North Carolina Joins Call To Restrict “Syrian” Refugees

by William Teach | November 17, 2015 7:56 am

One of the problems is that, according to at least one report, only 20% of the “refugees”[1] entering Europe are actually from Syria. Some 80% are coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Albania, Libya, and other nations not called Syria. And a good majority are young men of fighting age. North Carolina governor McCrory joins the growing call to stop the in-flow to the United States, and puts his call in a way that puts anyone who wants unfettered immigration of these “refugees” on the hook

(WRAL[2]) Gov. Pat McCrory says he has asked the federal government to stop sending Syrian refugees to North Carolina until more is known how those fleeing the war-torn country are vetted.

Citing last week’s Paris terrorist attacks, McCrory joined at least 10 other governors from around the country in asking the federal government to provide more information about those being resettled from Syria.

“I empathize with these people who are dealing with unimaginable atrocities from ISIS,” McCrory said during a hastily called news conference in Charlotte. “But what worries me is some of these people might be ISIS.”

How are they vetted? Supposedly, this is a process that takes two years on average[3]. Yet, these “refugees” seem to be arriving quite quickly in the United States. Are they being thoroughly vetted? Of course, quite a bit of the information on the refugee comes…..from the refugee. We’re relying on them not lying[4]. “Both[5] Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey raised the challenge of being unable to vet all Syrians against existing intelligence information.”

And we all trust that the government isn’t making mistakes, taking shortcuts, ignoring protocol, etc, right?

(CNN[6]) More than half the nation’s governors — 27 states — say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government.

States protesting the admission of refugees range from Alabama and Georgia, to Texas and Arizona, to Michigan and Illinois, to Maine and New Hampshire. Among these 27 states, all but one have Republican governors.

OK, send them to those other states. Let them deal with the fallout (well, not really, we should be fully vetting all, including to see if they are believers in hardcore Islamism. It’s not just the violent ones we need to worry about). The thing is, according to Gov. McCrory, los Federales are not providing any information on the Syrian refugees (well, refugees from all over the Islamic world) to the government on North Carolina, besides the number imported. We don’t know who they are or where they are being relocated to.

Of course, this all leads to calls of Islamophobia from un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR[7]

Nonetheless, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil rights group, says the governors’ announcements are indicative of growing Islamophobia among many in the US.

“We believe these governors are succumbing to fear and Islamophobia,” Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director of CAIR, told Al Jazeera.

CAIR is part of the Muslim Brotherhood[8], “an Islamic supremacist organization that pioneered 20th century Islamic terrorism and sanctions violence against civilians.” They very much attempt to use our laws, Constitution, and social mores against us in pushing their hardcore Muslim beliefs.

Finally, it should be no surprise that Liberals are up in arms over anyone wanting to stop the flow of unvetted and unknown refugees into the country. Just looking at the nations two main papers, the Washington Post and NY Times, we get

That last one from the NY Times Editorial Board is a pip. After starting with how Republicans and some EU nations are looking to stop the flow we get

These responses are wrong. Confusing refugees with terrorists is morally unacceptable and, as a matter of strategy, misguided. Stemming the exodus of refugees from Syria must be an important part of any comprehensive plan to end the Syrian war. Building new barriers to keep them out with the absurd argument that Muslims are inherently dangerous could provide propaganda benefits to the Islamic State. The group, also known as ISIS, has drawn recruits around the globe by offering a cause and a home to Muslims who feel marginalized and scorned.

Good grief. They actually think that people are joining ISIS because their feelings have been hurt.

Mr. Obama hit just the right note at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Antalya, Turkey, on Monday. “Many of these refugees are the victims of terrorism themselves, that’s what they’re fleeing,” he said[14]. “Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values. Our nations can welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety and ensure our own security. We can and must do both.”

Perhaps if Mr. Obama had shown a spine early in the war, and even as far back as the Arab Spring, this would be a moot point. He set red lines, then ignored them. Is it really our duty to take in people who do not share our values, and could be potentially not just terrorists, but the type of Islamist who will, again, use our laws and societies against us in pushing their hardcore Islamist agenda?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[15]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[16].

  1. only 20% of the “refugees”:
  2. WRAL:
  3. two years on average:
  4. relying on them not lying:
  5. Both:
  6. CNN:
  7. un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR:
  8. part of the Muslim Brotherhood:
  9. In the wake of Paris, our common enemy is intolerance:
  10. America’s politicians are feeding the Islamic State narrative:
  11. After Paris, America cannot abandon refugees in need:
  12. Paris and Europe’s Anti-Refugee Backlash:
  13. After Paris Attacks, Vilifying Refugees:
  14. he said:
  15. Pirate’s Cove:
  16. @WilliamTeach:

Source URL: