Clutching a vase of red roses, he scoured the outdoor tables for a softhearted target. Spotting two women deep in conversation, the round-faced boy sidled up and broke into a wide smile, but was motioned away with a sharp shake of the head.
Mohammed, shivering in an orange T-shirt, repeated the steps with other potential customers until he had sold all 10 of his flowers. A beating from his mother awaits him if he doesn’t sell out, he says, so he often roams the streets until 3 a.m.
On the same day, the Post included a companion sniffler, Syrians are still suffering. Please don’t forget by Beirut-based novelist Dima Wannous.
These articles follow a front-page spreadon December 3, 2013 featuring an injured seven-year-old girl:
Dania Amroosh wears a Hello Kitty shirt, tiny heart-shaped earrings and her hair in cute little pigtails. She looks like any other 7-year-old, except for the jagged scars on the bridge of her nose and across her chin.
There is much worse beneath her blanket on the third floor of the Kilis State Hospital in southern Turkey. A huge seeping wound on her stomach is closed with an angry grid of stitches. The casts are finally off her broken right leg and right hand, but her fingers are still black and blue and she can barely walk. Her lower body is covered with shrapnel scars.
The Washington Post is not the only Main Stream Media outlet suddenly pushing the Syria refugee story. Of course, sob stories are easy to write and plenty of human interest photos are available. Reporters just collect some horror stories and they’re off to the races, hoping for a Pulitzer.
But working behind the scenes are members of the Refugee Industry, who benefit from a constant inflow of culturally backward people needing expert guidance to get situated in America. As reported by the indispensable blog Refugee Resettlement Watch on April 4: “Human Rights First joins the drumbeat: US must resettle 15,000 Syrians this year.”
There’s no question that the suffering caused by the Syrian civil war is terrible and affects millions of displaced persons. Nobody likes seeing kids uprooted and forced to live in tents. They should all go to culturally similar societies in the region.
But America would be unwise to go into rescue mode, because it’s not our fight. The conflict is a civil war, one complicated by more than half of rebel forces being jihadists, according to a September 2013 report from Jane’s defense consultants.
Furthermore, Syria is 90 percent Muslim, and war is a popular activity in that cult, both against infidels and intramurally. Sunnis and Shias have been battling each other for 1400 years. The Koran is a book of war, containing more than 100 verses urging violence against non-believers, particularly those of the West whose values are incompatible with Islam’s totalitarian political system. Muslim immigration is a very bad idea, even for the noblest of reasons.
FrontPageMag.com’s Daniel Greenfield points out that Islamic bellicosity and religious tribalism make democracy unworkable:
There are questions that you can resolve with democracy within a functioning country, but when your country has less of an existence than the conflicting religious and ethnic identities of its people, democracy only makes the problem worse. Democracy in Iraq means Shiites voting to be Shiite, Sunnis voting to be Sunni and Kurds voting to be Kurds. Democracy in Syria would mean the same thing. And that way lies a federation and then secession and civil war all over again.
“Syria Is What Happens When Islam Wins”, FrontPagemag ,April 4, 2014
America does not need more of the poisonous Islamic brew here—immigration-fueled tribalism is already quite thick enough.
We’ve seen MSM refugee rescue campaigns before. Back in 2008, CBS’ influential Sixty Minutes expressed outrage that America was too slow in admitting Iraqi refugees. [The List: A Mission to Save Iraqi Lives, May 16, 2008]
But in the subsequent rush to rescue thousands of Iraqis, background checks were abbreviated and some dangerous people were welcomed to stupid-generous America. Thus two Iraqis resettled in Kentucky, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Monahad Shareef Hammadi, turned out to be jihadis who were subsequently convicted of trying to smuggle weapons to Al-Qaida.[ FBI sting finds 'dozens' of terrorists may be in U.S. as refugees , UPI, November 20, 2013]
Their case prompted rescreening of all 58,000 Iraqis who had been admitted. After initial checks, immigration authorities gave the FBI a list of 300 who looked questionable. Last November 20, ABC News reported, “Exclusive: US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.”
When it comes to refugee jihadists, who can forget the Boston Marathon Bombing last year? Bomber brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev brothers seemed to be assimilating normally into this country until they decided that they preferred murderous Islam to American freedom.
Less well-known, however: Abdullatif Aldosary, an Iraqi refugee who is accused of bombing an Arizona Social Security Office in November 2012, along with murder and illegal weapons possession. When he tried to obtain permanent residency in 2011, his request was denied “pursuant to the terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility” under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Congressman Paul Gosar wrote to the Department of Homeland Security [PDF] asking why Aldosary was not deported when he was known to have engaged in “terrorism-related activity.” What does it take to get a known terrorist deported these days anyway?
Now the Obama Administration is relaxing screening guidelines to permit more Syrians to enter as refugees. The new policy eliminates “limited material support” to terror groups as a disqualification for admittance.
Concerned citizens might wonder why lowering the bar is necessary when there are two million displaced Syrians from which to choose, But that question is missing from Washington debate.
“…it is thus deeply alarming that the Obama Administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions standards for asylum-seekers and potentially numerous other applicants for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist groups. This includes terror groups not yet designated: Al Qaeda was not designated by the Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization until 1999—long after the first attack on the World Trade Center. The 2011 case of suspected terror operatives from Iraq being admitted to the U.S. only further underscores that our immigration system lacks the safeguards necessary to protect our country. We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further.”
[Sessions Comments On New Admin Immigration Order Bypassing Congress, February 6, 2014]
Speaking on Fox News February 8, retired INS Senior Special Agent Mike Cutler said: “When someone comes from a country involved with terrorism, it’s almost impossible to adequately vet them quickly.” [Watch it on YouTube.]
Curiously, the Obama Administration behaves as if America has no enemies, particularly among the followers of hostile Islam. But Obama has also ordered hundreds of drone strikes abroad, even bragging that he is “really good at killing people.” [Obama brag, in new book: I’m ‘really good at killing people’ with drones, Washington Times, November 4, 2013]
Does he not understand that the same rough fellows he blasts to Allah in Pakistan and Yemen can easily enter the US? And unfriendlies can burrow into America as sleeper agents via refugee, asylum and ordinary immigration portals?
The rescue of diverse foreigners in distress apparently makes its boosters feel virtuous. But refugee resettlement in America is structured in typical liberal fashion: the actual costs and dangers fall upon ordinary citizens in places like Oakland and Sioux Falls where communities struggle to cope with high-maintenance newcomers who may not want to assimilate; the feel-good goes to unaffected elites, such as the MSM promoters.
Brenda Walker lives in northern California and publishes the blog LimitsToGrowth.org.