To The Daily Sun,
Dick Devens (in his letter of Sept. 17) wants our nation to accept many more Middle East Muslim refugees. If oil-rich, Muslim Saudi Arabia won't take any Muslim refugees from nearby countries, then I don't see why the U.S. should take any, especially considering our own difficulties and who the refugees are, the risks, and costs.
There are about 57 Muslim countries. The Muslim refugees would more smoothly integrate with those countries. Why don't they take the Muslim refugees? Perhaps the Muslim countries know something that most Americans don't know about the refugees.
We typically think of refugees as women, children, and old men, but the U.N. reports that 72 percent of the "Syrian" refugees are men, mostly young men (http://goo.gl/31yJ59). One wonders if these young men aren't willing to defend their families, homes, and countries, how much loyalty, respect, or help should another country expect from them?
ISIS has promised to infiltrate terrorists among the refugees. Apparently Muslim countries won't take the risk, why should we? The FBI director says these refugees cannot be vetted to exclude terrorists, that there are currently terrorist investigations in all 50 states, and many immigrants have already committed terrorist acts here.
In 2013 the U.S. accepted 240,000 immigrants and almost 40,000 refugees from Muslim countries. Between 2001 and 2013, the US has resettled 1.5 million immigrants from Muslim countries. As legal residents they are receive work permits (competing with American workers) and are entitled to full welfare benefits. (http://goo.gl/pqu6Kj)
Immigrants in general receive welfare at a higher rate than native Americans, but Middle East immigrants receive welfare at even a far higher rate. Almost all Middle East refugees receive at least one form of welfare, over 91 percent are on food stamps, almost 70 percent receive Medicaid or other Health insurance, over 68 percent receive at least one form of cash assistance, some get housing assistance, TANF, SSI, etc. (http://goo.gl/hGyGT7)
As wealthy as our country is, it apparently isn't wealthy enough to pay our current bills without borrowing from the earnings of our children and future generations. It's immoral to continue adding to the burden we pass on to future, even unborn, taxpayers so that we can feel good about ourselves today.
If Dick Devens feels so strongly about taking more refugees, perhaps he should personally house, feed, clothe, educate, provide health care and funds for the Muslim refugees ... and take the risk that they will behead him and his family.
Perhaps one reason why few Muslim nations accept these refugees is because these refugees are really part of an unarmed invasion of the Christian world, another tactic in their 1,400 year old plan for Muslim domination of the world. The Muslim goal is a world like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban where women are treated as slaves, suffer FGM and "honor killings". Gays and apostates are executed; and non-believers are executed or treated as second-class citizens.
There is nothing in our Constitution or the Judeo-Christian ethic that requires us to commit suicide as a nation or culture by letting into our country people who don't believe in our ideology, way of government, freedoms, culture, tolerance for diversity, and who have been killing people with different beliefs, non-Muslims and other Muslims, for over 1,400 years.
The U.S. foreign born population has grown rapidly from less than 10 million in 1960 to 40 million in 2010, not allowing time for assimilation and burdening American taxpayers. Considering our nation's debt, deficit spending, and unemployment problems, it seems to me that all immigration should be severely reduced, and immigration that burdens American citizens, that promotes diversity rather than assimilation, or that opens our nation to terrorism, must be ended.