We Need to Talk about Pakistan
It was either Voltaire, or Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, one of the founding fathers of the French Revolution, who observed that the now-former nation of Prussia “is not a state that has an army, rather an army that has a state.”
In contemporary times, that description aptly applies to Pakistan.
An examination of the history of Pakistan reveals several disturbing consistencies.
In Pakistan, few ‘elected leaders’ ever complete their tenure in office. These ‘leaders’ are either executed or jailed after Pakistan's the deep state stages a coup. The more fortunate manage to bribe their way out in exchange for being ‘exiled’ to a foreign country, where they live in great luxury.
Occasionally, army generals from the deep state who led coups to become leaders themselves become victims of a coup led by other factions. If the deep state does not eliminate them, the Islamists supported by factions in the deep state conduct an assassination.
The Pakistani deep state comprises of the armed forces, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the judiciary.
The deep state in Pakistan has ruthlessly used iron-fist tactics at regular intervals, to serve as severe warnings to ‘elected’ leaders who presume that their elected office gives them a license to develop a mind of their own.
The knowledge that they can be summarily dethroned or even eliminated perennially looms over every elected leader in Pakistan. Hence, they operate with the utmost caution, never daring to disturb 'equilibrium' as determined by the deep state.
In Pakistan, the news media is always on a tight leash. Media outlets that dare to be critical of the deep state are regularly shut down while journalists are hauled up for treason when they show any streak of independence.
Religious minorities such as Hindus and Christians are treated as non-persons, irrespective of what Pakistan's constitution may state. Places of worship for minorities such as temples and churches in Pakistan are either rapidly disappearing or are neglected.
In Pakistan, the Islamists are supreme. Among the Islamists, there are frequent killings and death sentences by the courts for blasphemy. Killers of blasphemers are celebrated and shrines are dedicated to them. Islamist groups held celebrations after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan following Biden's inept withdrawal. Even Pakistani Premier Imran Khan claimed that the Afghans were “breaking the shackles of slavery”
Pakistan has frequently masterminded and conducted terror attacks on its neighboring country, India.
They once hosted the most dreaded terrorist in the world, Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the architect of 9/11. Before he was captured in 2003, he was living comfortably in Pakistan. Pakistan also hosted Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. Palestinian terrorist Abu Zubaydah was also in Pakistan prior to his 2002 apprehension.
The final feather in Pakistan’s cap of shame was hosting 9-11 mastermind, Osama Bin Laden. He was living securely near a Pakistani army base.
Now for the situation in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has a unique relationship with Afghanistan. They share a 1,600-mile border. They have significant trade ties. They also have many cultural, ethnic, and religious links.
But it is also true that almost every problem that we see in Afghanistan today has the fingerprints of the Pakistani deep state.
During the '90s, Pakistan's deep state cultivated, shaped, and supported the Taliban. When the Taliban seized power by brutally executing Afghanistan's elected leader, Pakistan was one of the few countries to formally recognize the Taliban. This is the very Taliban that created a safe haven and training grounds for Al Qaida which conceived, planned, and conducted the 9-11 terror attacks.
After the 9-11 attacks, the chameleons in the Pakistani deep state positioned themselves as allies of the U.S. and even provided support for the airstrikes to the end of the Taliban rule.
At every juncture, the Pakistani officials are given substantial funds to fight the war on terror.
Since 2002, the U.S. gave over $14 billion to Pakistan as a form of reimbursement for their support in the war on terror. This is part of the $33 billion in total help that the U.S. has given Pakistan. President Trump was the only U.S. president to stop this practice upon learning of Pakistan's relentless treachery.
Pakistan is said to have supported the Taliban with arms, logistical support, and medical aid as they took over Afghanistan.
Despite Pakistan’s relentless treachery, U.S. politicians, both Republican and Democrat, and other U.S. officials have been relatively restrained in their criticism of Pakistan.
The reason they usually cite for their hesitation to confront Pakistan is nuclear weapons, i.e., the fear that if the state collapses, the nukes will be in the hands of the terrorists. Considering the deep connections between the Pakistani deep state and terrorists, there is always the likelihood of that happening.
Recently, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham reiterated that: “Any sustainable solution in Afghanistan must include Pakistan.” Graham also lauded the “efforts of the Pakistani government to assist with the evacuation of U.S. citizens, our allies, and other nations.”
Thus Pakistan has a standard strategy. They support terrorists behind closed doors and when they feel the heat around the corner they ‘assist’ the U.S. in the war on terror.
But the truth, as defense expert C. Christine Fair once said, is that Pakistan is an arsonist that is pretending to be a firefighter.
Einstein once said “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
What is the rationale behind this insanity in dealing with Pakistan that has produced no results?
A plausible reason is Pakistan has a strong group of lobbyists in the U.S. who neutralize unfavorable views of Pakistan and push Pakistan’s agenda to in the U.S.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that these lobbies are contributors to U.S. electoral campaigns, and if so, the financial support for Pakistan would be part of an implicit quid pro quo agreement.
This once again highlights the decay that is deeply rooted in the swamps of Washington.
Even the global media havee been relatively silent about Pakistan. The BBC shut down an expert who attempted to expose Pakistan.
The situation is dire. More wars and drone strikes in Afghanistan may solve the problem temporarily. But to achieve a lasting solution, the U.S. will have to target the roots of the problem which is Pakistan.
The following punitive actions must be taken if the U.S. really wants to resolve the problem of terrorism at its core
· Declare Pakistan to be a terror sponsor
· Stop all military aid and financial aid
· Withdraw support for loans for Pakistan from the IMF, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank
· Impose strict trade sanctions on Pakistan
· Downgrade all diplomatic relations
· Reduce visas for Pakistani nationals
· Shut down all lobbyists for Pakistan in the U.S.
· Order Pakistan to dismantle its nukes
After that, the U.S. must compel Pakistan to provide concrete proof for the following actions, if they want such punitive actions to end:
· Stop funding terror activities globally.
· Stop giving safe haven, training, and logistical support to terrorists
· Stop their nuclear program
· Stop assisting the Taliban
· Hand over terrorists and ‘political prisoners’ to relevant authorities
· Provide a safe haven for Afghan refugees and evacuees
· Stop meddling in India’s internal affairs
Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the U.S. will assess Pakistan's role in the last 20 years with respect to Afghanistan.
So are things about to change?
I respectfully recommend that you don't hold your breath.
Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License
Bringing Somalia to Minnesota
Imagine an agitated person who forms a career railing against doctors after learning of a surgeon who committed gross malpractice. That non-medically trained agitator uses questionable means to eventually become a hospital administrator to implement her radical policies of slashing budgets for medical care and personnel. To appease her, everyone in her hospital must follow her rage and ideology rather than proven medical science.
Who would go to that hospital?
Yet, this principle is what Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) seeks to inflict upon the law-enforcement community. This principle is in play in the wake of the recent ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court. When voters head to the polls, they will decide whether to eliminate the Minneapolis charter requirement of a police department, and replace it with a public safety department that “employs a public health approach.”
As Omar weighs in on this topic, she brings her considerable inexperience to the world of law enforcement. Once again weaponizing the power provided to her by Minneapolis voters and a sycophantic media, she accelerates as the bus careens off the cliff.
Firmly protected by the shields of others, Omar seems to enjoy a perverse pleasure in tarnishing precinct shields across her district and beyond. Why the people in Minnesota’s fifth district elected this woman remains a mystery, but the majority of citizens in her district evidently approve of her rhetoric, behavior, and agenda. Yet, despite her problematic rise to power and anti-Semitic controversies, the media and a woke-obsessed culture allow Ilhan Omar free to spew hateful ideologies with little pushback or consequences.
In the face of the rare challenge to her statements and policies, all Omar must do is cry “racism.” The pre-printed passes afforded to her flow quickly, and she continues unconstrained.
The rule of law serves as the anchor to a civilized society, and police officers function as the lynchpin for the peace. Entrusted with great authority, law enforcement possesses the ability -- and sometimes the mandate -- to wield lethal force. Sometimes, they get it wrong -- and sometimes, they are wrong.
Contrary to popular opinion, we as a species are not evolving in character. The seven deadly sins continue to plague human beings as they have for eons. The only change is our efficiency in exercising the darker parts of our souls – thus the need for checks and balances. Regretfully, law enforcement officers themselves remain subject to the same vices that afflict the human condition. For example, recent FBI hearings revealing the unchecked abuse of young girls in gymnastics demonstrate that even the highest law enforcement in the land get it wrong -- and lives suffered.
One cannot help but wonder why Omar chooses to not call for the defunding of the FBI on behalf of the lives of so many young girls who will live with lifetime trauma.
Local law enforcement officers are often easy targets for headline-hungry politicians. Maligning a profession based upon the actions of a few is low-hanging fruit to those striding the halls of power. Contrary to what we hope, division still serves as the currency of politics. Split a people, and you can emerge as a savior for one side -- who with the aid of their generous donations allow you to fight against this enemy you helped fabricate. It is a great racket that has made multimillionaires out of marginal people for decades.
Sadly, the nonstop media barrages slamming a fearful population often overpower common sense and critical thinking. Ignorance still exists as America’s greatest liability. It’s not as if our education system regularly promotes love of this country, respect for the rule of law, or even esteems the founding principles of the Constitution.
Ilhan Omar fled the poverty, corruption, and lawlessness of Somalia. Sadly, she seems intent on remaking what she left. The Department of State’s Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) maintains dire warnings about Ilhan Omar’s native country. As violent crimes and murders hit record numbers in her district of Minneapolis, Omar seems eager to lend her roots of lawlessness and division to the ongoing decline of one of America’s great cities.
Applying her policies to the current challenges in her home country might prove enlightening to all. Until such an exercise is attempted, it seems Omar is content to inflict her ideas on the state of Minnesota and America. The country she represents in Congress takes an unfavorable view of Ilhan Omar’s birth country. Categorized at Level 4, the State Department indicates “…travelers should not travel to the country due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health issues, kidnapping, and piracy.”
Sadly, that description sounds eerily like Omar’s district. Unless voters in Minneapolis wish to find their city and homes receiving warnings like the State Department’s against Omar’s home country, they might want to reconsider whom they entrust with power.
Michael A Letts is the CEO and Founder of In-VestUSA, a national grassroots non-profit organization that is helping hundreds of communities provide thousands of bulletproof vests for their police forces through educational, public relations, sponsorship, and fundraising programs.
Image: AMISOM Public Information
Bringing in Afghan Refugees with All of Their ‘Luggage’
What's not being talked about.
Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban and American forces are withdrawing. As with such ventures, this has resulted in tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees fleeing their own country. And as night follows day, this has also resulted in calls by many American individuals and organizations to bring in as many of those refugees as possible, because we “owe” it to the Afghans.
To hear such claims, one would think that these many thousands of refugees will immediately become part of America, sharing our values and ideas, and contributing to our communities.
What is not being talked about are the values, ideas, and culture those refugees are bringing with them.
In order to better understand the people many are calling to be brought in by the tens of thousands, let’s look at some considerations about the society from which these refugees are coming.
National Security
There are two national security issues that must be acknowledged.
First, a 2019 study found that 13% of Afghans had a lot of (4%) or a little (9%) sympathy for the Taliban.[1] This means that for every 100,000 Afghan refugees brought into the United States, we could expect about 13,000 of them to have varying degrees of sympathy for the Taliban.
Then we need to take into consideration that 39% of Afghans think that “suicide bombing” in defense of Islam is often or sometimes justified.[2] If we use the 4% number for those with a lot of sympathy for the Taliban, this means that out of every 100,000 Afghans we could have up to about 1,560 Afghans believing that “suicide bombing” could often be justified.[3]
Combining these two issues means we could be bringing in a potentially significant base of support for a jihadist group; and that base of support could include a large number willing to engage in jihadist attacks in the United States using explosives.
History of Violence
Then there is Afghanistan’s violent history. What is the impact of this history on many of those refugees we are bringing in? Consider this 2018 article:
…Afghanistan is home to nearly two generations that have grown up knowing only conflict and war. As a result, violent and aggressive behavior—particularly from young men—has become an accepted norm of Afghan society…a significant number of Afghan youth have become involved in organized crime or other illegal—and often violent—activities to fulfill their perceived obligations and duties to family…In many parts of Afghanistan, displays of aggression and intimidation represent a rite of passage for adolescent boys and a symbol of manhood for men. The social acceptance of such behavior, however, heightens the risk that intolerance of diversity and interpersonal violence, including violence against women and children, become an everyday fact of life. A 2009 report…described violence as “an everyday occurrence in the lives of a huge proportion of Afghan women.”…a majority of Afghans are exposed to violence beginning at an early age, including physical abuse at home by parents and relatives as well as the liberal use of corporal punishment at mosques, madrassas, and schools. Children witness their mothers and sisters being violently abused at the hands of family members, which comes to be accepted as a social and cultural norm, resulting in the acceptance of violence as a first—and sometimes only—option for resolving conflicts.[4]
We are importing from a culture of violence.
Rights of Women
What is the attitude many of these refugees have toward women? Here are two assessments:
Women and girls in Afghanistan continue to face widespread discrimination and human rights abuses. The country ranks among the least favourable on the Gender Inequality Index and the literacy rate for women is among the lowest in the world. Violence against women and girls is rife and the majority don’t go to school.[5]
And,
About two-thirds of men thought women in Afghanistan had too many rights and that women were too emotional to become leaders, compared to less than a third of women. And while nearly three quarters of women said a married woman should have equal rights with their partner to work outside the home, only 15 percent of men agreed. More than half of men also agreed with the statement that “more rights for women mean that men lose out”.[6]
Wife-beating is largely acceptable in Afghanistan:
Overall, 92 percent of women in Afghanistan feel that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife for at least one of these reasons: going out without telling the husband, neglecting the children, arguing with the husband, refusing sex, and burning the food. Seventy-eight percent of women believe that going out without telling the husband is justification for beating, while 31 percent think the same about burning the food…The Afghanistan survey added an additional question to reflect local attitudes—wearing inappropriate clothes. Sixty-three percent of Afghan women feel a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife if she wears inappropriate clothing.[7]
94% of Afghans completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband,[8] and two-thirds of Afghan men agree or strongly agree with the statement, “Women in Afghanistan have too many rights.”[9]
Considering the information in this and the previous section, it is not surprising to hear this warning from Pierre-Marie Seve, the director and spokesman of the French think tank Institute for Justice. He noted that migrants are over-represented in nearly all categories of crime [in France] and stated that Afghans, in particular, commit more crimes than asylum seekers from other countries.[10]
Prepubescent Marriage
Prepubescent marriage is acceptable in Afghanistan. In 2016, the Pew Research Center released a report titled “Many countries allow child marriage.”[11] An appendix to that report titled “Marriage Laws around the World” provided this interesting information about approaches to child marriage in Afghanistan:[12]
Despite a law setting the legal minimum age for marriage at 16 (15 with the consent of a parent or guardian and the court) for girls and 18 for boys, international and local observers continued to report widespread early marriage… By law a marriage contract requires verification that the bride is 16 years of age, but only a small fraction of the population had birth certificates…some girls as young as six or seven were promised in marriage, with the understanding the actual marriage would be delayed until the child reached puberty. Reports indicated, however, that this delay was rarely observed and young girls were sexually violated by the groom or by older men in the family, particularly if the groom was also a child.
Will instances of prepubescent marriage soon be coming to your community or to a community nearby?
Sharia as the official Law of the Land
Afghans almost uniformly agree (99%) that Sharia should be the official law of the land.[13] And among those Afghans who say Sharia should be the law of the land, 61% say it should apply to all citizens.[14]
81% of the Afghans who support Sharia as the official law of the land favor corporal punishments for theft; 85% favor stoning as the punishment for adultery, and 79% favor the death penalty for apostasy.[15]
In terms of honor killings for pre- or extra-marital sex, 60% of Afghans believed honor killings of women were often or sometimes justified; 59% believed the same about killing men in those circumstances.[16]
These are majority views among Afghans that are incompatible with American values and laws.
Integrating into American society
The Afghan values and beliefs mentioned above are major hurdles to the idea of Afghans integrating as a group into American society. In addition, only 5% of Afghans speak English,[17] and the adult literacy rate is only about 43% (although the numbers vary). 66% of Afghans believe Western popular culture harms morality in their country,[18] and 96% believe that trying to convert others to Islam is a religious duty.[19]
These are not harbingers of widespread social/cultural integration by these refugees into American society.
Conclusion
Those on the side of bringing tens of thousands of Afghan refugees into the United States have been able to rely on noble sounding rhetoric and emotional arguments to confront those who are not as enthusiastic about that venture.
However, the facts presented in this article show that in reality these refugees are coming from a culture and a land whose values and history are completely different from, and largely incompatible with, those of the United States.
What is being generally overlooked is that there are more socially/culturally compatible countries for these refugees that actually border Afghanistan. Perhaps what we might “owe” these refugees is assistance in finding refuge in those neighboring countries.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.
[1] “A Survey of the Afghan People, Afghanistan in 2019,” The Asia Foundation, p. 315, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019_Afghan_Survey_Full-Report_.pdf.
[2] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” Pew Research Center, April 30, 2013, pp. 29 and 70, https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
[3] For why it is not accurate to use the term “suicide bomber” in these circumstances, see my article “Suicide or Paradise?” Arutz Sheva 7 – Israel National News, June 7, 2017, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20604.
[4] Belquis Ahmadi and Rafiullah Stanikzai, “Redefining Masculinity in Afghanistan,” United States Institute of Peace, February 15, 2018, https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/02/redefining-masculinity-afghanistan.
[5] Gender Focus, UNICEF, accessed on August 27, 2021, https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/gender-focus.
[6] Sonia Elks, “Afghan men oppose more women’s rights; elders less hardline,” Reuters, January 29, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-women-equality/afghan-men-oppose-more-womens-rights-elders-less-hardline-idUSKCN1PN0TZ.
[7] Donna Clifton, “Most Women in Afghanistan Justify Domestic Violence,” PRB, September 13, 2012, https://www.prb.org/resources/most-women-in-afghanistan-justify-domestic-violence/.
[8] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” Pew Research Center, April 30, 2013, p. 93, https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
[9] “Afghanistan Flash Surveys on Perceptions of Peace, Covid-19, and the Economy: Wave 1 Findings,” The Asia Foundation, 2020, p. 43, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Afghanistan-Flash-Survey-Wave-1_fullreport_.pdf.
[10] Chris Tomlinson, “French Think Tank Warns Afghan Migrant Increase Means Increased Crime,” Breitbart, August 28, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/08/28/french-think-tank-warns-afghan-migrant-increase-means-increased-crime/.
[11] Aleksandra Sandstrom and Angelina E. Theodorou, “Many countries allow child marriage,” Pew Research Center, September 12, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/12/many-countries-allow-child-marriage/.
[12] “Marriage Laws around the World,” Pew Research Center, https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/09/FT_Marriage_Age_Appendix_2016_09_08.pdf.
[13] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” p. 15.
[14] Ibid., p. 48.
[15] Ibid., pp. 52, 54 and 55.
[16] Ibid., p. 89.
[17] “A Survey of the Afghan People, Afghanistan in 2019,” p. 336.
[18] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” p. 136.
[19] Ibid., p. 112.
Migration Groups Want $8 Billion for Afghan Migrants
Handout/Bundeswehr via Getty Images
2 Sep 20210
4:49
Pro-migration groups want at least $8 billion in Americans’ money — and a new citizenship law — to help fast-track at least 50,000 mostly unvetted Afghan migrants, according to the Washington Post.
“The number we’ve been floating around, just on the back of the napkin, is $5 billion for [the Department of Health and Human Services], $2 billion for [the Department of] State, and $1 billion for [the Department of Homeland Security], at a minimum,” said Mark Hetfield, president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
The advocates also told the Washington Post that they want the incoming Afghans to jump the line in the nation’s asylum courts. The line is several years long because Democrats have allowed at least two million Central American migrants into the United States since 2009 under the claim that they need asylum from crime and poverty. The Post reported:
Congress could create a mechanism to allow them to “adjust” to legal permanent residency, aid groups say, along the lines of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 or more recent programs to aid Iraqis.
The [Afghan] parolees could apply for asylum, stating a fear of persecution if returned to Afghanistan, but the U.S. asylum system is badly overloaded by applicants from the Mexico border.
A survey by Rasmussen Reports shows that the public does not approve of the Democrats’ rush to naturalize tens of thousands of Afghans. A majority of Americans oppose the resettlement of more than 50,000 Afghans in the United States, according to an August 18-19 survey of 1,000 likely voters by Rasmussen.
Refugees walk through the departure terminal to a bus at Dulles International Airport after being evacuated from Kabul following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan on August 31, 2021, in Dulles, Virginia. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Many of the migrants could impose more chaotic diversity to Americans’ society, in part, because many are fundamentalist Muslims who lack passports.
Many pro-migration lobby groups are lavishly funded by wealthy pro-migration donors, including Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, and others who hide their identity.
But the groups say they cannot get access to usual spigots of taxpayer cash because many Afghan migrants are being sneaked into the United States via small a side door in U.S. immigration law.
For example, only a few of the Afghans fought alongside the U.S. military, so only a few can get “Special Immigrant Visas” (SIV) created by Congress.
Also, only a few of the migrants were legally approved as refugees amid the rush by thousands of Afghans into American aircraft.
Afghan citizens pack inside a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III, as they are transported from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Afghanistan, August 15, 2021. The Taliban on Sunday swept into Kabul, the Afghan capital, after capturing most of Afghanistan. (Capt. Chris Herbert/U.S. Air Force via AP)
So most of the roughly 20,000 migrants now in the United States were allowed into the United States via the little-used “parole” side door in U.S. immigration law. The parole side door was intended for a few charitable cases such as sick passengers on an international flight, “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” according to federal law.
President Joe Biden’s border chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, may try to admit 50,000 Afghans via the parole door, Hetfield told the Washington Post.
The requested $8 billion in cash “would give [Afghan] parolees the same amount of assistance as refugees or SIVs would get,” Hetfield said.
The changed citizenship laws would allow the paroled Afghans to quickly win green cards and citizenship, many of whom lack vital identification documents or even endorsements by U.S. soldiers. That fast-track process could deliver tens of thousands from Afghanistan to the polling booths by 2028.
Afghan refugees arrive at Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia while en route to military facilities in the U.S. (Jack Gruber-USA TODAY)
Meanwhile, many millions of Americans are unemployed, earn little money, and have difficulty paying their rents. Much of that economic distress is caused by the federal government’s policy of encouraging migration into the United States.
Overall, Biden’s government is expected to import 1.6 million migrants in 2021, or roughly one migrant for every two American births in the year. This policy extracts many new workers, consumers, and renters from poor countries for the benefit of U.S. employers, investors, and government agencies — and also to eventually deliver many potential voters to the Democratic party.
This policy of extraction migration damages ordinary Americans’ career opportunities, cuts their wages, and raises their housing costs.
More migration also means that coastal investors can hire cheap foreign labor on the coasts instead of investing in heartland jobs or deploying wage-boosting robots. Immigration also shrinks Americans’ political clout and wrecks their open-minded, equality-promoting civic culture.
Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.
Study: Over Half of Migrants Are on American Taxpayer-Funded Welfare
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
2 Sep 20210
3:09
More than half of the nation’s non-citizen population — including legal immigrants, foreign visa workers, and illegal aliens — use American taxpayer-funded welfare after arriving in the United States, a new analysis reveals.
Research by Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarota finds that about 55 percent of non-citizen households in the U.S. use at least one form of welfare compared to just 32 percent of households headed by native-born Americans.
Camarota’s research analyzes the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation data from 2018, showing that 49 percent of households headed by foreign-born residents, including naturalized American citizens, use at least one welfare program.
In 2017, economist George Borjas called the U.S. immigration system “the largest anti-poverty program in the world” at the expense of America’s working and middle class.
(Center for Immigration Studies)
Specifically, foreign-born residents used vastly more Medicaid compared to native-born Americans and food stamps. For example, while 33 percent of foreign-born residents use Medicaid, just 20 percent of native-born Americans do so.
Likewise, while 31 percent of foreign-born residents are on food stamps, only 19 percent of native-born Americans use the program.
Camarota’s research reveals that even after years and years of residing in the U.S., foreign-born resident households continue to use high levels of welfare.
About 44 percent of foreign-born residents who resided in the U.S. for 10 years or less use at least one form of welfare. Roughly 50 percent of those who resided in the U.S. for more than 10 years are on welfare.
When naturalized Americans are excluded from that count, the level of welfare use rises significantly for those who have resided in the U.S. for a while. For example, among non-citizen households who resided in the U.S. for 10 years or less, 40 percent use welfare. For those in the U.S. for more than 10 years, about 62 percent are on welfare.
The latest data comes after similar numbers were released in March 2019 that showed that, in 2014, non-citizen households used nearly twice as much welfare as native-born Americans.
Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. This is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000. The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year — more than 1.5 million annually — are low-skilled foreign nationals who go on to compete for jobs against working class Americans.
At current legal immigration levels, the Census Bureau projects that about 1-in-6 U.S. residents will be foreign-born by 2060 with the foreign-born population hitting a record 69 million.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Report: Afghans Arriving at U.S. Military Bases to Get $1,250 Payments
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
2 Sep 20210
2:30
Afghans arriving in the United States and being temporarily resettled at U.S. military bases will receive one-time payments from the State Department, funded by American taxpayers.
As Breitbart News reported, President Joe Biden’s administration is looking to turn various military bases in Texas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, New Mexico, and Indiana into refugee camps that can accommodate about 50,000 Afghans.
Most of all Afghans headed to military bases for temporary resettlement are arriving on “humanitarian parole,” which does not expire for at least two years. These Afghans are not eligible for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), P-2 visas, or refugee status.
According to the Washington Post, Afghans arriving at military bases will secure a $1,250 one-time payment provided to them through the State Department and funded by American taxpayers.
Among the Afghans arriving in the U.S. — from Dulles International Airport in Virginia and Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania — are those who have little-to-no ties to America and many who do not have the most basic paperwork to prove their identities. The Biden administration, the Post notes, has yet to disclose what they are doing with Afghans who fail the vetting process.
Last week, Bloomberg reported that Afghans flagged with “ongoing security concerns” may still be resettled across the U.S. with some monitoring by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This week, top Biden officials confirmed that Afghans “flagged for concerns” have sought entry to the U.S.
Over the last 20 years, nearly a million refugees have been resettled in the nation — more than double that of residents living in Miami, Florida, and it would be the equivalent of annually adding the population of Pensacola, Florida.
Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment