If you cross into Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, you are going to receive the following: social insurance, mobile phones loaded with free cards, free health care, spending money, free housing, free language classes, free transportation passes on buses, metro, and trains, free child care, supplements for every child, free legal assistance in deportation cases, no personal responsibility for anything, and more rights than citizens.
On June 14, 1985 five countries, Belgium, France, West Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed an agreement in Schengen, Luxembourg to gradually abolish border checks at their common borders. At that time, there were ten members of the European Economic Community but only five chose to sign this agreement.
“Measures proposed included reduced speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints” and visa policies were “harmonized.”
The Schengen Agreement (SA), fully operational in 1995 only between the signatories, was incorporated into the European Union law in 1999 via the Amsterdam Treaty. Two members chose to opt out: the United Kingdom and Ireland.
SA currently includes 26 European countries, covering a population of over 400 million people and an area of 1,664,911 square miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement
The Schengen Agreement is the enabler that facilitated the European Invasion by able-bodied “refugees,” 20-40 year old men supposedly from Syria and a few women and children, who are really looking for better economic opportunities away from tribal wars in the areas in which they live. Instead of staying to make their countries better, they flee to specific countries like Germany and Sweden that have more generous welfare systems.
If these were true refugees, why are the majority young men, why are they fleeing instead of fighting and leaving behind women and children in the path of danger? And why are the surrounding Muslim countries refusing to take them in under the excuse that they are dangerous, when they speak the same language, share the same culture, religion, and Sharia Law? They are dangerous for the Middle East but not dangerous for the west?
Why is Saudi Arabia not taking in 3 million refugees to fill up the empty, air-conditioned tents in the desert? They can certainly afford it and it is the brotherly and humane thing to do. Unless there is an ulterior motive, one called hijrah.
Leaving a war zone to a neighboring country makes one a refugee. But the moment one steps out of one safe country and enters another safe country, one becomes an immigrant. Looking for a better place to live does not make one a refugee. And paying coyotes thousands of dollars, crossing illegally into many countries, with fake passports, makes one an illegal alien and a criminal.
The Guardian reported that these global “refugees” are now taking “long detours through Latin America to reach the U.S.” Five Syrian men had been detained in Honduras with fake Greek passports and eight Syrians turned themselves in at the Texas-Mexico border the week before in a sinister development that does not bode well for the United States. Migrants from Nepal, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Pakistan are joining “the flood of Central American migrants seeking refuge from violence” and the generous American welfare system.
According to the Guardian, Colombian investigators found that the trek from Asia or Africa to the U.S. via Latin America can cost upwards of $12,000. The five Syrians had passed through Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, and Costa Rica before were detained in Honduras. The Guardian cites Ecuador as having removed visa requirements for all nationalities and it thus became a major point of crossing for all traffickers. Is Ecuador accepting refugees? No, they just drop them at the border. http://gu.com/p/4ef3j/sbl
Our regime’s policy, to “welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety” is what we must do because “slamming the door in their faces would be betrayal of our values,” got an interesting response from Mark Krikorian – “Relocating refugees from the Middle East to the U.S. is morally wrong.” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427153/refugee-resettlement-immoral
His argument had nothing to do with the fact that it is impossible to adequately screen “refugees” from Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan because there are no databases to compare these refugees to. Even if we could somehow keep out the terrorists and only admit peaceful Muslims, “the goal is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available.”
Quoting the Center for Immigration Studies, Kirkorian said that “it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East.” The five-year cost of resettling one refugee is $64,000 while the U.N. indicated that a five-year cost for the same refugee in their native region cost $5,300. http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees
Kirkorian said that “each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money.” The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, “reports a $2.5 billion funding shortfall in caring for Syrian refugees in the Middle East.”
Can we and should we do both? As much as we are humanitarians and we like to help our peaceful fellow men, resources are finite and we should help our own poor citizens, our veterans, and our elderly first.
U.N. estimates put the number of refugees and displaced people around the world at 60 million. Can we afford social services for the 90 percent of refugees that would receive food stamps, SSI, 75 percent on Medicaid, and other welfare programs when they have little education and earning potential, pay little taxes, and would likely become wards of the state and the counties in which they would be settled?
Roy Beck of NumbersUSA.com made an interesting presentation in 2010 on “Immigration, World Poverty, and Gumballs,” asking the question, “Who deserves our humanitarian compassion?” According to the World Bank, it should be people who make less than $2 per day. By this yardstick, Beck said, there are 650 million people in Africa, 890 million in India, 480 million in China, 810 million in Asia, 105 million in Latin America, for a total of 3 billion, yet the United States takes in one million immigrants every year.
Unfortunately, our legal immigrants do not come from the $2/day group; they come from “the better-off poor,” with the majority from Mexico. According to World Bank, 5.6 billion people have an average income below Mexico’s.
Are we really making a dent in the world’s poverty rate even though we are importing legal and illegal immigrants regardless of the impact on our own people, on our own unemployment?
These poor countries add 80 million more impoverished people through their birth/death rate every year. We would never get ahead even if we took in 5 million immigrants each year, Beck said. We would just affect our own welfare.
The immigrants we take in are not the $2/day earners because they usually stay where they are. Beck concluded that “Immigration can never be an effective or significant way to help the suffering of the world. They have to be helped where they are. They must make their lives better where they live.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGIE
The small counties and towns were these “refugees” are resettled in the dead of night are ill-prepared to take them in; have no additional resources to care for their children in schools and in hospitals; subsidized housing is scarce; nobody speaks English; and do not know what mental health issues and diseases they may harbor in order to treat them appropriately.
As Ann Corcoran said, it is “dropping needy people” in the middle of small town America. The U.N. High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) chooses refugees without the approval of local residents. UNHCR is under the influence of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Corcoran said. “Not surprisingly, a large number of U.S. bound refugees come from countries with large numbers of people that hate us – Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon from Syria, just to name a few.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PzT8vEvYPg
Ann Corcoran explains in her video that “the U.S. State Department distributes the refugees to 9 major federal contractors:
- Church World Services
- Ethiopian Community Development Council
- Episcopal Migration Ministries
- Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
- International Rescue Committee
- U.S. Commission for Refugees and Immigrants
- World Relief Corporation
- Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services
- U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Six of these so-called religious charities are largely funded by U.S. Treasury.” The “refugees” are sent to 190 cities and towns in the U.S., particularly to states with largest Muslim populations - Texas, California, New York, Michigan, and Florida.
These “refugees” are given help for six months by 350 subcontractors around the country, then “they submit paperwork to admit the relatives of the first group.” Corcoran believes this is hijra (Muslim colonization) and wrote a book to explain it called “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.” How many Christians are among these refugees?
A shadow layer of government, non-governmental organizations with their unelected bureaucrats, faceless faith-based lobbyists, ignoring the wishes of the American people, with billions from the U.S. Treasury, is forever changing the dynamics and the demographics of our society. Many have asked, is this a stealth manufactured refugee crisis pushed by the U.N. and a forced social engineering scheme to redistribute the wealth of the west and to spread Islam in the cradle of western and Christian civilization?
Most Americans I know are not racists or xenophobes and don’t worry as much about the immediate or long-term forced immigration cost as they do about their own safety and survival of their country as a Christian nation. They do not trust their government to protect them.