On Tuesday, while everyone was still focused on the aftermath of the Orlando terror attack, an Iranian man held his Walmart manager hostage in an Amarillo, Texas store before he was shot dead by the local SWAT team. The police were quick to deem this incident workplace violence, asserting that the Iranian man, Mohammad Moghaddam, was disgruntled over his manager passing him up for a promotion. Given that no innocent Americans were killed, the story never really gained traction.
Listen: “Is the GOP waving the white flag on Islamic Jihad in the U.S.?
However, there is something important to dissect here – a narrative that is growing with this silent social transformation (without representation) via refugee resettlement. Even if Moghaddam was motivated by a workplace dispute with his Walmart manager and not global Jihad, how many other people settle such disputes by holding their manager hostage at gun point? Although we cannot determine this man’s immigration status for sure, given that the authorities have no interest in divulging it, and the refugee resettlement groups declined to say whether Moghaddam was a refugee, it is very possible he came through the refugee program. He immigrated from Iran 8 years ago, first settling in the Bronx but then moving to Amarillo. Over the past decade, Amarillo has been seeded with many refugees from Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
Either way, with record numbers of immigrants being admitted from the Middle East, the broader question that must be asked is why are we bringing in so many people from areas of the world that have violent tendencies or cultures that are fundamentally incompatible with our democratic values? Much of the debate regarding refugees or immigration from the Middle East in general has centered around the ability to vet individuals for ties to specific known terror groups. It would be great if we had a political party that was even committed to that goal. But vetting only for known terrorists misses the point. It is premised on the notion that, by default, we must allow in everyone from anywhere in the world unless they already have established ties to terrorists. As I note in Stolen Sovereignty, these were never our values and priorities as it relates to immigration policy. Our Founders and early political leaders only wanted immigrants who enriched our society and exemplified our political values. Bringing in up to 150,000 immigrants a year from parts of the world that settle disputes with violence, live by Sharia law, treat women like chattel, and have a virulent hatred for Jews is not something we should ever bring into our country, even if it doesn’t invariably cultivate the climate of terrorism, which of course it does.
While there are clearly decent people from every country, some of whom desire to escape the values of their home counties, when we bring in such large quantities of immigrants from such decrepit parts of the world we are inevitably importing the values of that part of the world instead of a manageable number of individuals yearning to champion our values.
Again, the subversive culture of Sharia clearly cultivates the climate in which the children of some of these immigrants are drawn to jihad, but even putting the issue of terrorism aside, should we not be concerned with the social transformation of our democratic values and the culture of some of our small and mid-sized cities?
Let’s take a city like Amarillo, for example. It is a relatively small city in the heartland of our country. In recent years, without any input from the locals or state officials, the federal government – at the behest of private taxpayer-funded contractors – has resettled a couple thousand refugees from the most radically divergent cultures. Since 2002, according to the WRAPS State Department database, Amarillo has been seeded with 118 refugees from Congo, 674 from Iran, 393 from Iraq, and 584 from Somalia. There are no numbers on the secondary migration, but refugees are all on a fast-track to citizenship after which they can bring in family members and commence the chain of migration from the same countries of origin.
According to Watchdog.org, Amarillo has the most refugees per capita of any city. They quote a local activist who notes that 911 emergency calls in this heartland city are now fielded in 42 different languages and the city’s welfare, hospitals, schools and police are strained as a result of the precipitous social transformation.
A quick search of the WRAPS State Department database indicates that Glendale, Arizona has become the new hot spot for resettlement. A mid-sized suburb of Phoenix, Glendale has received 718 refugees just in this fiscal year alone. Most of them originate from Somalia, Burma, Syria and The Democratic Republic of the Congo. And the Syrian refugee flow is just beginning to explode.
This social transformation without representation not only violates the promise of federalism and governance by the consent of the governed, it violates the Refugee Act of 1980. The statute clearly directs the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to “insure that a refugee is not initially placed or resettled in an area highly impacted by the presence of refugees or comparable populations.” When making this determination the Director of ORR is supposed to take into account “the proportion of refugees and comparable entrants in the population in the area,” “the availability of employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources,” and “the likelihood of refugees placed in the area becoming self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance.” [Sec. 412. of the Immigration and Naturalization Act 8 U.S.C. 1522]
In addition to violating the conditions of refugee resettlement, Obama is violating federal law which requires the federal government to coordinate with local officials at every stage of the process, including “advance consultation with State and local governments.” Obama is now flooding the country with 100-250 Syrian refugees per day and state officials are not apprised of the resettlement even AFTER they are seeded, much less afforded an advanced consultation. Florida Gov. Rick Scott said that Obama refused to cooperate with his state in divulging information on the refugees. Obama egregiously concocted the right to privacy for foreign nationals while violating the preamble of the Declaration of Independence as it relates to the popular sovereignty of local citizens.
At this point we must ask the age-old question: where are Congressional Republicans? How are they not pushing back against Obama’s refugee program and defending the states with the same rigor Democrats are marshalling in pursuit of gun control? I guess they are too busy promoting the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda of “right wing extremism.”
Want to keep up with what’s going on in Washington without the liberal media slant, establishment spin, and politician-ese?
Sign up to get CRTV’s Capitol Hill Brief in your inbox every evening! It’s free!
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.