Refugee Resettlements, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

November 21, 2015—The basis of the argument against forced resettlement of refugees to the United States is the idea of the protection of private property rights and the people of the United States. If government can not protect the people and private property from enemies foreign and domestic, then government has indeed failed its main responsibility.

There’s always good 1280px-Syrian_refugees_strike_in_front_of_Budapest_Keleti_railway_stationintentions, but it is just wrong to endanger the lives of all Americans in an attempt to help refugees. When government does more harm than good, it should refund your tax dollars and allow you to control your own destiny. It is also neither moral nor compassionate for federal government to take more money from Americans to provide for any refugee, especially when there’s over $19 trillion of debt (and over $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities) hanging over the heads (and around the necks) of future generations in America. How helpful will we be as a country when we go bankrupt?

The FBI has stated multiple times that they can not screen nor vet the volume of refugees that are seeking asylum and that they can not be sure that refugees are not terrorists part of hijrah (jihad by immigration). Radical Islam is using and has said they will use hijrah to oppress free people around the world and infiltrate the West. They are openly using refugee resettlement programs to push the horrors of radical Islam on others.

It also makes no economic sense, the Center for Immigration Studies has calculated that to bring a refugee to the U.S. cost 12 times more than to find somewhere closer to their native country (in the Middle East) that they could go. It’s estimated that providing for a refugee over five years in the United States will cost taxpayers over $64,000, compared to $5,300 if that refugee stays closer to there native country.

After 9/11 we asked, what could we do differently to help stop radical jihadists from attacking America again?

I believe the real answer is returning to a foreign policy as advocated by the founders, a foreign policy that returns our resources back home and defends the United States’ borders, a foreign policy that does not engage in civil wars and conflicts around the globe, a foreign policy that does not arm radical jihadists.

We have the opportunity defend to life, liberty and property of the American people by rejecting a placement of refugees that could be terrorists in our communities.

While there’s some who may feel a calling to help these refugees, realize that you can make your own decision, but you do not have the right to endanger the lives of your neighbor by potentially helping terrorists.

If you really want to help refugees, don’t do it through government. I recommend you go to a neighboring country near the refugees’ home country, and/or use your own money and resources to help the refugees there. There’s nothing compassionate about using your American neighbors resources (via government theft) to help refugees, neither is it wise to endanger your American neighbors live and property in the process of trying to help others.

To save money, should the government allow individuals and families to sponsor refugees who pass a background check? Comment below!

RELATED:
The Immigration Crisis Solved: A Liberty Republican View
Rising American Support for Increasing Immigration
The Libertarian Angle: On Immigration, Obama Flexes Executive Power

Advertisements