FROM The Independent Institute:

According to the Cato Institute, the United States admitted 3,252,493 refugees between 1975 and 2015. Twenty of them were terrorists. This represents some 0.00062 percent of all refugees. Only three attacks carried out by these refugees were successful.

In total, in a span of forty years, “terrorist refugees” have killed three people in the United States.

But what about the attacks in San Bernardino, the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Boston Marathon bombings, and 9/11? [False flags all.] Are these not “proof” that such a ban is warranted? After all, the individuals responsible for the attacks had some connection to foreign countries.

In reality, the current executive order would have stopped exactly none of these attacks.

The Pulse Nightclub shooter was born in New York and was a U.S. citizen. Of the two San Bernardino shooters, one was born in Chicago. The other, his wife, was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia—neither country is on the “banned” list. The Tsatnaev brothers, responsible for the Boston bombings, were born in Kyrgyzstan. People from Kyrgyzstan aren’t banned under the current executive order. Of the 19 people responsible for hijacking four airplanes on 9/11, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. Again, these countries aren’t on the “banned” list.

When I have the occasion to discuss the economics of terrorism, I always offer a list of things more likely to kill a U.S. citizen than a terror attack. It seems appropriate to include here. (You can find links to source material for most of these here.) [cont.]

— Comments —

John Purdy writes:

This is food for thought however terrorism is too narrow a focus for evaluating the impact of refugees on society. One also has to take general (non-terrorist) crime, notably high among Somalis, into consideration as well as the cost to the tax payer of resettling these people. In addition, there is the alteration to U.S. demographics especially in the towns where they are settled. Then there is the question of voting patterns and cultural assimilation. One imagines they vote mostly Democrat and even their children never become fully Americanized.

When one sees what’s going on in Europe I think there are good reasons to be skeptical about refugee resettlement even if terrorism is not one of them.

Laura writes:

Unfortunately, Trump used terrorism as his argument in his travel ban. The real justification, as I said before, for temporarily suspending the refugee resettlement program is not terrorism, but cultural issues and the way these programs currently operate, sometimes targeting communities who have little say in a large influx of refugees and profiting from bringing refugees here who might be much better served by living closer to home, as Ann Corcoran has documented at Refugee Resettlement Watch. (Unfortunately, Corcoran also buys into the terrorism argument and the mythical, extreme idea that America is on the verge of becoming part of an Islamic caliphate.)

That’s not to say there should be no refugees here. There are a number of ways Americans can show charity and generosity toward people who are legitimate refugees.

Please follow and like us: