10,000 Syrian refugees here? Or as Hillary wants, 65,000? Of course they're all being 'vetted' satisfactorily, so there's no worry about them being terrorists. (It says here in Obama and Democrat fine print.) But let's suppose there isn't a single one that is dangerous, subversive, or a terrorist. Am I the only one aged enough (81) to see the huge problem, here, in Germany, or anywhere refugees are admitted, even if none of them are dangerous? There is no possible way to 'vet' them, or for that matter even be sure they are disease free. That's why German doctors are horrified at the TB and other diseases brought to them, which they are not familiar with, and can't treat. If you have a fingerprint and a name, is that "vetting?" That's all the admitting bureaucrats will get, and that's why there should be NONE admitted here, and I'm sorry for the rest of the world that has done it. The 'rest of the world' is now beginning to see the error of their leaders' ways, it seems.
They speak no language in the nation they have been admitted to, be it Germany, Italy, Greece, or an English speaking nation. They cannot converse, and of course could never get a job to support themselves. Who will support them? Obviously, the various welfare system. In days of yore, when Ellis Island was in full bloom, and thousands of refugees tried to enter the US, they had to be disease free and have a job or sponsor. They were examined by doctors, and if they had disease, they were not admitted, but sent back on the boat which brought them. No job or sponsor? Sorry. No admittance. Millions of refugees from Syria, Africa, or wherever, cannot speak the language of the nation they have entered. If thy cannot support themselves, and cannot speak the language, they are instant welfare recipients. Not only welfare recipients, but usually will live in homes or compounds built and maintained by the nation which gave them entrance. A certain method of bankrupting a recipient nation, is admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees, not speaking the language of the nation to which they have been admitted. Welfare forever is what this entails. Obviously, all Arabic refugees should be sent to another Arabic nation where they speak Arabic! Not here, Germany, France, Greece, Spain, Italy, or what have you!
In the previous column, I gave five ways to get rid of illegals, and the following California statistics alone would get rid of several million. From the Los Angeles Times:
40% of workers in L.A. County work for cash and pay no taxes.
95% of warrants for murder are for illegals.
75% on the 'most wanted list' are for illegals.
2/3 of all births in L.A. County are for illegals and paid for by taxpayers.
35% of inmates in California jails are illegals.
Over 300,000 illegals in L.A. live in garages.
The FBI reports that half of gang members are illegals.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegals.
The Statue of Liberty
Of late, some Democrat bubbleheads are saying that Emma Lazarus' poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty, means that illegals and Muslims should be admitted. You know the lines, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free…." That poem, midst howls of outrage, was placed at the foot of the Statue in 1903. The Statue of Liberty was placed in New York Harbor in 1886, and believe me, "Liberty" has nothing to do with welfare or admitting poor, wretched, huddled masses. That poem is a disgrace to the world famous Statue of Liberty, because they are exactly direct opposites of each other. Bartholdi's gorgeous Statue was given and dedicated to a free nation, a nation loving liberty, freedom, and borders that were not open to fanatical Muslims, illegals crossing at will, violence, murder, and lawlessness. In 1886, America had closed borders and admittance was by application of sponsored, disease free, people who wanted to become Americans. Not to those who wanted to sponge off us or destroy us. In 1886 and even in 1903, when that abominable poem was placed there, America wasn't welcoming riff raff, criminals, anchor babies, and Koran devotees, whose sacred writing, in 100 places, instructs killing of non-believers or infidels. The title 'non violent Muslims' is a non-sequitur. If they adhere to their holy book, the Koran, there can be no such thing, because that book tells Muslims in may places that Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc must be killed, because they are 'unbelievers,' or 'infidels.' All non-Muslims are non-violent, because their holy book and teachings do not condemn unbelievers to death, but urge forgiveness, love, and understanding. There is violence in the Hebrew Scriptures, but at the hand, instruction, and power of God. That was 3,000 years ago, and is certainly not urged or taught now. A 'radicalized' or 'extreme' Christian would become a missionary. A 'radicalized' or extreme Catholic may become a priest, and a 'radicalized' or extreme Jew might become a rabbi. Killing non-believers is an exclusive with Islam. The Donald is correct. All illegals must go home, and no Muslims or others admitted.