This refugee bill could win the GOP the election if they cared
War refugees at the railway station

This refugee bill could win the GOP the election if they cared

Posted October 02, 2016 06:00 AM by Daniel Horowitz War refugees at the railway station
Atilla JANDI | Shutterstock
    • Font Size
    • A
    • A
    • A


House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 53%) has made it clear that if voters reelect his party, he will promote jailbreak legislation, the biggest priority of George Soros. Imagine if his party would instead run on protecting the security and sovereignty of the people by returning to the states the power over refugee resettlement?

Now, Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa. (C, 76%) has a bill to do just that. Sadly, his bill — a reflection of amazing policy and a winning political strategy — is not as much of a priority as George Soros and creating a permanent Democratic majority.

Perry’s bill, similar to a plan I outlined in Stolen Sovereignty, would require that states affirmatively sign off on refugee resettlement proposals before the federal government and private [taxpayer-funded] refugee resettlement contractors can seed their communities with refugees. Under this legislation, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would have to first submit a plan to the relevant state legislature that includes all of the information concerning costs, criminal history, and health records of prospective refugees. They would also have to provide information regarding said refugee’s affiliation with any Muslim Brotherhood group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. Most importantly, any plan for resettlement must be ratified by the state legislature and signed by the governor, otherwise no refugees can be settled in that state. 

While immigration in general is a national policy and was designed to be dealt with at a federal level, as I explain in chapter eight of Stolen Sovereignty, refugee resettlement is different:

In some respect, refugee resettlement is a more destructive form of social transformation for local communities than any other form of immigration. Unlike other categories of immigration, refugees by definition do not go through the organic process of becoming immigrants. They are brought over and resettled, often in large numbers concentrated in specific localities, with no acclimation to American culture or the ability to support themselves. Despite the plethora of resettlement assistance programs run by the State Department, HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, and taxpayer-funded NGOs, most refugees wind up on the full array of welfare programs. Most important, they strain the public services and public education of the local jurisdictions that are forced to accept them.

Thus, communities are transformed in a matter of a few years (just look at Minneapolis), all at the behest of international officials, unelected State Department, and HHS bureaucrats, and parasitic contractors that have everything to gain and nothing to lose by endangering the communities and saddling them with a fiscal burden. The states and the taxpayers have no say in the matter.

As Congressman Perry said in a press release:

Instead of appeasing international organizations like the United Nations, however, this Administration should spend more time listening to the justifiable concerns of our state governments when it comes to refugee resettlement. At a time when political candidates are talking more and more about transparency, states and local communities are told simply to accept refugees from some pretty dangerous places - with no information about financial ramifications or assurances that these refugees have been properly vetted or vaccinated. Our communities are sick and tired of being dictated to from Washington and this legislation reflects that.

As we’ve noted before, the original law was never designed to function this way, but now it has placed this most pernicious form of social transformation without representation on autopilot. States were supposed to have input at every stage of the process, but unfortunately there is no hard-trigger written into law to grant states a veto power. While courts are granting refugee contractors standing to sue for more refugees, states are denied standing to sue President Obama for violating the advanced consultation clause of the Refugee Act.

No legal body in this country — from Congress to state legislatures — would approve the resettlement of tens of thousands of Somali refugees if they had to affirmatively approve it today. Unfortunately, in the most grotesque violation of the social contract and consent-based citizenship, the most radical forms of cultural transformation are in the hands of unelected entities. Scott Perry’s bill would right this ship and empower the people.

Refugee Arrivals

Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration - Refugee arrivals

Source: Department of State

Perry is right to be upset from his vantage point. Pennsylvania has been seeded with 3,200 refugees this year, one of the highest per capita. Relatively small cities like Harrisburg and Lancaster have been flooded with Somalis, Syrians, Bhutanese, Congolese, and Iraqis. Would even a small minority of the people in these cities support such a transformation if they had a say in their future? And this is just from one year, Obama plans to bring in another 110,000 beginning in October. Thanks to the GOP budget capitulation, this resentment is signed, sealed, and delivered.   

Individual conservatives who are caught in the tortured trap between Democrats, Trump’s antics, and the perfidious party leadership would be wise to run on Perry’s state empowerment bill. It fuses together a major national security issue that has captured the attention of the public with the principles of federalism and state and popular sovereignty. If the Left thinks turning middle America into the Middle East is so popular, why not let the states decide?    

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.