In the mushrooming “refugee crisis” in Europe, there is a big dog that is not barking.
Why are the more than one million Muslim refugees so anxious to get to northern Europe and not, say, Saudi Arabia or Egypt? Why are we obligated to help them get to Amsterdam, Oslo and London? And why in the world is the United States government planning to take 66,000 Syrian refugees?
Yes, Europe is faced with a massive refugee crisis when a million homeless people surge northward in search of food, shelter and safety. But why are they choosing Germany, Belgium, Sweden and Britain and not neighboring Muslim countries?
And why does the United States have any obligation whatsoever to absorb any more refugees and asylum seekers than the over 100,000 we already accept each year from Central America, Asia and Africa?
This human wave surging across Europe is a byproduct of the interminable civil war in Syria, ISIS massacres of whole cities in Iraq – and the terrorist mayhem across North Africa unleashed by Obama’s incredibly stupid “Arab Spring.” We can understand why people are fleeing the chaos. But why must Muslim refugees be accommodated with shelter, food, and jobs in Europe instead of in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey?
Turkey is a symptom of the larger problem. Turkey has refugee camps, but the Turkish government encourages and helps the refugees’ movement to seaports where they can arrange to be smuggled across the Aegean Sea to Greece, Italy or elsewhere.
Why don’t the refugees want to stay close to home so they can return when the violence stops?
Is this simply a flight to the perceived safety and welfare state generosity offered by European nations? Or is something else going on here? Why is it not politically correct to ask that question?
This week the head of the UN refugee agency said there is an immediate need for shelter and aid for 200,000 refugees fleeing northward, and he called on the European Union to require each member nation to take a mandated number of refugees.
The Prime Minister of Hungary, Victor Orban, has a different answer, an answer that is shocking to liberal sensitivities. The Hungarian leader believes the number will reach one million by year’s end and that Europe can only halt the flood by saying no. The Hungarian leader made this blunt statement on Thursday:
“We have to make it clear that we can’t allow everyone in, because if we allow everyone in, Europe is finished.”
Remember, it was Hungary that started the dominoes falling to end the Cold War in 1988-89 by allowing the free flow of refugees fleeing Poland, East Germany and other communist hell holes.
The Hungarian leader has put his finger on the real issue here—the ongoing and accelerating colonization of Europe by Muslims.
- I believe that it does not matter whether or not this is the conscious goal of a majority of the refugees now flooding Europe, most of whom are undoubtedly concerned with finding food and shelter tomorrow and not the sweep of history. Nonetheless, colonization will be the inevitable outcome of the limitless accommodation to Muslim populations.
In 2014, the United States took in over 69,000 refugees and over 40,000 asylees, mostly from Central America, not the Middle East. But the State Department and the Obama White House have proposed to bring 66,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S. in the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
Folks, the war-torn city of Aleppo, Syria, is less than 50 miles from Turkey, but it is over 500 miles from Amsterdam and over 5,000 miles from Amarillo and Anaheim. Why do Syrian refugees prefer to find “resettlement” so far from their Muslim homeland?
The answer seems to be that a million Muslim refugees are being told — by their own leaders and mullahs, by the UN, by the media, and by the United States government, that they can resume their lives as devout Muslims and practice Sharia Law in their new homes in Europe and the United States.
This raises profound national security questions for Europe and the U.S. quite apart from the economic and cultural impact of millions of low-income migrants added to an already over-burdened welfare system.
Does anyone doubt that ISIS and al-Qaeda are hard at work helping dedicated jihadists find a home in that flow of humanity? The FBI has admitted in congressional testimony that is has no capacity for vetting the thousands of refugees now arriving from the Middle East.
Even if only two percent of the Syrian and Iraqi refugees are ISIS sympathizers, that number is a major threat. Moreover, we know from many polls that the percentage of jihadist sympathizers in the Muslim population is frighteningly high.
The United States should follow Hungary and just say no. We do not need another 66,000 Muslim migrants added to the over one million Muslims residing here now.
The real victims of the ISIS violence in the Middle East are the Christians. Why is it that the only concern for Christian refugees comes from private religious groups operating without any government assistance? If we are going to take Syrian refugees, why are not Christian refugees given priority?
Beneath the “humanitarian crisis” lies a looming national security crisis that may make the 9-11 attacks look like a walk in the park.