Closed-door refugee policy best for everyone
Advocates for stricter immigration controls are accused of lack of compassion for refugees and illegal immigrants. What is true compassion for the millions of citizens of other countries who risk their lives to get into the U.S. and Europe illegally or claiming to be refugees?
The numbers of migrants fleeing turmoil and poverty around the world are rising astronomically. Europe is besieged now and beginning to turn them back. Exactly where do we draw the line at admitting some but not the millions of others desiring admittance?
In a BBC Radio 4 documentary series, “A New Life in Europe,” a Syrian man, head of a family attempting to enter Europe, speaks bitterly of Germany’s accepting some refugee claimants while he and his family are back in the Middle East after failing twice to reach their European destination and be accepted:
“If they would close the door, people would try to help themselves here. ... We would change our plan; we wouldn’t have to keep trying and waiting for another boat. We would look for a better life somewhere else. They are throwing a piece of bread tied to a string and they just keep pulling it away from you.”
That is the situation in Europe and also in the U.S.
“Refugees” are a mixed group, and may include genuine refugees, adventurists, economic migrants, terrorists, criminals and con artists. At present, the verification processes are grossly insufficient as revealed in an examination of procedures by the Center for Immigration Studies, and as reported to Congress by the director of the FBI.
It is not compassionate to expose the population of the U.S. to deadly terrorism from radical jihadists who can easily masquerade as “refugees.”
As the Syrian father said, “If they would close the door, people would try to help themselves here. ... We would change our plan ...”
Closing the door would be best for all concerned.
At present, the United Nations maintains safe areas in countries closer to the places of turmoil, and the U.S. contributes to the costs of these refuges. This is the least disruptive and more practical solution. It facilitates return of refugees to their home countries when stability is restored.
Bringing a small percentage of them halfway around the world to the U.S. enables some people to pat themselves on the back, thinking that they’re more noble and virtuous than others. It must be noted that in the U.S., several organizations have developed with the mission to help refugees, and they grow as self-perpetuating bureaucracies with a vested interest in serving large numbers of clients.
Regarding the present situation in the Middle East, we should help the United Nations to do what it can in that area and not entice immigrants to undertake dangerous journeys on their own to Europe or the U.S.
Also, U.S. citizens have as much right to be concerned about their safety as anyone else in the world. Terrible disasters have happened here caused by Middle Eastern citizens or immigrants; caution by U.S. citizens is justified.
Elizabeth Van Staaveren of McMinnville is a member of Oregonians for Immigration Reform and can be reached at ofir@oregonir.org.
