Take these huddled masses…or else

“That’s not American.  That’s not who we are.”  President Obama dismissing GOP scrutiny of Syrian refugees

We are committed to increasing the number of refugees we take…” Secretary of State Kerry

“Germany is a strong country–we will manage.”–German Chancellor Angela Merkel

“New York City is a proud immigrant city and we will not turn our back on that history.”  NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio

Noting the above, a question remains:  Who is this “we”?  My father would rhetorically ask this question whenever he heard a politician bloviating and answer it himself wryly, “unless you have a gremlin in your pocket, all I see is you.”  A warning to be wary of silver-tongued demagogues, no doubt.  Speaking on behalf of an entire nation, or group, or city, is a tried and true political tactic used by the ruling class to confer legitimacy of action when pushing a particular agenda.  Except it is fraudulent.  No single person can know the thoughts and feelings of hundreds of thousands of people any more than a single central authority can plan and manage the actions of millions of people in a diverse economy (see collapse of the Soviet Union).

With respect to the current refugee crisis overwhelming Europe, progressives the world over tell us that “we” should fling open the gates and let in countless hordes of foreigners.  If anyone questions the method, speed, or wisdom of such action, they are labeled heartless or racist and that their behavior is shameful.  While I do empathize with the plight of the refugees, our political leaders should be making decisions based on logic, not on feelings.  When was the last time you made an emotionally charged decision that worked out well?  Rarely, mostly because emotion clouds judgment.

First off, I am for the free movement of labor and capital across borders–in theory.  However, when you have a welfare state, as most western countries now do, even the perception that new arrivals will take advantage of it will cause social strife.  The “huddled masses” crowd forgets that when that poem was written, America promised opportunity for a better life and a system of government that (mostly) left you alone to reap the fruits of your labor–and nothing more.  In Europe, with indigenous youth unemployment anywhere from 15-30%, is it logical to believe that a young Syrian, with cultural and language hurdles, will be able to land a job over a citizen of that particular country?  No, they will be on the dole, overwhelming a welfare system that can barely sustain itself as it is and thus hastening its demise.

Next, our leaders would have you believe rigorous security measures will be put in place to “vet” refugees, but that is a total fabrication.  One need only watch the countless videos of people literally pouring over barricades and through checkpoints as authorities feebly attempt to hold them back, not to mention the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino and lockdown in Belgium that were traced back to the shores of Greece or shoddy visa investigations to see that such claims are bald-faced lies.

Then, our leaders tell us that the refugees will assimilate and become productive members of western society, citing previous migration of Eastern Europeans to the West after the fall of communism.  Wrong again.  Most of that involved populations of people with cultural, linguistic, religious and many times, familial ties.  It also occurred over many years and under more strict border controls than exist today, as it was prior to the Schengen Agreement that eliminated border controls within most of Europe.

Even when there has been ample time for assimilation, it has not gone well.  Look no further than the banlieues, or suburbs, of major French cities.  Three generations of Moroccans, Algerians, and other Africans have still yet to assimilate in France, despite being granted citizenship, and have created their own “city-states” within the country that are essentially “no -go” zones for French authorities.  Turkish integration into Germany has fared slightly better, but integration of fairly secular Muslims over decades still had its share of problems.  With the Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghans now arriving, we’re talking about profoundly different cultures with very different values being dropped into the heart of Europe to the tune of 1M people in less than a year.

At the very least, there should be some basic questions asked here.  Why are the rich Gulf countries taking zero refugees?  If living under Islamic rule is so great, why are millions running the other way?  When did the rights of taxpaying citizens of any of these countries become subordinate to the rights of refugees?  Why are conservatives terrible people for asking these questions?

Bottom line, this is the left-wing modus operandi.  It’s about power.  It’s about being magnanimous…with other people’s money and resources.  It’s about foisting their vision of the world upon you, because they don’t have to deal with the real world ramifications of their policies.  They live cloistered lives in gilded extravagance, send their kids to private schools, have armed security details.  You have to go into town for groceries past the new refugee camp that is rife with violence and crime.  You have to send your kid to an overwhelmed state school where the ability to learn and general safety is now greatly diminished.  You have to try to protect your family and property without so much as a pop gun.  These “leaders” are so eager feed their own ego and blinded by building their legacy by bringing these people in, they never bother to ask “then what?”

Want a reasonable solution?  Look to Canada.  They have a system of private sponsorship of refugees, whereby community organizations, churches, and minority groups pool private funds to pay for refugees to resettle in Canada and find work.  A study actually showed that privately sponsored refugees become self-sufficient more quickly than those supported by the government.  Further, they will now only accept whole families or lone women and children; unaccompanied men will be turned away.

Sadly, it’s too late to implement this in Europe.  Here in America, why not have a popular referendum?  Rather than tell us how many refugees we must take, why doesn’t the President ask who among us would personally sponsor a refugee, tally up that number, subtract single and military age males, then get out of the way?  Then we’ll see who “we” are as a nation.  Then, and only then, will it truly be a solution that “we” can live with.