GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said that the United States would have to accept some of the refugees who are fleeing war torn Syria.
Some might consider this statement in contrast to his comments about those beheading Christians and illegal immigrants coming across our borders. Is his comments hypocritical?
Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, Trump voiced his concern that some embedded in the bunch of refugees might be Islamic jihadists. That seems reasonable. After all, the Islamic State has openly said that it will infiltrate the West in the refugees.
So, why should we allow any one of these refugees in?
“But something has to be done,” Trump said. “It’s an unbelievable humanitarian problem.”
Yes, it is, but who is behind the humanitarian problem which is a result of what is going on in Syria? Isn’t it us sticking our nose where it doesn’t belong? Sorry, I’m not buying into the fact that we engage in all kinds of immoral and unconstitutional ventures into foreign lands, spilling American blood for God knows what.
Already we are seeing alleged “converts” to Christianity in exchange for asylum in Europe. How can one be sure these converts are genuine? Obviously, it is demonstrated in the fruit they bear. However, one would be wise to consider the taqiyya that is engaged by Islamic jihadis and question why they would wait till in Europe till conversion. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see tens of thousands of Muslims convert to Christianity, but what at what cost does their “conversion” come?
Trump said, “I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis you have to.”
Why? Why do we have to Mr. Trump?
While Trump rightfully laid the blame of the issue in Syria at the feet of Barrack Hussein Obama in not putting actions to his words concerning a red line he drew, the fact is that we have no business in Syria in the first place.
He did ask a good question though when he mentioned what some people are asking. “Why don’t you just let them fight out and you take out the remnants?”
Well, why don’t we? Why don’t we let these nomadic devils fight each other and kill each other without funding, training or arming them? Then, let’s see what happens.’
Trump claimed that those in Syria are “living in hell.” No doubt, they probably are, but is that the place of America and the West to just open up their arms to possible stealth jihadis, who have already said they will embed themselves in order to destroy the West?
Trump does understand the risks. I get that, but claiming we “have” to allow the refugees is without merit. It really is.
His GOP counterpart Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took an opposing view. The Daily Beast reports:
Ted Cruz, whose own father fled an oppressive regime decades ago, said Tuesday he opposed the U.S. taking in “large numbers” of refugees fleeing violence in Syria and elsewhere in the region.
“Sen. Cruz is advocating for humanitarian assistance to the refugees from both Syria and Iraq and north Africa,” Cruz spokesperson Catherine Frazier told The Daily Beast. “However, given the logistical challenges and the security risk posed by resettling large numbers of them far afield in the US, he is not in favor of this plan if the ultimate intent is to return them to their homes.
Frankly, I don’t see the consistency in Trump’s message. People in Central America face oppression too. It’s hard for them, but he takes a stand against illegal immigration. Here, he wants to allow some refugees, many who could be Islamic operatives, into America.
Perhaps, Trump could explain just how he plans to vet these refugees.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.