Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis Argue Who Is More Hostile to Refugees from Gaza
DeSantis says that all Gazans are anti-Semitic, while Haley feels that refugees should only go to "Hamas-sympathetic countries."

As the war stretches on between Israel and Hamas, the terror group that controls the Gaza Strip, the conflict threatens to displace an untold number of civilians. Last week, in advance of airstrikes, the Israel Defense Forces warned more than one million residents to flee Gaza within the day. Whenever and however the fighting stops, hundreds of thousands of refugees are a likely result.
Meanwhile in the U.S., as Republicans compete for their party's presidential nomination, candidates are arguing over who is most hostile to refugees.
Last week, speaking to CBS's Margaret Brennan, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis doubled down on his campaign trail assertion that of the 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza, "not all of them are Hamas, but they are all anti-Semitic."
In response, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday that "half" of Palestinians in Gaza don't want Hamas in power, adding, "there are so many of these people who want to be free from this terrorist rule." She stressed that it was important for the U.S. to "separate civilians from terrorists."
DeSantis countered by telling NBC News that Gaza had a "toxic culture" in which "they teach the kids to hate Jews." He further accused Haley of "trying to be politically correct" and said that she "would import people" to the United States. His super PAC Never Back Down then tweeted that Haley supported "bringing Gaza refugees to America."
Haley then told Fox News, "I've always said we shouldn't take any Gazan refugees in the U.S." and that other Middle Eastern Arab countries should accept them instead. She had previously told Tapper that these countries had so far not accepted refugees "because they know they can't vet them."
Finally, speaking with Megyn Kelly, DeSantis credited Haley for "flipping" on the issue but then asked, "Why would you even have the discussion about vetting people…unless you were saying we would import them?"
DeSantis's use of the verb import to refer to the movement of human beings is unseemly. But the back-and-forth also illustrates the Republican Party's hostility to refugee resettlement, at which America once excelled.
Indeed, Haley never said that the U.S. should take refugees from Gaza. But when DeSantis stated (erroneously) that she had, she felt the need to clarify that she definitively had not. In fact, she told Fox News that just as Jordan and Turkey took the majority of Syrian refugees during her tenure at the U.N., "the Hamas-sympathizing countries should take these Gazans now."
But if, as DeSantis claims, Gaza is a "toxic culture" where "they teach the kids to hate Jews," how would consigning Gazan refugees strictly to Hamas-sympathetic countries be any improvement? Especially since nearly half of all Gazans are under 18, it seems counterproductive to assume both that all refugees are anti-Semitic and that they should only go to countries that are likely to be more receptive to that anti-Semitism.
Haley and DeSantis are not the only candidates touting their own hostility to refugees. Former President Donald Trump announced on Monday that if reelected, he will revive his travel ban and expand it to include Gaza. In a press release this week, Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.), another candidate for president, declared that his policy would be, "no refugees in from Gaza, period. I think that's the right decision, not because I think they're all anti-Semitic, but I can't tell the difference." (The press release noted that Scott "disagreed with other GOP presidential candidates who considered accepting Gaza refugees," but it only cited Haley—who, again, stated that she would not.)
Of course, even before any candidate reaches the White House, Gazans face an extremely difficult path to become a U.S. refugee: According to the Cato Institute's David Bier, "qualified refugees have less than a 0.1 percent chance of being selected for resettlement." Under Trump's administration, the U.S. was notoriously stingy about refugee admission, but Joe Biden's hasn't been much better, only taking in about 25,000 in Fiscal Year 2022, one-fifth of the total that could have been accepted.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They aren’t refugees.
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is what I do.... http://Www.Smartcash1.com
Amd we sure as fuck don’t need hordes of Muslim radicals brought here.
Drop them in LA and NYC and a lot of the US electoral issues take care of themselves. Religion of peace peacefully protesting.
The ensuing Islamic violence will curb the wokie population. Which sounds pretty good. Still, we need more Muslims here like we need a hole in the head. Which is probably what we will get letting a million of them run wild here.
Aren't they? At least some. People fleeing because where they live is a war zone are generally what refugees are, no?
That said, it doesn't mean they are all good or innocent people, or that we have any obligation to take any of them in.
Arab countries guaranteed the existence of radical groups like Hamas when they treated the original Palestinian refugees as refugees forever including their grandchildren by not granting citizenship to them or their descendants. The Arab countries did that to assure that the Palestinians were devoted to the destruction of Israel.
The frogs stand up for the scorpions.
“…Haley told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday that “half” of Palestinians in Gaza don’t want Hamas in power,…”
Which suggests that the other half do want Hamas in power, and does not really speak to how many are prejudiced towards Jews, as being anti-Hamas does not necessarily mean having kind feelings towards Jews.
“DeSantis’s use of the verb import to refer to the movement of human beings is unseemly.”
No more unseemly than the phrase “human capital”. Lancaster seems extremely thin skinned with this language policing.
Lancaster seems extremely thin skinned with this language policing.
“Kidnap”, “abduct”, and “take hostage” are, seemingly, all on the table in this discussion of the general issue but Lancaster can’t even seem to muster the name of anyone specifically associated with those words, much less denounce them.
I usually agree about using "import" that way. But when you are talking about bringing refugees into the country, it kind of fits.
Especially since you'd have to go out of your way to fly them across the globe to get here.
LOL
#WarIsGoodBecauseItCreatesRefugees
#CheapLaborAboveAll
I was listening to Gov. DeSantis this weekend and he seem to be saying that Florida has a separate policy on Israel and the middle east that differs from US policy.
Both these candidates have the luxury of not having to make decisions on the situation and so what they say is easy. I am not as interested in what they say now as what they say when things begin to resolve. Because all we can do now is hold tight. It what we do after Israel deals with Hamas that we need to start having policies that prevent this from happening again.
De Santis has done more to bring back American hostages than Biden has done.
Either is better than Joe. Ron is just better than Nikki.
Can you offer a citation on how many hostages Ron DeSantis has brought home?
No, Nikki's a far better choice. Republican just have to get over it would mean voting for a woman.
No, she’s just not a good candidate. That you think she might be suggests she is not.
He’s brought back people who are over there, free of charge, unlike Sleepy Joe.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/16/first-florida-rescue-flight-from-israel-brings-back-almost-300/
The first in a series of flights from war-torn Israel ordered by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis landed in Tampa Sunday evening, carrying 270 Americans returning from the Jewish state.
DeSantis, a contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, ordered the flights last week to fetch Americans stuck in Israel due to commercial flight cancellations following the Oct. 7 terror attack by Hamas.
Florida teamed up with nonprofit group Project DYNAMO to help organize the flights. The DeSantis administration didn’t immediately divulge how much the operation cost taxpayers.
Will that satisfy you, M4e?
“Republican just have to get over it would mean voting for a woman.”
Ah, gotta love anti-intellectual, false tribal assertions.
Mod is spectacularly idiotic.
317 thus far on two flights.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/18/second-desantis-organized-flight-lands-en-route-israel/
And, no, Nikki is not a better choice. Her foreign policy is bad. Her domestic policies are not much better.
I mean, both are VASTLY better than Biden's ...but neither are good.
OK, but these were just Americans that were in Israel, not hostages. The claim was that DeSantis was doing more to bring back hostages than Biden. Still haven't seen a cite for that.
Thank you noting this. Americans stuck in is Israel are not hostages.
DeSatan doing nothing to help the hostages > B giving money to the P.A. to not help the hostages. qed
Given that Biden won't even get those same Americans out...he is, by default, doing more.
There's a gap between "they teach the kids to hate Jews" (which is probably true) and "not all of them are Hamas, but they are all anti-Semitic" (which is false). I expect that most Gazans are antipathic towards the state of Israel, and many are anti-Jewish, but note that since they live in a state controlled by Hamas, it's unlikely that many people who object to the anti-Jewish rhetoric will speak up (also note that Palestinians _are_ Semitic, so calling them anti-Semitic is a non-sequitur).
Furthermore, the main problem here is that using the label "anti-Semitic" is an attempt to paint people with the negative connotations associated with that label; it is an attempt to imply that these people are "bad" and therefore that we shouldn't support such people. This is wrong. Our response to the reality that kids are being indoctrinated into being anti-Jewish should not be to label them "bad" but rather to feel empathy for those kids and hope that the indoctrination fails in some cases and to hope that even the kids who currently hate Jews can escape someplace where they can grow up to not hate Jews in the future.
All good points. The fact is that we don't do enough in our own country to teach tolerance of Jews. American Synagogues often are more threated by white nationalist. Congressional representatives have tossed out ideas of Jewish space lasers starting fires. What does "Soros" imply? There are 38 Jewish members of Congress and 2 are Republican.
So before Gov DeSantis worries about what children In Gaza are taught about Jews, he should worry about what his party thinks of Jews.
What a load of bullshit. Nearly 100% of antisemitism comes from your fellow travelers, which now include hordes of radical leftist Muslims from various shithole countries. Do you think those little punks screaming about gassing Jews over the last week are ‘white nationalists’? No, they’re Marxist filth.
Just like you.
Ah, so the right is now anti-women and anti-Jew. Do you ever get tired of being intellectually disingenuous?
That's the only intellectual ability they have.
The majority of antisemetic attacks are in deep blue areas dumdum. And not by whites.
No, they pretty much despise Jews. They’re conditioned to as toddlers. Hi should check out some of their cartoons on YouTube. And these people elected Hamas to be their leaders.
Yes, and? Does that mean that Palestinians from Gaza are irredeemably evil and can never learn better and that the US should reject any refugees from Gaza? That's what the Republican candidates for president are implying (if not stating outright).
I think it's more in line with we need to see a change of behavior prior to accepting Palestinian refugees.
Dipshit, no Arab countries want to take them in. Do you have any fucking idea as to why? Hint: it has to do with what Palestinian "refugees" have done in Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait since the 1948 war.
If their own ethnic group, one that's sympathetic to general ideas of pan-Arabism in theory, if not in practice, don't want them based on past behavior, then why in the blue fuck should the US take them in?
Antifa needs more footsoldiers for the '24 election cycle?
The US should reject them on the basis of being halfway across the world. In fact, any refugee should be stopped before they exit the general region they came from.
Them being halfway across the world is a logistical problem (admittedly a huge problem without any solution in the near future), but it has no bearing on the moral problem of whether or not we should accept them if they do get here.
I think, on the whole, that refugees probably provide a net benefit for America (even poor refugees whose worldviews contain things I strongly disagree with). But let’s assume they actually do pose a net cost to Americans who currently live here. Should we deny them entry on that basis? I still say no. Refugees are people with worth and dignity of their own and the benefits to them from living in the US would far outweigh any possible costs to Americans currently living here.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
You might want to ask Europe about their immigration issues before saying things like, "I think, on the whole, that refugees probably provide a net benefit for America."
Europe has a lot of people who COMPLAIN about immigration issues. Sure. So does the US (obviously). That’s not quite the same thing as saying “Europe is obviously worse off because of immigration”. Generally speaking, immigrants quietly pay taxes and contribute to society through their jobs (and they often improve the lives of the people who live in their home country because of remission payments). The biggest problems I’ve heard of are the occasional terror attacks (caused by a tiny minority of the population) and cultural assimilation issues like the big uproar about the French Muslims who refuse to go along with France’s secular agenda. There are real costs to immigration, but focusing only on the costs (or only on the benefits, for that matter) is to look at only half the picture. I think that the immigration provides a probable net-benefit on the whole (whether in America or in Europe or in Egypt, for that matter), but it definitely provides a net-benefit for the people who choose to immigrate (and their families), so I’m in favor of it on humanitarian grounds.
Humanitarian grounds are irrelevant.
So, instead of actually looking at the issues that Europe is suffering from, which is causing countries like Sweden to significantly change up their immigration allowances, you just decided to say something to the effect of, "in my uninformed position, I'm going to assume Europe is still probably better off?"
If it's going to be such a massive benefit, then by God, I'm generous enough to let the local countries around there reap that reward.
What an idiot
Declining to fly them over and give them free stuff is not denying entry.
Refugees are people with worth and dignity of their own and the benefits to them from living in the US would far outweigh any possible costs to Americans currently living here.
Governments exist to serve specific people in specific places. We have no obligation to take them, anymore than anyone else does.
Also: Assertion presented without evidence. For fuck's sake, this guy even admits above he has no clue what the actual inputs or outputs of the equation look like.
Shitty poetry on secondhand statuary does not an immigration policy make.
^indeed.
"Them being halfway across the world is a logistical problem (admittedly a huge problem without any solution in the near future), but it has no bearing on the moral problem of whether or not we should accept them if they do get here."
If you intentionally bypass dozens of countries --- we have zero moral obligation to take you.
You do not get to shop where you go for refugee protections.
Yes. Why should they come here at all? And why is it so important to you that they come here?
It’s because white people are evil and need to be punished for improving the world.
Sending a million indigent, illiterate, low IQ radicalized Muslim extremists here would certainly punish us.
Ok - let's say they are redeemably evil. Does that make then any more attractive to bring in?
"Yes, and? Does that mean that Palestinians from Gaza are irredeemably evil and can never learn better and that the US should reject any refugees from Gaza? That’s what the Republican candidates for president are implying (if not stating outright)."
It means they are not our problem.
All those points are refuted by the Palestinians across the world cheering Hamas on.
Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis Argue Who Is More Hostile to Refugees from Gaza
The entire Arab world?
Good one.
Nice. And 100% accurate.
Exactly.
And with good fucking reason, too.
Hordes of radical, Marxist, Islamic refugees conditioned towards supporting jihadist terrorism is not what America needs. Plus democrats have destroyed our economy, so more foreigners here in the dole is not workable.
Do not bring these people here. Period.
Is Joe trying to get DeSantis elected?
Joe has trouble remembering HE was elected.
Well, ‘elected’ is a bit of an overstatement. ‘Installed’ is a much more accurate.
>>Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis Argue Who Is More Hostile to Refugees from Gaza
if neither said "Hamas" they both failed.
How did accepting refugees work out for Lebanon in the 1980's.
Or Jordan in the 70’s?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
You’d have to be Koch-Libertarian stupid to bring these people into your country
Seriously. Only the Arab world seems to have figured out that Palestinians will never by loyal to anything other than Palestine, and will act as a subversive, even violent and revolutionary force within your borders if you are not fanatically fixated on Making Israel Palestine Again once you take them in.
They assassinated King Abdullah I just three years after he welcomed them into Jordan with open arms. They tried to assassinate and overthrow King Hussein. They started a civil war in Lebanon that it's never fully recovered from. They acted as spies for the Iraqis when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and supported him throughout Desert Storm. They've probably killed more Arabs than Jews over the last 70-odd years.
Anyone taking in Palestinians, who isn't 100% dedicated to getting them their country back, is absolutely suicidal.
It's ironic. Palestinians are likely to be the next 'people of a diaspora'. What they don't have is a Yohanan ben Zakkai who can negotiate an exit in order to write a Palestinian version of a Mishnah and build a culture/religion to keep a people together during a diaspora.
Not that the next version will be better at returning from diaspora. But at least it avoids the usual fate of the losing side. To completely disappear from history and memory.
Ah, acting as violent, subversive revolutionaries seems to be exactly the qualifying features for the modern DNC, too bad a lot of their donor class are jews unwilling to sacrifice for the revolution.
This all speaks to the truth that financially struggling China really does deserve to take on full scale Palestinian immigration into mainland China.
I see no losers. Heck, cheap ass me would chip in $50 to cover some of the costs. The CCP has the housing. Win-win-win.
I will donate to that cause as well.
Russia has tons of empty space.
They are not refugees Lancaster.
They can stay over there. They can go to one of their neighbors.
I heard a rumor once that Islam was a religion of charity towards fellow believers.
Simply find the Gazans a deserted island far from everyone else and settle them there. When they show that they can behave in a civilized manner then perhaps we can let them off the island.
Can I suggest NYC. They're a sanctuary city after all.
I hear that the Aleutian Islands are nice this time of year.
Last week, in advance of airstrikes, the Israel Defense Forces warned more than one million residents to flee Gaza within the day. Whenever and however the fighting stops, hundreds of thousands of refugees are a likely result.
So it sounds like libertarians are now in favor of ethnic cleansing.
Y'know, you're totally right. Israel should just let themselves be overrun and raped to death.
Hopefully after they're done, we can still find a few willing to move into your house.
They're all Semites.
They advised them to leave.
Hamas installed military installations in civilian buildings.
This is ALL Hamas' fault.
...who is also trying to block civilians from leaving...
What do you do when you hate both sides?
DeFascist only wants religious wingnuts in his state if they're *his* kind of religious wingnut.
DeSantis is bringing Americans back here.
The (P)Resident is not.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart
This Website➤---------------➤ http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
The author is an oversensitive tool.
Not our problem. The fact that their Muslim 'brothers' won't give them a place to stay is reason enough to keep them out.
Tell you what. Let's bring in any Israeli refugees first. Once we've helped save anyone who wants saving, then we look at Hamas refugees.
Well, hold on. They can wait. We've got a lot of persecuted African Christian refugees that need saving from muslims first. After we save them, then we can look at Hama...
Y'know what, I'm forgetting about those persecuted in South Asia by the Muslims. Heck.
OK - so, Israelis, Africans, South Asians. Then maybe we consider a Muslim or two. (And we'll know they're serious if they draw us a picture of Mohammed. And then burn it.)
The author asks why it would be an improvement to send antisemitic Arabs from Gaza to Arab countries rather than bring them to the United States of America.
I should think that the answer to this is obvious. In those Arab countries, they can yell against the Jews all they want, but have hardly any to terrorize. In America, they have actual living Jews whom they can harm.
Does America have no obligation to its existing citizens, no responsibility to even attempt to ensure that the America of 10 or 20 years from now will still be a place where Jews can live and breathe as Jews? Or is the widespread antisemitic violence which occurs right now in America a matter of no interest? And is a potential future where American Jews dare not display their Judaism, and in which many feel driven to leave the country out of simple fear, one which we can contemplate calmly?
For some reason, my edit button is grayed-out, so I will here post an elaboration that I would have liked to add to my earlier comment.
Mr. Lancaster’s preferred approach, of bringing in any and all refugees without regard to the implications for Jewish Americans amounts in effect to a refugee exchange program. America will take refugees from Gaza, and eventually send Jewish refugees from America to other countries; presumably, mainly to Israel.
I would like to think that he merely did not consider this, rather than that he actually understands and intends his policy to result in the effective expulsion over time of America’s Jewish community.
This leaves aside the question of whether that future America is really one in which most current non-Jewish Americans would be happier to live than today’s America, or less happy.
Clearly, there are many Americans who would indeed be very happy to have the Jews gone; a prominent cohort of them march today on America's university campuses. Are these the people that we want to make more powerful?