The Quote Below: More Misinformation from the Media
“If it seems that lately President Trump has ramped up efforts to make it even harder for those seeking refuge to enter and stay in the U.S. — it’s because he has. . . .
“While the economic impact of Trump’s changes to immigration policy are remarkable, the moral collapse of our role in the world is most striking. . . .
“Putting families in danger — ones fleeing violence, persecution and destitution —before they come to America or after they’ve arrived hurts our standing on the world stage. It’s bad policy. It’s morally bankrupt. It runs counter to the country we should continue to be. It also runs counter to United Nations tenets of asylum — that countries should not turn away ‘a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.’. . .
“Asylum seekers do not pose a threat to us: people who request asylum go through a comprehensive process that includes background checks and screenings. . . .
“Last week’s developments and reports weren’t the first evidence that the Trump administration is closing the doors on those most in need, just the latest.
“Doing so not only harms vulnerable men, women and children. It ultimately weakens the idea of America. – Trump Asylum Policies Harming Refugee Families – and Americans, Fox News, Ali Noorani, 8/9/19 [Link]
Fact Check of Quote Above: A refugee or asylee by the traditional definition is someone facing personal persecution for political beliefs, religion, ethnicity, etc. The only difference is that a refugee applies from abroad to come here, while an asylum applicant is already here.
Today, advocates of mass immigration have tried to expand the traditional definition. In some cases, they define people qualified for refugee status or asylum as all members a group facing any kind of discrimination. Individuals need not have to prove a threat to them personally. Some of these advocates want to expand the definition much further to include anyone wishing to flee poverty or some other unpleasant circumstance.
If the numbers of potential refugees and asylum seekers are so inflated, it’s obvious that we could face a major crisis. Tens of millions of people would claim to be refugees or asylees, and overwhelm our country. We’re getting a strong taste of this possibility already with large numbers of illegal aliens making bogus asylum claims as a means to get into the U.S. and stay.
Many making these claims obviously have no grounds to claim that they are fleeing persecution in their home countries. If that were the case, they could have applied for refuge in the countries they passed through before reaching the U.S. Also, many who apply for asylum skip their hearings and blend into the U.S. population as illegal residents. Of those in the current surge of applicants who do show up, almost 80 percent are found to be ineligible for amnesty.
The Trump Administration is not “morally bankrupt” when it tries to stop this kind of abuse. Nor does the administraion go counter to “the kind of country we should be” when it proposes to limit refugee admissions. Commonly these admissions are arranged by self-interested “charities” that profit from the number of people they can settle in our country as refugees.
Contrary to what Noorani says, we cannot always be sure how law-abiding the refugees and asylees are. As former FBI Director James Comey pointed out, It is difficult to do adequate criminal screenings of people who come from countries like Syria where record keeping is inadequate, or where records have been destroyed. Noorani also is wrong about the alleged economic benefits refugees. They commonly receive welfare and commonly receive more in tax-paid services than they contribute.
Genuine refugees and asylees, people who face personal persecution, deserve consideration. But a better way to help them, rather than having them settle in the U.S., is to arrange their resettlement in nearby countries. This option is much cheaper than resettlement in the U.S., which allows relief funding to stretch further. Nearby resettlement allows refugees to live in culture similar to their own, while making it easier for them to return home when the danger to them has passed.
If anything is “morally bankrupt” it is the notion that the United States can save all the unhappy people all around the globe by allowing them to move here. That immoral arrogance invites disaster.