Put "refugees" in FEMA camps

By Selwyn Duke

Roanoke, Virginia, mayor David Bowers has just created a stir by suggesting that Syrian migrants be placed in internment camps. I found his comments interesting because, if we are going to have the Muslim so-called "refugees," I also consider placement in camps a must.

Unfortunately, Bowers, a Democrat, undermined the position by drawing the poor analogy with fellow Democrat Franklin Roosevelt's interning of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII (note: some Americans of German and Italian descent were also interned). George Takei, famous for playing Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu in the original Star Trek series and for, more recently, boldly going where no space traveler had gone before, was quick to chime in. As he wrote on Facebook, "The internment (not a 'sequester') was not of Japanese 'foreign nationals,' but of Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens." Most of Takei's other commentary is nonsense, mostly because he equates a low-crime, mostly American-citizen population with unknown-quantity individuals of the demographic responsible for virtually all the world's terrorism.

It's also nonsense because we have no legal obligation to accept foreigners of any kind if it's contrary to our national interests. And I oppose – completely and without reservation – accepting any Muslim migrants whatsoever. I do believe we should help the persecuted Mideast Christians, although, even in their case, the aid should meet certain criteria. If we are going to accept migrants, however, it is imperative they be placed in some of the many FEMA camps our government has been spending good tax money building in recent years. Note that camp placement is precisely what Turkey does with the migrants.

Before elaborating further on this, the migrant issue must be properly defined. Reports tell us that 75 or 80 percent of the migrants are military-age males in generally good health; this relative absence of women and children belies the notion that these are desperate people fleeing for their lives. Moreover, there's much reason to fear that these migrants are, as Donald Trump has put it, a "Trojan horse" for terrorist infiltration.

First consider that Syria's ambassador to India, Riad Abbas, has warned that more than 20 percent of Muslim migrants entering Europe may have ties to ISIS-linked groups. As he put it, reports Sputnik, "Among the refugees, who went to Europe, maybe more than 20 percent belong to ISIL groups. Now Europe has received bad element[s] into their ground. They will face further problem[s] in future."

Then consider Dr. Mudar Zahran, a Muslim asylum seeker and leader of the Jordanian opposition residing in the U.K. On an October segment of "The Glazov Gang" he warned that Europe should not accept the Muslim migrants, as they were ushering in the "Islamic conquest of the West." Furthermore, he stated that 75 percent of the migrants were not even Syrian and then said that

75 percent of those arriving from Syria come from safe area[s]; actually, the ones in disaster areas cannot ... leave. So, actually, as much as there's a disaster in Syria, most of those people arriving do in fact do not need the protection; they arrive from Turkey, they arrive from Jordan, they arrive from other places which are safe. In addition, those people are ... bypassing poor European countries; they're going to Turkey, Hungary, and other places like Bulgaria and settling in Germany, where there is a rich nation with a generous welfare system.

He also characterizes the migration as the fulfillment of "the Islamic ... dreams of fascism of some" and says that what Muslims "couldn't do in the last 20 years, now the West is doing for us for free – and even paying for it." In addition, Zahran delivered this shocking news about the "invasion": "I have to be honest," he said, "you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers; they are talking about, 'Good job! Now we're going to conquest [sic] Europe.' So it's not even a secret."

There's still more. According to American Thinker's Sierra Rayne, a Pew Research Center poll indicates there may be three-hundred million ISIS supporters in the Muslim world. What this means is that if we accept unvetted Muslim migrants, one out of six could be supporters of a group that that crucifies Christians, kills children, drowns people in cages and sets them on fire.

And unvetted they will be. Despite Obama administration assurances that our authorities have cracker-jack screening procedures, the thorough databases necessary for vetting simply do not exist, as this article well illustrates.

Even if they did, though, vetting has a fundamental flaw: It only tells you about people's past.

Not their future.

(Vetting can't read minds, and people can change, as I explained here.)

And terrorist acts of concern occur in the future.

Of course, people could disagree with the aforementioned numbers; they may even believe Obama's claims about vetting. Yet there's a more basic problem, one almost universally ignored and whose solution is irrefutable within reason's realm. Let's assume that the migrants in question truly are refugees.

Well, they belong in refugee camps.

Why on Earth are we giving them the "keys to the city" and dispersing these unknown quantities in towns around the nation? This is at best criminal negligence – at worst treason.

Note that providing camps is what most nations do. Our camps would be humane; the refugees would have quality food and drink and adequate shelter. But remember that granting safe haven is a favor, and there's a difference between charitable saviors and schlemiels on wheels.

A reason we depart from this sane solution brings us to a second universally ignored problem. As I pointed out recently, if a desperate person came through your area, you might feed him, provide some clothing and even house him for a while.

You don't generally make him part of your family and let him share in decisions influencing your loved ones' fortunes and future. The point?

We have conflated refugee status with citizenship, when the two should have nothing whatsoever do to with each other. Providing safe haven is one thing, but when the threat in the stranger's native land recedes, he should return.

Why have we departed from this sanity? Obviously, people today don't like the sound of "camps" (so call them "ObamaCare Refugee Exchanges"). But there's another reason:

Obama and his co-conspirators don't care about these migrants. Oh, they very much want them to live...in America. Because only then can they become part of a growing demographic that votes 70 to 90 percent for socialistic Democrats. Only then can they be used to further balkanize our nation. Only then can the "fundamental transformation" of our country be accelerated.

As to this, I reported in March on an alleged Obama administration plan to use foreigners as "seedlings" who will "navigate, not assimilate" as they "take over the host," create a "country within a country" and start "pushing the citizens into the shadows" (more details here). And, of course, you can't seed communities throughout the nation if you keep your seed in camps.

But if you want to diminish the sense of nationhood and thus the desire to maintain sovereignty, and dilute traditionalist, red-state will and thus negate nullification movements and turn sanity blue, "seeding" via amnesty and "refugee resettlement" is the way to do it. Once the ice is broken and a foreign population is established in an area, family members and others come – and all of them will outbreed the natives.

If certain people truly are refugees, FEMA camps can provide the refuge. After all, if the camps aren't good enough for them, then what lowly creatures were they built for, anyway?

© Selwyn Duke