“Refugee or Infiltrator? Who's to Say?”
The dire humanitarian situations in Syria, Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere are of epic proportions but no longer making headline news even though massive numbers of people are continuing to flee brutal, totalitarian regimes. As the world gazes on, it seems obvious what to do to help these helpless people but that would mean the opening of borders. In a different time this would have been the answer but given the nature of today's enemy, this is definitely not the answer.
There is a growing dilemma, itself nearing crisis proportions, as the migration of people unfolds particularly evident in Europe with so many open borders where the majority of the refugees have fled. The rise of lawlessness is escalating at an alarming rate. Crimes such as rape, apparently acceptable to Islamists, are very high. Pedophilia is also rampant and terrorism is on rise.
Open countries which have made room for an increasing Muslim population are experiencing dramatic cultural changes. As their demographics shift toward higher concentrations of Muslim communities so does the demand for Sharia law, more money from taxpayer coffers for medical care, better living conditions and greater numbers of mosques.
Refugees and migrants are meeting resistance for fear of terrorists' activities such as the Paris massacre by ISIS. Questions have been raised with so many videos and photographs depicting large numbers of apparently healthy men of military age crossing borders. Women are conspicuously fewer in number. There have also been reports that many women and children were thrown overboard to drown. We are hearing that by sheer numbers alone, the massive movement of people represents more of an invasion than a migration.
One has to wonder if many of these men are not Islamic extremist infiltrators instead of refugees. We also must wonder why they are not fighting to retain their own homelands. Where are their families? Did they leave them behind to ease their own journey?
It has been reported that tens of thousands of migrants from various countries are using the Syrians and other war refugees as a reason for immigration to Europe when they otherwise could not. Flatly lying, they are telling European countries they are of Syrian or Iraqi nationality when they are not. These countries maintain no accurate data bases on their citizens so identification is almost impossible. This lack of information makes it impossible for the leaders of the Western world to assess who is truly a refugee versus who are infiltrators intent on establishing terror operations.
The refugee-migrant issue is compounded by the most vulnerable people of all, the Christians, who are truly fleeing physical brutality and loss of home and property. Moreover, they continue to be physically abused by Muslims while they are fleeing and seeking asylum. With the knowledge that Christians are the least likely to commit crimes, most countries are partial to opening their borders first to Christians. So now many Muslims, including those with nefarious intentions, are claiming to be Christians in order to enter countries on the backs of innocent people. To Muslims intent on engaging in acts of terror, this is an opportunity of a lifetime to gain a foothold in countries where access would have otherwise been denied. Like cancer, extremism spreads by metastasizing from country to country.
The bottom line for the civilized world is that none of the refugees or migrants can be accurately vetted. It's impossible to know their true identities or their true motives. Just as their nationalities cannot be established, neither can their religious affiliations.
The world is facing tough decisions. Do we continue to let the refugee-migrant in or not? Is it better to lean toward security or compassion which the enemy knows very well how to exploit? Where do we draw the line between common sense and nonsense?
Early on Israel made the tough, but correct, decision to protect her own citizens while still answering the call for help. They were one of the first countries to send in expert medical teams and equipment to care for the refugees as well as provide food and other necessities. Israel could not possibly allow people of unsubstantiated backgrounds to cross over her borders. The results would undoubtedly have proven disastrous.
Using Israel as an example, what else could be done? From a purely political perspective based on what we have been hearing so far, the left leaning person would be apt to let everyone in. The predictable drawback being more crime, more taxes and more burdens on the native people of the land. Turkey's President Erdogan said, "Linking migrant issues to terrorism is an effort to avoid humanitarian responsibility." But his country has not been rocked by Islamic violence. President Obama has spoken similar sentiments but is known to be soft on terrorist issues, even though at least one of the Paris attackers entered that country as a refugee. Even so, he is stepping up his program to assimilate 100,000 people over the next two years with no way to assure that none will be terrorists intent on perpetrating acts of terror in America.
A third possibility would come from both ends of the political spectrum and that would be to allow only the most vulnerable of refugees to come in which would be the Christians yet the President of the United States calls this "discrimination against people because of their faith."' Yes, this is true and, in this case, it is reasonable. After all, not one Christian has ever shouted "Allah Akbar" ("God" is greater) as they sliced the head off an innocent victim or rammed their vehicle into a crowded bus stop killing dozens of innocents.
The unfortunate thing is that we cannot be sure of the credibility of the professing Christian. The very people who understand God's will for themselves and for Israel cannot be validated. We cannot vet the profession of the truly Christian person in a natural way because, as we have seen, non-Christians are lying about their faith. This is truly a heavyhearted situation.
In America, while it goes against much of the country's wishes, the president is against "Slamming the door in their (migrants) faces" because it "would be a betrayal of our values." But what was the president's response to the Islamic terrorist attacks on Paris? He released more terrorists from custody at Gitmo!
Seems the president speaks harsher about the U.S. Congress than he does about ISIS. While the world is having a tough time figuring out which side he is on, decisions have to be made.
Being that the president is so soft, it's no wonder that so many of the governors of the United States of America are against letting any refugees-migrants into their states. The United Nations said not to let the refugees be turned into scapegoats but I say that until the world polices itself, let's not be foolish enough to let in potential people known for human brutality and the worst of bizarre behavior toward fellow human beings. Many of the Muslims who are calling themselves refugees are so hardened by their religious beliefs that assimilation into the values and culture of a non-Muslim country would be virtually impossible but "assimilation" is exactly what refugees and immigrants are expected to do.
Because there is no one solution to the refugee-migrant crisis, the best solution is a realistic one and this would be to use Israel's model. France is doing just that, ending open borders. Have the United Nations provide aid for those living in refugee camps. Let the Arab countries step up to the plate and make positive contributions. The UN would provide peace keeping within the camps given the religious fratricide.
As things stand today, this is the only reasonable means of aid and containment until the individual countries can solve their own problems. Each day as we pray to the God of Israel for the peace of Jerusalem, let's also pray for the leaders of the free world to have the wisdom of Solomon as they seek solutions to the global refugee crisis.
© Earl Cox
