In my opinion, there is a profound difference between extending asylum, which should (properly applied) be extended to very few refugees in extremely extenuating circumstances, and throwing open the borders to any and every alien claiming refugee status who wants to be "resettled" here. Especially if those refugees have ALREADY claimed asylum in another country, and have been settled there for an extended period-- many years, in some cases. Such as the 2000 that Australia "wants" the U.S. to take off their hands, or examples like Artan's family, who had ALREADY been cared for under UNHCR status in Pakistan for SEVEN years. And NO, Artan and his family were NOT in a refugee camp in Pakistan-- links upthread. Resettlement should never be a "work around" for legal immigration, and IMO, has been vastly abused as an immigration "policy".
And further (IMO), religious organizations should have no part in profiteering from, or directing any activities related to "resettling" refugees in the U.S. States and municipalities should have the final say on whether they can, or are willing, to absorb and eternally support large volumes of resettled refugees. They should never be "dumped" on any city or state. Religious groups can have a place in this process, but should never have any administrative role, IMO. They can administer, direct, and operate NGOs outside the U.S. as they desire, and as the host countries desire. IMO.
These kind of policies are not "hate" for refugees from anywhere. It's prudent policy on a number of levels, not the least of which is safety and security for Americans, and U.S. economics. We (the U.S.) cannot accept enough war and economic refugees to make any kind of dent in the world situation, and our efforts and money are MUCH better and more effectively spent helping refugees (economic and civil/ war) in place in their own regions and countries
. Our ridiculous and hapazard lottery system for refugees and resettlements only breeds more and more resentment and fraud on the part of those who will do anything to get to come here-- and once here, they NEVER return to their own countries, even when the situation they left improves.
Immigration (real, legal immigration, not fraud and illegal alien migration) is a very serious issue that affects many layers of our country if not managed prudently. Severely limiting refugees that can never be properly vetted, from regions where there is profound hatred of western lifestyles and terrorism, who never intend to assimilate to American ideals or lifestyles, is simply common sense and prudent. There are about 30 countries from which we should not accept any routine immigration or refugees, IMO, because it is simply not in the interest of America to do so-- and yes, many are middle eastern or north african countries. American needs should come before the desires of potential immigrants, IMO.
And before we proceed to take more middle eastern or north african refugees into the U.S., we need to have a serious national conversation about exactly "WHY" most of the wealthiest muslim-majority nations on earth DO NOT TAKE A SINGLE middle eastern or north african refugee into their countries. Not a single one. Why do you suppose that is?
Saudi Arabia, in one week, could solve the entire middle eastern and north african refugee situation.
They have approximately 1.5 million beds sitting EMPTY waiting for the next haj. These have sanitation, water, electricity, air conditioning, hardened structures, and bricks and mortar apartment buildings. Sitting EMPTY 11 months of the year. In the muslim holy cities of mecca and medina, where refugees would not only be cared for physically, but would be in a place that is holy to them, in a culture that understands them and accommodates their beliefs into every aspect of life. This is where these refugees compassionately and ethically belong, IMO, not in America.