NumbersUSA is expressing dismay about the House of Representative’s response to President Obama’s refugee plan.
“NumbersUSA is extremely disappointed in the legislation that the House intends to put on the floor on Thursday to respond to the threat of Islamic State-inspired terrorists infiltrating the refugee flow to the United States,” the immigration reduction group said in a statement.
Thursday the House is slated to vote on legislation that would impose stricter restriction on vetting refugees.
“Republican and Democratic leaders of both the House and the Senate have stated since the terrorist attacks in Paris that we need a “pause” in the refugee flow to protect our homeland,” the group continued.
“However, instead of legislating that pause, or even bringing to the floor an existing bill (H.R. 3314 by Rep. Babin) that would pause the refugee flow, the House instead will vote to cede its responsibility for America’s safety to the FBI, the DNI, and DHS in the hopes that they can pick and choose correctly from a limited number of ‘covered’ aliens.”
Speaking on the House Floor Wednesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) defended the legislation, saying the U.S. can be both “safe” and “compassionate.”
“That’s what the bill that we’re bringing up tomorrow is all about,” he said. “It calls for a new standard of verification for refugees from Syria and Iraq. It would mean a pause in the program until we can be certain beyond any doubt that those coming here are not a threat. It’s that simple.”
According to NumbersUSA, however, it is “short-sighted” to believe that just Syrian and Iraqi nationals could be a threat to Americans.
“Refugees from a variety of nations, including Uzbekistan, Bosnia, and Somalia, have been convicted in American courts of terrorism-related charges,” the group argued. “The idea that the vetting process for refugees coming from countries other than Syria and Iraq is protecting us from terrorist attacks is a dangerous fallacy.”
NumbersUSA also highlighted the financial argument for halting refugee resettlement, saying it would be more cost effective to help refugees in regions closer to their home countries.
“A recent Center for Immigration Studies report found that, for the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we could instead care for 12 refugees overseas,” the group highlighted. “It should be obvious to all that re-channeling U.S. resettlement funds to refugee assistance overseas, either in safe zones or refugee camps, would allow us to help 12 times more refugees without adding a single unnecessary threat to our own national security.”