What now since Paris?

The Paris terrorist attacks have led to much soul-searching here in America. Sure, there are terrorist attacks on a regular basis, but when a western republic so similar to ours is hit it sends a collective chill down our spines. It’s now known that Syrian refugees who sought asylum in France took part in the terrorist attacks. With that knowledge, we reflexively do one of two things. We either immediately want to close the borders and keep something like this from happening here, or we lunge to the opposite side, longing to keep the spirit of the “huddled masses” alive, something that undoubtedly made our country great.

Which side is right?

To answer that question, one must first understand the evolution of immigration in this country. Up until a Supreme Court decision in 1875 that declared immigration a federal responsibility, individual states had their own immigration laws. The first major federal immigration law after the decision was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. At the request of California, the law prohibited anyone from China from immigrating to the United States. The reason being, Chinese laborers were driving down wages. The Immigration Act of 1891 expanded the list of reasons one could be barred from the country to include polygamists, criminals, and those carrying certain diseases.

Ellis Island opened the following year, ushering in the largest wave of immigrants the country had ever seen until it closed in 1954. It wasn’t until the 1920s that the concept of a passport came into being. It came from a conference at the League of Nations, which was replaced by the UN after World War II. The passport became a very important tool in regulating immigration. No longer could you just board a ship and head to America. You had to have the proper papers which each member nation recognized as demonstrating someone had legitimate business in a foreign land.

Naturally, there have been exceptions to normal immigration in time of crisis. One such exception that stands out in American history is the Mariel boatlift of 1980. An economic downturn in Cuba had caused a lot of Cubans to seek asylum in the Peruvian embassy. Castro eventually allowed them to leave Cuba for Florida. About 125,000 successfully made the trip. However, it was later learned that Castro released inmates from mental hospitals and prisons to join the refugees.

Which leads me to a salient point about today’s refugees.

We have a new wave of Syrian refugees coming to America. How do we know there aren’t terrorists among them like the ones who were granted asylum in France? Our State Department tells us they’re vetting them, but how does one vet an individual from a foreign country? They must depend on the intelligence provided by that foreign country. Who controls Syria? Bashar al-Assad, a man we’ve been actively trying to depose since Obama’s ill-fated Arab Spring and the whole “line-in-the-sand” business.

Castro loaded the boats with crazies and criminals. What on earth gives us any reason to believe Assad isn’t loading planes with terrorists bound for America? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and Assad is the weak link.

We also need to be asking why no Christian Assyrians from that region are being allowed to emigrate. There are an estimated 200,000 Assyrian refugees, but no one in this government seems too concerned about them. Why? And why are a disproportionate number of refugees men of fighting age? 

Bring us your huddled masses? Sure. Bring us your stealth terrorists? Absolutely not. We should be smarter. 


Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.