The Obama administration says it wants to begin accepting another 100,000 refugees from the Middle East. The stories of bloodshed, beheadings and other acts of barbarism by the Islamic State and other Muslim terrorists are absolutely horrifying. So, of course, most Americans want to be as generous and helpful as possible.
Why then would the United States want to deport refugees from the Middle East who managed to make it to this country?
That is what is happening to a group of 20 people who fled the Islamic State in Iraq and made it to the United States. But these people weren’t Muslims; they are Christians. And even though they have family members and church leaders in the San Diego area who will vouch for them, customs officials want to deport them.
Mark Arabo, a spokesman for the Chaldean community in San Diego, has said, “[T]hey are being held without a real reason.... They’ve escaped hell. Let’s allow them to reunite with their families.”
A local San Diego publication, East County Magazine, investigated the plight of these Iraqi refugees and concluded: “Why the federal government has failed to take steps to expedite such reunification in cases where family and religious leaders are willing to vouch for and help those seeking asylum here, then, remains an unfathomable mystery.”
Actually, it really isn’t a mystery at all. The Obama administration has rigged the rules in favor of Muslim refugees. Here’s how Faith McDonnell of the Institute on Religion and Democracy described the situation in an interview with the Christian Post:
This follows the disturbing pattern that we have seen from the State Department of ignoring the particular targeting of Christians by ISIS, while giving preferential treatment for asylum to other groups with expedited processing — like Somalis, Iraqis, and Syrians, some of whom could very well be members of jihadist movements.
Records show that for every Christian refugee who is granted a visa to come to the United States from the Middle East, five or six Muslims will get one. This despite the fact, as the Gatestone Institute has pointed out, “Christians, as persecuted ‘infidel’ minorities, are in much greater need of sanctuary, not to mention more assimilating to American culture than Muslims.”
But this problem is not confined to the United States. Church leaders in the United Kingdom have accused Prime Minister David Cameron of “turning his back” on Christians facing genocide in Syria and Iraq.
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, supports a petition drive to urge the UK government to “welcome Christian refugees and give them priority as asylum seekers” because “Syrian and Iraqi Christians are being butchered, tortured and enslaved.”
Lord Weidenfeld, an English peer, asked rhetorically, “Why is it that the Poles and the Czechs are taking in Christian families and yet the British government stands idly by?” And he warned, “This mood of indifference is reminiscent of the worst phases of appeasement and may have catastrophic consequences.”
No, Lord Weidenfeld, it is already having catastrophic consequences. Here’s how Raymond Ibrahim, the author of “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians,” summarized the tragic situation:
Western nations are not merely ignoring Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East, they are actively supporting it by sponsoring “moderate” rebels who in reality are as “radical” and anti-Western as the Islamic State. And when these persecuted Christian minorities manage to flee the Islamic State and come to the West for asylum, they are imprisoned again. All the while, Muslims — in the Mideast and in the West — are being empowered and welcomed in the West with open arms.
When the European Union put pressure on its members to accept more Syrian refugees, Slovakia said fine, but it would accept only Christians. I’m not saying Britain and the U.S. do the same thing. But how about we give Christians priority, instead of forcing them to the back of the line — or, even worse, deporting them once they get here?
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
Chip Wood was the first news editor of The Review of the News and also wrote for American Opinion, our two predecessor publications. He is now the geopolitical editor of Personal Liberty Digest. This article first appeared on PersonalLiberty.com and has been reprinted with permission.