Immigration as Economic Warfare

By Kevin Freeman
September 26, 2015Sep 26, 2015

There is a clear crisis in the Middle East. Depending on who you speak with, this crisis is either Bush's fault for the "ill-advised Iraq War," or Obama's fault for leaving a power vacuum in the region with the withdrawal of our troops and his failed "red line" in Syria, or Secretary Clinton's fault for having a foreign policy messed up even more than her email account. Regardless of who you want to blame (and some will blame all three), there's no doubt that the region is troubled.

The conflict in Syria and surrounding areas has resulted in (according to The Washington Post250,000 people killed and around 11 million displaced. At least four million have fled with many headed toward Europe and the United States. This is a tragedy of increasingly enormous proportions.

For the purpose of this blog, one critical question arises. Is this tragedy being exploited as an act of economic warfare against the West? Frighteningly, the answer appears to be YES. This isn't simply a crisis and opportunity for compassion. There are very real threats emanating and we must be prepared to counter them.

The first of the threats is that the Western system is at risk of overload from the mass influx of refugees. This isn't conjecture. It's not radical theory. It's the consensus awareness of thoughtful Europeans as articulated by Donald Tusk, former Prime Minister of Poland who heads the European Council. From the UK Express:

Migrant crisis: EU has ‘lost control of borders and is in danger of collapse'

Daily Express – September 24, 2015

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, warned the EU was now facing a "critical point" and that the migrant crisis hadn't even reached its peak.

As he chaired an emergency meeting of EU leaders in Brussels last night Mr Tusk painted a bleak picture of the EU's future, saying the 28-member bloc was on the verge of breakdown with "recriminations and misunderstanding" pitting nations against one another.

The future of free movement was at stake, he said, as the continent had lost control of its borders as well as a "sense of order".

It's of course not just Europe. Americans are taking in refugees as well. We've taken from the Middle East and there are more refugees on the way. But there are also refugees from Central and South America. And the combination is already stretching our resources. It was already an issue when we had young people streaming across our Southern border. Adding hundreds of thousands and soon to be millions of Middle Eastern migrants will cause us the same struggles as are now faced in Europe. As we resettle refugees in increasing numbers, we see our system strained in a multitude of ways.

Frighteningly, there are some who seek to overwhelm the system as a political act with the hope of collapsing it. This crisis creation then allows a reform and reworking of the system. Those who create the crisis gain control. This is basically the Cloward-Piven strategy. And it is working. From Breitbart last year (July 11, 2014):

The Cloward-Piven objective of this manufactured crisis is to overwhelm the American immigration system, crushing it under a human wave so that Obama can "reform" it into something more to his liking, with an endgame of 12 million or more new Democrat voters. That objective might have been made a shade more difficult by growing public anger over the immigration wave, in the sense that a "comprehensive immigration reform" deal in Congress is deemed less likely this year… but what's stopping Obama from writing a couple of amnesty executive orders, to the thunderous applause of immigration activists?

But what if the strategy isn't solely from the inside egged on those who want to "reform" the system? What if it is being perpetrated by well-educated haters of America who would like to see us implode altogether? Rome fell because of both internal corruption and failure as well as external hordes of "barbarians at the gate." Yet, using an immigration-overwhelm strategy might be a brilliant although overwhelmingly evil strategy to destroy America and the West. Do not doubt that such brilliance exists and has the motive, means, and opportunity to undertake such evil.

Even if the system isn't overwhelmed in the short term (and the jury is still out on that one), the long-term drag will certainly do the trick. We can no doubt afford the initial welfare and support payments for all the new people coming. But that doesn't include the societal costs of education on the positive side or negatives such as increased crime and other social strains. The Heritage Foundation took a look at just a few of the costs per unlawful immigrant household in 2013 (based on 2010 dollars). They concluded that the net impact per household was a negative $14,387. Essentially, these households take over $24,000 in benefits and pay around $10,000 per year in taxes. Now, that is for unlawful (illegal) immigrants. The benefits for refugees are higher because they are given lawful status with government-funded advocates to help them maximize their benefits received. According to Heritage, the net deficit is closer to $28,000 per household annually for documented immigrants. When you add it all together, the amount will ultimately be measured in the hundreds of billions annually and as much as $6.3 trillion over the immigrant's lifetime.

The fact that we pay people who come here has not gone unnoticed by potential enemies. In fact, radical jihadists stand amazed. We've covered this sad reality in two earlier blog posts:

Financial Jihad via Welfare? – Global Economic Warfare

Feb 19, 2013 – There has been outrage that some have viewed our generous welfare systems in Western Economies as a means to fund Jihad. There are …

Financial Jihad via Welfare? Part Two

Apr 24, 2013 – On February 19th, we posted about how a Muslim preacher was urging followers to take advantage of the welfare system to fund jihad….

It is insane to ignore the ideologies of those brought into a nation when those ideologies are hostile to the host nation. Amazingly, ideology is not a consideration due to political correctness. Actually, that may be a false statement. It seems in some cases that ideology may be the primary consideration. The problem is that hostile ideology seems to be favored.

It is not a stretch to declare that America has been primarily a Judeo-Christian nation. Although often denied today for political correctness, this is historical fact. Yet, our Middle East refugee policy clearly favors Muslims over displaced Christians and Jews despite the fact that there is a Christian genocide underway. This combination, based on our government's policy, has created a massive tilt toward Islamic immigration. While the left fervently demands separation between Church and State, the Administration's policy seems to be establishing one religion over another in our immigration efforts.

This has not gone unnoticed by the growing Islamic influx. In fact, those demanding Shariah Law are clearly emboldened. In one incident, a parent demanded a Muslim holiday from a New Jersey school board. Even though the school board explained the hardship of shutting down the school for a minority request and offered a fully excused personal absence for religious reasons, the demand continued. Everyone must recognize the Muslim holiday. The school board shared that two prominent Jewish holidays were treated similarly but that was unsatisfactory. When her request to shut down school in observance was denied, the parent gave a stark warning.  She said, "We will be the majority soon." The intention was clear. Once a majority, many Muslims intend to force Shariah on the rest of America. Many immigrants agree and would prefer Shariah over the U.S. Constitution. And for those who doubt that Shariah and the Constitution are mutually exclusive, please read Bill Federer's excellent analysis at WND. You have to pick one of the other. Therefore, it is problematic when we open our nation to immigrants who desire to subvert the Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.

According to a recent WND story, CAIR (Council on America-Islamic Relations) national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper stated:

"If Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God's law is superior to man-made law."

Now, we must be clear that there are Muslims who have fled repressive regimes and do not want to impose Shariah on themselves let alone their new adopted homeland. But that creates a problem. We aren't making any distinction upon admission. Is it at all rational to bring in immigrants who want to subvert the government and replace the Constitution?

With this in mind, consider all of the criticism leveled at Dr. Ben Carson for saying he would not want a Shariah-follower as President. But he's right. Shariah law is antithetical to our Constitution.

Lest you think this hyperbole, consider what is happening in the United Kingdom right now. See this report from CNN International. It is clear that the push to convert Britain to an Islamic State has been increasing and will only move more quickly with further immigration.

There are many former Christian nations that have been conquered either by the sword or immigration. We know the Middle East, the birthplace of Christianity, has been ethnically "cleansed" of Christians and Europe is viewed as next by radical Islamists.

Almost daily there are reports from Europe in multiple news outlooks of problems in once-sleepy communities where the immigration influx has forced a massive cultural shift. This is undeniable. What is also becoming obvious is that some of the refugees aren't traditional refugees at all. They see this as a chance to get to Europe even if not fleeing devastating conditions at home.

Consider this report  from the 9/26/15 Daily Mail:

‘We paid a trafficking agent for false visas to fly here to Germany,' says 34-year-old Atif. ‘We claimed asylum and came to Giessen camp with other migrants. Three weeks ago, because we had families, they gave us a proper home.' Atif is well-dressed and speaks perfect English. He used to be a transport manager at Karachi airport and is from a well-to-do family. Between mouthfuls of curry, he adds: ‘But there is violence between political gangs in Karachi. Lots of people are leaving for Europe. The trafficker decided that Germany was the place for us because it is welcoming refugees.' Yet the raw truth is that Atif is not fleeing war or persecution. He is one of thousands of economic migrants getting into Germany as the EU's immigration crisis grows bigger each day.

Now, if immigrants could claim refugee status, pay for false visas, simply to enter Germany for improved economic opportunity, could someone enter for the express purpose of taking over the culture for Shariah? Of course! In fact, that concept has been promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood. Consider this from Muslim Brotherhood scholar Yusuf Qaradawi.

The Muslim Brotherhood and others clearly want to take advantage of this crisis to promote their global conquest agenda. Of course, that was from 2007. Here is a similar message being preached this year on September 11th.

Notice in the video clip that the rest of the non-Muslim world is blamed for lacking compassion despite the willingness to accept thousands of refugees. The West does not get credit. In the eyes of some, we lose regardless.

Now, stop for a moment. Radical Islam has created the Middle East crisis and radical Islam is attempting to exploit the crisis to infiltrate the West. This awareness is essential understanding as we formulate immigration policy. To our enemies, immigration is a means of economic and cultural warfare.

ISIS has a three-fold plan to subvert the West during this crisis. First, they want the fighting to draw the West into an expensive conflict, draining our resources both in fighting and humanitarian relief. This was bin Laden's original plan and his purpose was economic as shown in this clip from For the Record's Unrestricted Warfare episode (that's the same episode that featured our work).

Just as one example of the financial burden, we have spent a literal fortune training and equipping locals in the Middle East who have promptly handed over our equipment to radicals. A half-billion dollars was lost in Yemen alone. We spent another $500 million to train "four or five" Syrian fighters. We are arming our enemy with tax dollars and debt piled on our grandchildren.

Beyond the financial drain, ISIS is using the refugee problem to infiltrate terrorists into Western nations. We have more than sufficient evidence to support what we should already intuitively suspect as Senator Ted Cruz suggests. The problem is that there is no real vetting process. We take what we are sent and this is beyond foolish.

Finally, ISIS and others seek to radicalize even the legitimate refugees. German intelligence is aware of these efforts but they are difficult to stop without accusations of insensitivity or cries of Islamophobia. But facts are facts and there is definitely an increase in radicalization. Pointing that out is neither racism nor Islamophobia.

Despite these concerns, left-leaning mayors in 18 cities across America are begging for more refugees. Some claim that the influx is designed to provide a path for left-leaning voters. Others claim to be simply humanitarian in their approach. Regardless of the reason, however, it should be obvious that we cannot ignore radicalized motives and economic warfare when we deal with immigration. Democracy and liberal values would be meaningless under a Sharia state. Humanitarian efforts would be impossible from a fully bankrupt America. Some may contend that those are irrational fears and we are nowhere close to such dire outcomes. Taking a look at what is happening in Europe combined with the very clear statement of motive by sworn enemies of our nation provides sufficient reason for concern.

By contrast, according to The Washington Post, wealthy Arab nations are not taking in Syrian refugees. They quote Amnesty International:

 "six Gulf countries — Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain — have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees."

Perhaps the Arab states know better. After all, while the Saudis have been known to export radicalized Islam and to practice their own brand of harsh Shariah law, they do not want radicals threatening their monarchy. Their lack of humanitarian aid is not because they lack the resources. In fact, according to multiple reports, the Saudis alone have air-conditioned tents capable of taking in millions of refugees who could be resettled home once the conflicts diminished. Instead, the Saudis offered to build 200 mosques in Germany, presumably to guarantee that the immigrants become permanent citizens there. The bottom line is that they fear an influx of radicalized immigrants would threaten their sovereignty and thus deport millions. Are they Islamophobic to feel that way?

We would be foolish to ignore these facts. Never forget the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in America as explained by Shariah, the Threat to America:

"The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The Muslim Brotherhood's strategic plan for North America was a closely held secret until the FBI discovered it during a 2004 raid of a house in Annandale, Virginia. Agents discovered a secret basement containing internal Ikhwan documents, including the strategic plan titled, "An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group."

The strategic plan was written by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram, and was approved by the Brotherhood's Shura Council and Organizational Conference in 1987.

We are already seeing problems in the United States that are dividing our nation. Instead of focusing on the real problem, however, the news media is quick to defend a Texas boy named Ahmed Mohamed for his creativity while condemning school officials who worried he might have a bomb. Turns out he had an alarm clock but it sure looked like a bomb. Some now believe we were the victims of an influence operation. The result? The city of Irving has been accused of racism and Islamophobia. There will be more of this and it will get worse.

With all of this in mind, a coherent foreign policy as well as coherent economic warfare strategy demands a more thoughtful immigration policy. These are intertwined. We must understand the motive of our enemies and recognize that they are using immigration policy to destroy the West. Whether we allow them to do so is up to us.