Election 2016

The Presidential Candidates and the Syrian Refugees

The only one saying much is Martin O'Malley.


Should the U.S. allow more people escaping the Syrian war into the country? Seems like a significant issue, but it was barely addressed in the Republican debates last night. Jake Tapper did pose the question in the undercard event, where Bobby Jindal basically responded by saying we should plunge deeper into the Syrian war and Lindsey Graham echoed the idea. (Seriously. They think that will help.) In the prime-time debate, the refugee crisis came up only in the context of asking whether the senators onstage shared any responsibility for the mess. 

The would-be presidents probably preferred it that way—in both parties, even the candidates who say they'd let more people in tend to be vague when asked how many they're willing to accept. The one notable exception is a Democrat, Maryland ex-gov Martin O'Malley. I knock O'Malley a lot, but I'll give credit where it's due: On this issue, he's the only one going out of his way to stick up for freedom of movement. For example:

I love the Kinks, you understand, but "To the Bone" is a straight-up "Refugee" ripoff.

What to do about the root cause of this humanitarian crisis may be complex, but helping refugees is not: Americans have a long, proud tradition of providing comfort to the weak and weary….We should begin by taking in at least 65,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016, as humanitarian organizations on the front lines of refugee assistance have asked us to do….

Americans are a generous and compassionate people. But our policies are falling short of our values. We have accepted only about 1,500 Syrian refugees since the conflict began. And as of now, we are set to accept no more than 8,000 next year. We are a big enough country in size and treasure and heart to do more. And if our political leadership fails us, I believe the American people, like individuals around the world, can and will step forward to do the right thing. When the government of Iceland proposed to accept only 50 Syrian refugees, the people of Iceland took matters into their own hands. They quickly organized online and 10,000 people volunteered to take in refugees. Now the government is reconsidering its quota. If Germany—a country with one-fourth our population—can accept 800,000 refugees this year, certainly we can do more.

Not the sort of sentiment you were likely to hear last night in Simi Valley, where some of the candidates seemed not to know the difference between immigrants and invaders.

Bonus link: Speaking of mixing up immigrants with invaders, Vice has some solid debunkery worth reading.

NEXT: A.M. Links: GOP Debate, Democrats Growing Nervous About Hillary, U.S. and Russia Will Talk Syria

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does America need more quitters? No, I don’t think so. We shouldn’t be importing people who are giving up on their country, we should be bringing in the go-getters who are fighting to make their land what they think it should be. On either side. Let’s make America great again.

  2. 1. I don’t believe they are refugees.

    2. No.

    1. If they were just refugees, they would be content to stop in Turkey as the nearest safe haven, but they seem more concerned with the availability of hand outs.

    2. Some are genuinely seeking refuge, while most are seeking economic opportunity. And I don’t care enough to bother sorting them out.

      1. Like you’d be asked. That’s a job for Top Men.

      2. You know who was asked to sort out a particular population?…

        1. The Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi Hutu militias?

        2. James T. Kirk?

        3. Herman Hollerith, inventor of the IBM sorting machine?

        4. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza?

      3. And I don’t care enough to bother sorting them out.

        Indeed. We have much bigger fish to fry before we meddle further into a situation we already no nothing about and have royally fucked up already.

        1. I wish we had a “No, Nothing Party” I could join.

    3. Generally not a fan of that lot, but maybe give a serious consideration to anyone who would choose US over Germany, UK or Sweden. In a perfect world in which they genuinely had that choice, of course. US, contrary to what Americans might think, doesn’t have the kind of magnetic pull in Mediterranean area that it has in Latin America. Anyone who wants to go further for less welfare might be worth a second look.

      1. +1 self-selection

  3. The U.S tax payer has protected europe since the end of ww 2.I say let them handle this one. And yes,they seem to be trying to go to the countries where they have a better chace of being taken care of by the welfare states. Then again,it should be the Arab countries solving this problem.

    1. “The U.S tax payer has protected europe since the end of ww 2.I say let them handle this one.”

      The money we spend to keep bases in Germany must free their budget up to spend taxpayer money on things they might not spend money on otherwise.

      They’re a wealthy country, and they’re more pacifist than we are.

      I wonder if the irony ever hits the average German voter, When they complain about their taxes being used to bail out Greece or go to social spending on Syrian refugees, do they ever think about how much money the average American taxpayer has spent on Germany?

      1. No they don’t,and not just the Germans. They need to learn to take are of theirown business.

        1. A-fucking-men.

        2. That money they send to Greece, that’s basically our money.

          1. And really, is it ours or China’s?

            1. Either way, it’s coming out of our future paychecks.

              1. But the Chinnese are in a mess of their making,most of their people are poor and they have to sell us and the rest of the world as much stuff as possible to keep their head above water. the chickens have been coming home to roost, A planned mercintile economy will not work in this day and age .

    2. Those countries are also places where they are more likely to be able to get a job.

      I’m sure plenty will get to those places and collect whatever benefits they can. Of course that will happen. But it is ridiculous to assume that that is the only reason to prefer those places. SE Europe has worse benefits on offer, but also much worse economies which I’d bet is the bigger reason they don’t want to get stuck in Hungary or Greece.

      1. I’m also going to go out on a limb and guess that they don’t have detailed economic reports for all the EU countries on hand.

        More than likely they are going off of word of mouth or where they have relatives.

        Really, if you were to go to an average American and ask “What country’s in Europe are doing best? Where would you want to move?”, the answers would probably entirely be northern European countries. My guess is that the top ones would be Germany, England, and France, mostly because those are the countries people are most familiar with and have a romanticized view of.

  4. “the difference between immigrants and invaders.”

    Please define for us. If Sweden or France is an Islamic Republic or part of a Caliphate in a few decades, which are they?

    1. Assimilated?

      1. When have Muslims been successfully assimilated into European societies? They spent 1300 years fighting each other for the continent.

        1. All of those people are dead.

          1. and their successors are different how? Muslims have not changed and that is evident in the European nations where they have established a foothold.

            1. I’m not sure on what basis you can claim that Muslims haven’t changed. This looks nothing like the historical Islamic attempts to take parts of Europe.

              1. You’re right – more like the approach they took in North Africa.

                1. Because Europe is just like north Africa 100 years ago.

                  I’m not saying you are definitely wrong, but I’m going to need a more convincing argument than “Muslims invaded places before”.

                  1. 1000 years ago. Squirrel ate my 0.

                    1. The Europeans are even more peaceful, more easily intimidated, and less religious than their 700 AD North African peers.

                    2. And there are a hell of a lot more of them and they have a lot more to lose.

                      Sorry, you need something more than “something happened 1000 years ago, therefore that has to be exactly what is happening now”.

                    3. It is EXACTLY what is happening now, right before our eyes.

                      What worked then and is working now is Muslims playing a long game – capturing North Africa was a 70 year process. Slowly building up the population through conversion and immigration. Meanwhile using intimidation to obtain respect and even protection. Is there anywhere in western Europe they aren’t a protected class? Anyone not look at them as potentially dangerous?

                      Next, seize control of territory. Big enclaves in France and Sweden have effectively been ceded to the Muslims.

                      All they have do now is keep having kids at triple the rate of the native Europeans and by the middle of the century much of western Europe is theirs. This influx of “refugees” will just speed up the process.

        2. Umm….I meant the other way round…

    2. All right… we’ll give some land to the niggers and the chinks. But we don’t want the Irish!

    3. If guys are attacking police in order to break down gate and enter the country, are they invaders at that point?

      Apparently, unlike Mexicans, Syrians don’t know wire fences are pointless, so now they are going through Croatia. Attacking police again, of course. Because it’s HOT outside, goddamit.

      But hey, now that Hungary has the wires up, and Germany closed the border with Austria and Czech Republic, trains between Austria and Hungary are running again. They’ve been stopped for a week.

      1. You know who else had trains full of undesirables running between Austria and Hungary?

        1. Arrow Cross Party?

          Or does that violate the spirit of “you know who else…”? In which case, um….

          Damn, stupid relatively tolerant Austro-Hungarian empire.

          1. Say what you want about National Socialism, Dude, but at least they made some really cool flags.

        2. Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa Pasha?

  5. Should the U.S. allow more people escaping the Syrian war into the country?

    Of course, allowing people into the country isn’t really on the table though, is it? It’s not like the Syrians are showing up at the airport and seeking to go about their lives in America. What we’re talking about is paying for the cost of bringing them over and then providing “resettlement assistance”. Honestly, I can’t say I’m a particular fan of that.

    1. What we’re talking about is paying for the cost of bringing them over and then providing “resettlement assistance”. Honestly, I can’t say I’m a particular fan of that.

      It’s perfectly possible to say the U.S. should take more people in but private humanitarian groups will have to bear the costs, though.

      1. Nio it’s not,this is a middle east and european problem. They have been riding on the back of the U.S. tax payer for far to long. It’s time to cut the cord.

        1. “this is a middle east and european problem.””

          I don’t recall Arabs and Europeans insisting “Assad Must Go

          1. Seriously?

            UK government loses motion to bomb Assad.
            Nigel Farage (soooo a UK Trump) opposes bombing Assad in EU Parliament.
            Secretary of OIC calls on Assad to step down.

            1. Yeah, you sugarfreed 2 of 3

              And re: UK and Turkey getting ansty about the growing clusterfuck…

              The US decided to stick its nose in and start funding the “Syrian Revolution” in 2011. Obama’s comment was that early on in the conflict.

              The 2 you mention come years later, and only because shit had gone cyclic and was on the verge of turning into the wider-regional clusterfuck that it has.

              My point is fairly simple =

              dude above says, “this is a middle east and european problem.””

              The fact is, the ouster of Assad and the entire uprising against him… and the growth of what was initially a fragmentation within the Syrian military to become an agglomeration of ME Jihadis and Iraqi Baathists…. has had far more US-involvement than any other single party.

              The Saudis and the Gulf Arab states share some blame. Which is why they continue to throw money at the issue. But I think this idea that Syria is “NOT OUR PROBLEM” is something that would have been far more relevant to say in 2011 than now, when a lot of the current problems in the region are clearly the result of our less-than-benign influence.

              1. Uprising is squarely on Assad. First, he finances, trains and stages Sunni terror out of Syria into Iraq. Then, he guns down protesters in their hundreds. Once the population rises, he empties the jails, calls in Iranians and Hezbollah, and starts indiscriminate killing. Iran and Russia share more in the blame than the US, for keeping him in power.
                Now, maybe right thing is for him to win – but at this point, it’s a war of extermination, and he is fighting majority of the country. Removing him in 2011 would have actually been the right move, had the military had the foresight to realize they were leading their country into ruin.
                Oh, and to un-SF the links (damn preview for showing them orange):
                UK parliament on bombin Syria
                English Trump on the same (and no, I’m not letting that stupidity go).

                1. “Uprising is squarely on Assad. First, he finances, trains and stages Sunni terror out of Syria into Iraq. Then, he guns down protesters in their hundreds. Once the population rises, he empties the jails, calls in Iranians and Hezbollah, and starts indiscriminate killing. “

                  Sure, that’s all a given.

                  Its the part where the US steped in and declared to have a mandate for “solving” the problem that I was pointing out.

                  Europe wasn’t quite as eager to stir the pot, and I doubt Turkey would have said, “let loose the dogs” either.

                  Maybe you’re right and swift action at the beginning might have pre-empted the status quo, but that’s not the typical libertarian POV re: these sorts of things.

                  My quibble was with the people arguing we have no culpability in the current situation.

                  1. No, Turks were right in on it, because Erdogan is Turkish Obama (narcissist, incompetent, convinced his destiny is to fundamentally transform the country). He was buddy-buddy with Assad and Iran, trying to make himself a huge player in Middle East, and then Assad started shooting Sunnis by job lot. Not just Sunnis, but people who are part of Arab Spring, which Erdogan supported. Now it was personal, Assad basically pimpslapped Erdogan in public, so Turks immediately started supporting the opposition. Pipes has a good overview from a year later.
                    Europeans were also involved in blather from the start. Remember, they just came off of an intervention high in Libya, it didn’t go to shit yet, elsewhere Arab Spring was working, so everyone was verbally in on Assad. US is about the same culpability as Cameron’s UK. Some, but no, not even secondary. May as well blame US troop pullout from Iraq like GOP does.

                    1. “US is about the same culpability as Cameron’s UK.”

                      So the extensive weapons shipments & financing of the opposition from 2011 onward is to be completely discounted as helping contribute to Syrian instability?

                    2. No, but, given that shipments of weapons and financing ran behind Iran, Russia, Saudis, Turks and Hezbollah, US contribution can at most be put under “has made things slightly worse”, and at best “maybe prevented a Sunni genocide”.

                    3. You started off by arguing the revolution and its subsequent bloody escalation are entirely Syrian in the making…

                      …but are now suggesting that “everyone else” and their Grandmother was so knee-deep in the revolution-stimulation-business that our meager contributions make us a bit-player by contrast.

                      Choose one and stick with it? trying to have both simultaneously seems a little odd.

                    4. No, I meant – Assad is primarily responsible for overreacting to protests, and turning it into a civil war.
                      Iran and Russia are next up, because without them he’d have fallen by now.
                      Turkey and Gulf states, for their part, helped the rebels and (intentionally or not) fed the worst kind of scum into the country.
                      US comes after, with their bi-polar policy of “we’re gonna fuck and remain virgins”, training guys in mix dozens, giving some gear but not weapons, then fucking up with weapon transfers, now bombing ISIS. Third-tier responsibility, and things would develop the same if US stayed out.
                      Not sure where to put Iraqi army fleeing and giving the worst batch of the scum tons of weapons, so now they are wrecking civilization. But given that some 200,000 people died before ISIS was even formed, not too much responsible for the muddle in first place.

                    5. Long story short, US is under less of moral obligation, based on its actions, to take refugees than Russia is.

                    6. How do you feel about the Refugee Crisis Act of 2008, which was passed to help provide re-settlement to 20,000 Iraqis who had aided the US coalitition…

                      …but as of 2012 had handed out fewer than 3,000 visas?


                      Your calculus of “moral obligation” may make sense when it comes to asking questions about our responsibility to refugees.

                      I am far less convinced by your case that we don’t have a very high (equal to the parties mentioned if not greater) responsibility for the overall status quo in Syria.

                    7. How do you feel about the Refugee Crisis Act of 2008, which was passed to help provide re-settlement to 20,000 Iraqis who had aided the US coalitition…

                      …but as of 2012 had handed out fewer than 3,000 visas?

                      Minarchist? That’s the sort of garbage that makes rest of the world go mad trying to figure out what the cock is US foreign policy. Seriously, why is “support your friends, oppose your enemies” beyond their reach, when Greeks could formulate it 2500 years ago? Like, basic, 1990 Civ 2-level AI can run more rational policy than this?

      2. I don’t think anyone would buy that as a likely or even possible outcome.

        Are they immune from paying the penaltax if they don’t buy their own health insurance?

      3. but private humanitarian groups will have to bear the costs

        Except that isn’t what will happen.

        1. The private humanitarian groups maintain their refugees until they get them in the welfare system, then the taxpayer takes over. This happens pretty quickly.

      4. Yeah, I’m just certain there will be no cost to taxpayers. And the young men will be thoroughly vetted.

      5. A perfectly reasonable position. And not one that’s really on the table. Tell you what, if we scrap refugee assistance at the same time we vet and admit these guys, I’m on board.

      6. [P]rivate humanitarian groups will have to bear the costs[.]

        Ideally, that’s what would happen; it’s what should happen, anyway. But it won’t

        Honestly, I’m split on this issue. I don’t like the idea of the U.S. taxpayer being forced to accommodate others, no matter where they’re from. But I also believe people should be able to freely immigrate between countries, so long as they are respecting private property rights. To this latter belief, the two concepts it embodies are simple in theory, but pretty complex in practice. I cannot say I have a realistic solution that correctly “balances” (God, I hate that term) the two.

        1. I don’t think you can “balance” them. Something has to give.

          I understand the argument that we shouldn’t let people in because of the welfare state, but I can’t accept that without also accepting that we should throw citizens out who are on welfare. And I think that is an awful idea.

          The least bad option is to let people in so long as they don’t pose a threat. I think most will not end up on welfare and will be a net boost to our country. Some will go on welfare. That’s just a price I’m willing to accept. I’d rather not have to but at some point you have to face the world as it is, no as you want it to be.

          1. There’s no reason you can’t make welfare contingent on citizenship.

            1. Equal Protection Clause?

              1. Does it apply to non-citizens?

                1. If think so. Do they not also enjoy constitutional rights while in our nation legally?

                  1. I know the 14th has specific verbiage but I still believe the current court would rule in favor of a non-citizen in an equal protection case.

                  2. I think that’s probably something a large number of people would debate, currently, regardless of what the law actually is.

            2. Legal immigrants can’t apply for federal welfare until they’ve been here for 3 years.

          2. Some will go on welfare. That’s just a price I’m willing to accept.

            And as a NAP accepting “l”ibertarian, you’re happy accepting that for me?

      7. Private humanitarian groups that operate largely off of government grants.

        Fuck that shit.

        1. “Private humanitarian groups that operate largely off of government grants.’

          I don’t believe there’s much truth to this claim, and would like to see some evidence for it.

          I’ve done some research about US foreign aid versus US private charitable contributions that end up in the hands of international NGO’s to handle noted humanitarian conflicts like the Earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, Indonesian Tsunami, etc….

          …and based on that rough 4X private/public-spending multiple (which has been consistent over time – although tends to revolve around very highlighted “crisis events” rather than be consistent every year), i see no reason to assume that the amount of private aid for refugees is any different – and that you’d be hard pressed to claim that Government provides MORE aid for displaced people than do private organizations.

          Additionally, there’s fairly large and wealthy Arab-American-community organizations that have been around for quite some time… and there’s no reason to assume that 100,000 or so immigrants to the Dearborn, MI area would somehow make Detroit MORE like Somalia than it already is, sans the burden of their presence.

    2. But,but,the children!!!! Yeah there’s this big ocean between us and the exodus.I repeat,let europe handle things for a while.As for ISIS,that’s a Arab problem (and Persian). Then again ,they may make the mistake of attcking Israel,then will see how strong they really are.

  6. “Not the sort of sentiment you were likely to hear last night in Simi Valley, where some of the candidates seemed not to know the difference between immigrants and invaders.”

    There may be a difference between immigrants and invaders, but there is also a difference between immigrants and refugees from a religious, terrorist civil war, in which all factions (Sunni, Shia, and Christian) seem to share in the same anti-Americanism.

  7. Jesse Walker of course is such a genius that he can distinguish between hard working, willing to assimilate immigrants and throat-cutting radical terrorists simply by looking at them.

    1. That’s just right-wing scaremongering! People aren’t evil or capable of succumbing to the delusions of a sinister ideology! It’s just a few bad apples, and it isn’t even their fault!

    2. The refugees are presumably mostly Shia and Christian (rather than Sunni ISIS) but even the Christians…um…don’t like us for being anti-Assad.

      And among the Shia, we’re talking about a population that may support the Iranian Revolutionary Army and/or Hezbollah, both of which are actively fighting ISIS in Syria.

      IF IF IF we have a moral responsibility to help refugees (especially since we destabilized Iraq and made ISIS possible in that way), I’m not sure that responsibility must necessarily include bringing refugees here to the United States. There is more than one way to help refugees.

      1. Bingo! Give the man a nice stuffed bear.

        If the plight of these people is dire enough that we are obliged to take them in at the risk of also taking in terrorists and freeloaders (or, rather, MORE freeloaders), shouldn’t we at least consider the option of taking the benefits of Western civilization to them, rather than brining them to us? Then, if they assimilate to our cultural values and mores, we could always make them our 51st state. And if they don’t, and after a decade or so of relative peace they decide they don’t LIKE our culture and values, it will be easier to pull out of their country than to throw them out of ours.

        1. Or at least make them sign and read a statement apologizing for anti-colonial movement, admitting that Ottomans and the French ruled Syria far better than Syrians, have them sing a hymn in honor of General Allenby and promise to sing God Bless the Queen and Marseillaise after every Friday service?

      2. I don’t care what their religion is.let the europeans take care of their problems,get them off of teat!! The EU is a large economy and can take care of themselves ,so they say when it suits them.

      3. Tons of the “refugees” are Sunni, and they don’t like Americans for not overthrowing Assad. Guys who like Assad mostly fled early into areas under his control.
        And if states have responsibility, primary one lies on Syria for destabilizing Iraq and serving as entry point and staging area for Sunni terrorists attacking Americans and Iraqis. Yes, same guys who later made ISIS. Blowback works for other nations, too.

      4. If we wanted to help these people, we’d give them each a Playboy magazine, a Gameboy, some MREs and a rifle, teach them how to parachute and drop them back in the middle of the war with all of the above in their backpack.

        1. I like the way you think sloopy.

  8. Eroding economic freedom and all anyone will ever talk about is immigration. Goddamn fucking protectionism crowds out any substantive discussion of our natural liberty to own and trade as we see fit.

    Nope; for both the right and the left, it’s all about “tey tuk r jerbs!”

  9. Oh boy. This should be a good thread.

    To preempt some of the arguments

    – This is a bad idea if they are going to automatically get life-long welfare benefits. A good course of action is for the government to coordinate with private charities to get them some start-up funds. That would also be a good way of figuring out how many to accept: how many are Americans willing to voluntarily help?

    – I’m not very worried about them being radical terrorists. They are trying to escape radical terrorists and an oppressive regime! But we should definitely screen them to be sure.

    1. The answer is simple: a population devoted to the Enlightenment concepts of limited government and respect for individual ownership. But how to systematically alter an ancient culture with an authoritarian streak? Well, it happened in Europe, so why can’t it happen in the ME?

      1. The answer is simple: a population devoted to the Enlightenment concepts of limited government and respect for individual ownership.

        Why would Obama bring in people diametrically opposed to his belief structure?

      2. It happened in Europe after 2 wars that required bombing the continent to rubble and killing millions. And that’s what it would take in the Middle East. To kill and kill and keep killing until they realize that the path they are on will only lead to more carnage and destruction.

        I, for one, am not ready to endorse such killing.

      3. But how to systematically alter an ancient culture with an authoritarian streak? Well, it happened in Europe, so why can’t it happen in the ME?

        Given its obsequious worship of statism, I’m pretty sure Europe never gave up its authoritarian streak.

    2. “””” good course of action is for the government to coordinate with private charities to get them some start-up funds.”

      The government already pays the so-called charities to take care of them. Taking care of them being defined as getting them into the welfare system.

      I call them so-called charities because if you look at their financial statements they get more then half and often more of their money from the taxpayers

  10. “”””stick up for freedom of movement”””

    There is no freedom of movement in a world based on private property. You are only have a freedom of movement on your own property. All other movement must be based on negotiations with the property owners. That includes the owners of roads.

    As to refugees in our present system their movement is not free, it is paid for in large part by taxes. Once being granted refugee status they are on the welfare system. And the so-called charities that are involved with refugees are just government contractors who get paid by the taxpayer for even refugee they deal with.

    1. NGOs (or perhaps we should borrow QUANGO from the Brits) is probably a better term.

  11. If anyone wants to read crazy talk from the government the link below is the 2013 report to Congress about refugees, this is the latest report available

    On page 3 the report claims that 50% of refugees are entirely self sufficient. Just a few sentences down however it says that 74 % receive food stamps


    1. Ah, but in the minds of the Profressive Left, receiving no more government aid than a native-born freeloader IS being self-sufficient.

      Which is why we shouldn’t let Progressives run anything important; they are idiots.

  12. I think the Gulf states that talk about the worldwide brotherhood of the Islamic Ummah should start taking them in before we do.

    But I’m guessing they fear their regimes would fall from accepting outside agitators. Maybe they know something German and the rest of the West don’t.

    1. That’s code for helping Islam take over the world, not this lot of scum fucking up their countries.

    2. Yes, they probably should.

      But the gulf state regimes largely only survive by bribing their populations. You can’t really compare the political situation to that of Western democracies.

      1. You’re just gonna softball it like that? On a Libertarian site, of all places?

    3. From the Spectator blog,

      Where is Ummah now?
      Oh, there it is!

      The second article has quotes from Kuwaiti minister, but he SFed the link. Found it on Twiter, though.

  13. Germany expects to take in as many as a million refugees in a year. For reference, this is the population of Cologne, the country’s fourth largest city. So in one year, the Germans must feed, house, clothe, provide sanitation, medical care, transport and everything else for an entire Cologne full of people who have very few job skills, (even if jobs were available) and don’t speak their hosts’ language.

    Good luck.

    1. Ezra Levant had some choice words about Merkel’s plans to do that very thing.

    2. Why do you assume they hhave very few job skills, and why do assume no jobs will be created to supply their demands?

      1. Because I worked in Germany for 15 years and know about types of businesses and industries there, the labor market, job training requirements, unionization, unemployment levels and how quickly you’d better learn to talk to the locals if you don’t want to stay forever in a closed community.

        Yes, it’s all bad from a libertarian point of view, but that’s the situation.

        1. Fair enough.

      2. The German experience with second and third generation Turks, people coming from a much more secular and European society? Or French experience with descendants of loyal Algerian and Tunisian Arabs who came over when their colonial empire fell?

        1. I think the Turkish experience in Germany is considerably better than the Arab experience in France. Sure it’s not all roses but they’re not burning cars in the Vororten either.

          1. Oh for sure. I’m firmly racist in the belief that Turkish culture is superior to Arab ones. Egypt comes close, because they had the last big university after Mongols trashed Baghdad and Spaniards destroyed Al-Andalus, and Lebanon used to be a gem when they followed the ways of their Phoenician forebears, but overall, Turks beat them hand down (unless British come to their aid – WWI reference!).
            But Turks aren’t integrating, most of them are on welfare, and they still riot over politics of Old Country.

  14. The Pope says we have to take them.
    Who are WE to argue with an elderly argentine cleric?

    1. The Pope needs to fire the Swiss Guard and the rest of his security and let the refugees live in the Vatican.

    2. One of these days he’ll get around to selling all he has and giving it to the poor.

      1. To be fair to the Commie Pope, that’s not his stuff. It belongs to the Church, and he’s just the latest caretaker. When you have 1500+ years of tradition weighing you down, it makes it a bit harder.
        Yes, didn’t stop popes from embezzling parts of it. But it also gave us Sistine Chapel and great cathedrals of Europe. Honestly, I wish he’d stop trying to modernize and stick with what Catholic Church does best. I may not believe in God, but it’s hard not to believe in the last remnant of Empire in the West, after all!

  15. I overheard someone on Fox Business right now (a democrat) saying, “The wage gap has never been greater”…

    ..presumably in reference to Women?

    That’s so wrong, i can only assume they were talking about Corporate Executive Compensation. which is still pretty @(#)* stupid.

    1. When I hear “wage gap”, I link Her Ladyship.

  16. People wonder why the Ummah doesn’t take care of the refugees. Part of it is that, unlike most of the West, many Muslim countries aren’t idiots, and know that importing millions of foreigners is expensive, difficult, and socially destabilizing.

    But the part nobody here has mentioned is the Islamic concept of hejira. Mass migration to a new area is a core concept in Islamic history. It’s one strategy for conquest, and as much as many like to ignore the fact, it’s a core Muslim belief that they are destined to take over the world, by force if necessary.

    So what better place to put Islamic refugees than in Western, non-Muslim nations? It still spreads Islam. And even Muslims know that all Muslim-controlled nations suck big-time, so why not go where things are better (at the moment)?

    Which is why the West is foolish to take any of them.

  17. I say let them all in, but take a 100 percent Borg approach in doing it:

    “You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.”

    1. You can’t assimilate someone who believes their totalitarian religious beliefs come directly from Allah.

  18. I just started 6 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $4,200…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways, visit this following website for more details,,, thank you!”


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.