Posted on 11/28/2015 4:52:59 AM PST by VitacoreVision
Roanoke, Virginia, mayor David Bowers has just created a stir by suggesting that Syrian migrants be placed in internment camps. I found his comments interesting because, if we are going to have the Muslim so-called "refugees," I also consider placement in camps a must.
Unfortunately, Bowers, a Democrat, undermined the position by drawing the poor analogy with fellow Democrat Franklin Roosevelt's interning of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII (note: some Americans of German and Italian descent were also interned). George Takei, famous for playing Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu in the original Star Trek series and for, more recently, boldly going where no space traveler had gone before, was quick to chime in. As he wrote on Facebook, "The internment (not a 'sequester') was not of Japanese 'foreign nationals,' but of Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens." Most of Takei's other commentary is nonsense, mostly because he equates a low-crime, mostly American-citizen population with unknown-quantity individuals of the demographic responsible for virtually all the world's terrorism.
It's also nonsense because we have no legal obligation to accept foreigners of any kind if it's contrary to our national interests. And I oppose -- completely and without reservation -- accepting any Muslim migrants whatsoever. I do believe we should help the persecuted Mideast Christians, although, even in their case, the aid should meet certain criteria. If we are going to accept migrants, however, it is imperative they be placed in some of the many FEMA camps our government has been spending good tax money building in recent years. Note that camp placement is precisely what Turkey does with the migrants.
Before elaborating further on this, the migrant issue must be properly defined. Reports tell us that 75 or 80 percent of the migrants are military-age males in generally good health; this relative absence of women and children belies the notion that these are desperate people fleeing for their lives. Moreover, there's much reason to fear that these migrants are, as Donald Trump has put it, a "Trojan horse" for terrorist infiltration.
First consider that Syria's ambassador to India, Riad Abbas, has warned that more than 20 percent of Muslim migrants entering Europe may have ties to ISIS-linked groups. As he put it, reports Sputnik, "Among the refugees, who went to Europe, maybe more than 20 percent belong to ISIL groups. Now Europe has received bad element[s] into their ground. They will face further problem[s] in future."
Then consider Dr. Mudar Zahran, a Muslim asylum seeker and leader of the Jordanian opposition residing in the U.K. On an October segment of "The Glazov Gang" he warned that Europe should not accept the Muslim migrants, as they were ushering in the "Islamic conquest of the West." Furthermore, he stated that 75 percent of the migrants were not even Syrian and then said that
75 percent of those arriving from Syria come from safe area[s]; actually, the ones in disaster areas cannot ... leave. So, actually, as much as there's a disaster in Syria, most of those people arriving do in fact do not need the protection; they arrive from Turkey, they arrive from Jordan, they arrive from other places which are safe. In addition, those people are ... bypassing poor European countries; they're going to Turkey, Hungary, and other places like Bulgaria and settling in Germany, where there is a rich nation with a generous welfare system.
He also characterizes the migration as the fulfillment of "the Islamic ... dreams of fascism of some" and says that what Muslims "couldn't do in the last 20 years, now the West is doing for us for free — and even paying for it." In addition, Zahran delivered this shocking news about the "invasion": "I have to be honest," he said, "you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers; they are talking about, 'Good job! Now we're going to conquest [sic] Europe.' So it's not even a secret."
There's still more. According to American Thinker's Sierra Rayne, a Pew Research Center poll indicates there may be three-hundred million ISIS supporters in the Muslim world. What this means is that if we accept unvetted Muslim migrants, one out of six could be supporters of a group that that crucifies Christians, kills children, drowns people in cages and sets them on fire.
And unvetted they will be. Despite Obama administration assurances that our authorities have cracker-jack screening procedures, the thorough databases necessary for vetting simply do not exist, as this article well illustrates.
Even if they did, though, vetting has a fundamental flaw: It only tells you about people's past.
Not their future.
(Vetting can't read minds, and people can change, as I explained here.)
And terrorist acts of concern occur in the future.
Of course, people could disagree with the aforementioned numbers; they may even believe Obama's claims about vetting. Yet there's a more basic problem, one almost universally ignored and whose solution is irrefutable within reason's realm. Let's assume that the migrants in question truly are refugees.
Well, they belong in refugee camps.
Why on Earth are we giving them the "keys to the city" and dispersing these unknown quantities in towns around the nation? This is at best criminal negligence — at worst treason.
Note that providing camps is what most nations do. Our camps would be humane; the refugees would have quality food and drink and adequate shelter. But remember that granting safe haven is a favor, and there's a difference between charitable saviors and schlemiels on wheels.
A reason we depart from this sane solution brings us to a second universally ignored problem. As I pointed out recently, if a desperate person came through your area, you might feed him, provide some clothing and even house him for a while.
You don't generally make him part of your family and let him share in decisions influencing your loved ones' fortunes and future. The point?
We have conflated refugee status with citizenship, when the two should have nothing whatsoever do to with each other. Providing safe haven is one thing, but when the threat in the stranger's native land recedes, he should return.
Why have we departed from this sanity? Obviously, people today don't like the sound of "camps" (so call them "ObamaCare Refugee Exchanges"). But there's another reason:
Obama and his co-conspirators don't care about these migrants. Oh, they very much want them to live...in America. Because only then can they become part of a growing demographic that votes 70 to 90 percent for socialistic Democrats. Only then can they be used to further balkanize our nation. Only then can the "fundamental transformation" of our country be accelerated.
As to this, I reported in March on an alleged Obama administration plan to use foreigners as "seedlings" who will "navigate, not assimilate" as they "take over the host," create a "country within a country" and start "pushing the citizens into the shadows" (more details here). And, of course, you can't seed communities throughout the nation if you keep your seed in camps.
But if you want to diminish the sense of nationhood and thus the desire to maintain sovereignty, and dilute traditionalist, red-state will and thus negate nullification movements and turn sanity blue, "seeding" via amnesty and "refugee resettlement" is the way to do it. Once the ice is broken and a foreign population is established in an area, family members and others come — and all of them will outbreed the natives.
If certain people truly are refugees, FEMA camps can provide the refuge. After all, if the camps aren't good enough for them, then what lowly creatures were they built for, anyway?
“Refugees” need to stay in the general vicinity of where they come from so they can return home when they’re no longer “refugees”.
I’m sure they’ve always intended to use FEMA camps for homeless refugees from some sort of disaster.
They shouldn’t come here, period.
I thought there was no such thing as a FEMA camp.
Several historical articles on line.
Zackly!
In Liberated Syria or Liberated Iraq.
There are plenty of closed bases all over the country.
Perhaps we could fill them with homeless vets, and then think about bringing in orphans and children.
The men and women can go to Germany and Qatr.
Bowers should be reminded that if he goes there it will give the geds upideas on what to do with Christians if martial law is declared. The best strategy is to not import them period. If America is the Great Satan why would they want to live here anyway?
Bowers should be reminded that if he goes there it will give the feds upideas on what to do with Christians if martial law is declared. The best strategy is to not import them period. If America is the Great Satan why would they want to live here anyway?
Funny thing. There is a closed down chicken plant up in the mountains being surrouonded by ripper wire and guard towers are going to be put up. Everybody’s been wondering whats going on. Hmmmmm!
I don’t understand the objection to refugee camps *IF* we are forced to accept tens of thousands of refugees. We deployed our military to various carribean locales back in the 90’s for refugee camps for (cubans/haitians/el-salvadorans). Despite the mini-riots and squabbles/fist-fights among refugees, plus the 24/7 effort to get them to stop doing laundry in the toilets, none of them were clamoring to be returned to their home country. The overwhelming majority tolerated the camp because it was far, far better than what they were fleeing from.
So, if they are *truly* refugees, simply ask them if they prefer to be sequestered in a USA operated refugee camp (guaranteed 3 hots & a cot), or back in whatever hell-hole they are fleeing from. Despite what any bleeding-heart-libs may feel about it, I’ll bet the *true* refugee’s opinions would be all for it.
Or, the administration will love Trudeau’s idea...
Canadian soldiers told to clear their barracks to make room for Syrian refugees
http://en.cijnews.com/?p=15099
Put these folks in Saudi Arabia thanks very much. Since the Saudis want to be the center of islam let them be. There is NO reason to bring illiterate, third world, muslims, to this country
Where?
I’d like to see that for myself. I’m less than an hour away from the GA mountains.
Muslim refugees should only be settled in muslim countries.
Refugee camps should be just outside the conflict area so they can return home when the conflict is over. If events require them to remain abroad long term, however, then they should only be resettled in muslim countries.
Christians from the region are in danger from all sides of the conflict. They are the only ones who should be considered for resettlement outside the region.
syria has been waring for years.... why the sudden influx... BCAUSE ISIS and their “IMAMS” have directed people to migrate multiply and CONQUER...
then the libs use our compassion against reason... for political purposes
there is no VETTING going on at all....
American deaths are bumps in the road...
WHY FEW CHRISTIAN REFUGEES.... ???
AGAIN WE ARE BEING LIED TO BY OBAMA
isis = jv
isis = contained
isn’t it part of the quran for muslims to lie to non muslims achieve their ends..... just like liberals..... thats why they love one another until the muzzie wields his knife.. or gun
It is ridiculous to suggest putting refugees in FEMA camps. Obviously, if those camps are filled up, the government will have nowhere to put white, male, Christian, gun-owning conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.