On the eve of September 11th, no less, President Obama directed his administration to prepare to accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. Responding to a humanitarian crisis that has galvanized the West, Obama is taking the high road without accepting that at least part of this crisis is his to own.
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson appeared on Fox News Sunday to make this point clear. According to Johnson, the refugee crisis is a direct result of the president’s swift Iraqi pullout as well as his failure to remove Syrian President Basher Assad. Furthermore, he said, Obama’s proposition to let in thousands of Syrians was a dangerous one. “It is not the fanciful to think that ISIS may be salting some of those refugees with some of their operatives and we need to be first concerned about our own national security,” Johnson said.
No, it’s certainly not fanciful, considering that ISIS has explicitly said that this is their plan. That puts enormous pressure on U.S. intelligence forces to make sure each and every Syrian is properly vetted before arriving on American soil. Unfortunately, given the state of our intelligence on the ground in Syria, that is easier said than done. Is it not possible that 19 ISIS operatives could sneak in amongst 10,000 refugees? Do we trust the federal government to be so efficient that this scenario is impossible? Come on. Not even sources within the military intelligence community will propose such a boast.
So what is the answer? Do we sit back and wait to see how the influx of Syrian migrants affects European countries that give them shelter? Do we abdicate any responsibility for the disastrous conditions we’ve created in their homeland? Do we boost the amount of money we give to the cause?
Perhaps we can administer a simple test of allegiance. There’s a lot to like about F.W. Burleigh’s proposition, which he writes about in American Thinker.
Here is the entrance exam that a sane country should give to each and every one of these migrants: Take them one at a time into a room. Hand him – or her – a copy of the Koran and say, “Tear it up.”
If they refuse, send them back to where they came from. If they accept, roll out the welcome mat. And if they rip it apart gleefully, with vengeful élan, throw in refugee benefits as well.
There is, of course, no version of this administration that would apply such a test. Politically incorrect to the extreme, you couldn’t find a single Democrat to support this test. And to be sure, it comes with a host of problems. It’s questionable whether or not we would be inviting allegiance by forcing Muslims to rip up their holy book. ISIS could hardly hope for a better piece of propaganda.
But he’s on the right track. Syrians (and any other immigrants) should have to demonstrate a willingness to embrace the ideals of their host country. And in the current climate, we have no obligation to house any refugee who puts his Islamic faith above his American patriotism. How do we test this without offending millions? Well, if the federal government feels capable of admitting 10,000 refugees without inviting violence, they should be able to handle a problem such as this. If they can’t, then maybe we shouldn’t be admitting anyone at all.