Rohrbacher on Refugees

Here's Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) explaining why folks like Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) who are trying to help Iraqi refugees are wrong:

They’re wonderful people who’d like to live here, especially the ones who have helped us, but the last thing we want to do is to have people who are friendly to democracy . . . moving here in large numbers at a time when they’re needed to build a new, thriving Iraq.

That comes to me via Justin Logan who remarks: "So Rep. Rohrabacher knows better than these Arabic-speaking, living-in-Iraq Iraqis what’s best for them. And, as it happens, what’s best for them is to stay in the hellish maelstrom of violence that is Iraq, despite the stated views of these folks themselves." But of course that's the point, right? To admit that we ought to be helping refugees would be to admit that even post-surge Iraq is pretty terrible so Iraqis who cooperated with Coalition forces will just have to suffer in order to maintain the pretense that all is hunky-dory.

Comments

I think that we should be trying in particular to help the Christian and Mandaean Iraqis, in large part because they are small enough in numbers that they don't have a partisan army to fight for themselves. (They also, of course, would not pose a threat of creeping Islamization of the United States).

Posted by Hector | March 17, 2008 4:39 PM

...creeping Islamization of the United States...

Aren't (non-Black-) Muslims only something like 0.5% of the American population?

Maybe what we *really* need to worry about is risk that the Lehman Brothers execs will use their vast financial resources to buy up all the other Wall Street firms and create a dangerous monopoly in our financial sector...

Posted by RKU | March 17, 2008 4:46 PM

Of course, these democracy-supporting Iraqis didn't necessary want their country to turn into the hellhole it has, so it seems irresponsible to leave them there.

Perhaps we could perform a swap: they get to come to America, and we send the democracy-supporting Americans who seem to have been fine with turning Iraq into said hellhole. I nominate Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA).

Posted by Eric | March 17, 2008 4:50 PM

Sadly I think he's got some points as the people leaving will largely be the ones who are most innocent and with the least ability to defend themselves and the ones most wanting to not have a civil war. And if they leave Iraq is even more screwed. On the other hand if we don't accept them they will probably still flee (considering how bad things are" to neighbouring countries causing refugee crises there. And as we were the ones who messed up their country it's probably the least we could do.

Posted by rtaycher1987 | March 17, 2008 4:50 PM

"Social engineering -- it's not just for liberals any more."

Posted by Anderson | March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

We need to destroy these democracy-loving Iraqis in order to save them!

Posted by DSG | March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

Eric, you are absolutely right! Rep Rohrbacher is just reminding us of the Romantic side of helping a young democracy, just like President George "Hemingway" Bush has reminded us of how cool it must be to serve in Afghanistan. Personally I am sorry I was too young to volunteer for the Spanish Civil War. Now that was adventure!

Posted by Scott Ferguson | March 17, 2008 4:59 PM

Sorry to go OT, and someone should repost this on the next relevant thread, but...HEY! PETEY! Democrats now prefer Obama: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.democrats/index.html

And this is post-Wright/Rezko.

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 5:07 PM

There are, of course, many Iraqi leaders who legitimately fear a "brain drain" if all the folks best suited to rebuilding the country decide to move to the US.

The thinking is that if these refugees flee to places like Jordan, they have least have a chance of coming back to Iraq once things settle down. But if they go to the US, they're probably gone for good. For this reason, there's a legitimate case to be made that we should be focused more on helping Iraq's neighbors resettle refugees in the region, and less focused on absorbing all the refugees ourselves.

Posted by Steve | March 17, 2008 5:09 PM

So, if the solution is to fill Iraq up with people who support Democracy and want to live in America, the solution, as Eric indicates above, is obvious: send Americans to live in Iraq! They fit the bill perfectly!

Of course, as I make the suggestion, I realize that there's a huge population of people already within our borders who support Democracy and want to live in America, and the right wants to round them up and deport them already ... sending them to a war zone they've never seen where they don't speak the language would be repellant and illegal, but I'm sure one of those folks can justify it ...

This also explains why we need the surge: it's keeping an extra several dozen thousand Democracy-loving America-aspiring folks within the borders, after all ...

Posted by Warren Terra | March 17, 2008 5:20 PM

""So Rep. Rohrabacher knows better than these Arabic-speaking, living-in-Iraq Iraqis what’s best for them."

Justin's being deliberately obtuse here. Rohrabacher is talking about what's best for Iraq, not what's best for a relative handful of Iraqis. What Steve said.

Posted by Fred | March 17, 2008 5:48 PM

There already IS a brain drain and it's been going on for the last four years. An article I read recently states that one reason the Iraqi government is unable to provide basic services to the country is that virtually ALL of the technical people needed have already fled the country. Hospitals have few doctors or surgeons because most have fled. Most of the oil industry people fled. The power plant technical people have fled.

In any event, given the figure of four million displaced persons in Iraq, taking in a few thousand to the US isn't really going to change the outcome at all either way.

Rohrabacher is generally an idiot. He used to be a (big-L) Libertarian, but for years he's just been another doofus Republican.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 17, 2008 6:00 PM

It should be pointed out that the same argument that asshole Rohrabacher is making relative to Iraq could also be made about the folks who left Cuba to excape from Mr. Castro. Of course, Mr. Rohrabacher and his ilk were front and center in providing refuge for those Cubans.

Posted by SLC | March 17, 2008 6:25 PM

Rohrabacher is talking about what's best for Iraq, not what's best for a relative handful of Iraqis.

Yeah, if those 500 translators leave, all hell is going to break loose in Iraq ...

The US is going to do nothing for the refugees, because the people in charge are cheap and greedy.

Posted by novakant | March 17, 2008 6:45 PM

Obviously, Abu Dana was just helping Afghans build a new, thriving Afghanistan when he played dress-up with the Muj and footsie with the Taliban.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 17, 2008 6:46 PM

Kind of a red-herring isn't it. I mean there will be a massive brain-drain from Iraq to its neighbors regardless. The small amount of asylum seekers will pale in comparison to the number of Iraqi doctors and bankers and lawyers in Jordan, for instance.

Posted by SAO | March 17, 2008 7:12 PM

I suspect that when it comes to Palestinian refugees Rep. Ackerman would agree with Rep. Rohrbacher. Keep 'em where they are and let them bring democracy to wherever it is they're living.

Posted by The Other Alan | March 17, 2008 7:34 PM

Rohrbacher's arguments is identical to the one school voucher opponents make: we can't let the motivated parents take their kids out public schools because then the schools will be worse off without them.

I would bet that many many many people hold these logically inconsistent views.

Posted by Gene | March 17, 2008 9:25 PM

It is now clear that the Iraqi refugees' problems are the fault of the teachers' unions.

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 9:29 PM

Actually, although Matthew's point sounds like snark, he is more right than he knows. Right now, there are a lot of metrics that can be argued are signs of success or failure. But the important thing is that this argument happens where no one can see it. Once we start letting large numbers of Iraqis come to live in the U.S., it will be constant, walking, talking truth of our failure in Iraq. And the Republicans just can't have that now.

Posted by Kiril | March 17, 2008 9:57 PM

Actually, although Matthew's point sounds like snark, he is quite correct. Right now, there are a lot of metrics that can be argued are signs of success or failure. But the important thing is that this argument happens where no one can verify anything definitively while lots of Americans are watching. Once we start letting large numbers of Iraqis come to live in the U.S., it will be constant, walking, talking truth of our failure in Iraq. And the Republicans just can't have that now. What if we let in 100,000 Iraqis?

Posted by Kiril | March 17, 2008 10:00 PM

Damn. I see people do it all the time and I guess it's my turn. Sorry for the double post.

Posted by Kiril | March 17, 2008 10:03 PM

"...but the last thing we want to do is to have people who are friendly to democracy . . . moving here in large numbers..."

Yeah, 'cause they're not the type that vote GOP.

Posted by kafka | March 17, 2008 10:58 PM

I have never thought 1st World nations accepting mass numbers of refugees was good policy because it encourages people to flee rather than fight or work for change within. With certain exceptions like Iraqi Christians or Yemeni Jews so small in number they cannot work for change effectively..

Once you have exiles that flee places like Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Somalia, Bosnia - mainly to avoid the risk of fighting and to double to quadruple their money in the process by getting the refugee deal the US and Europe offer - they become the strongest and bravest "exile hyper-patriots" of regime change - but only advocates of US natives doing their fighting and dying for them in "liberating" the homeland.

The Iraqi exiles we already had were the biggest advocates of US invasion, and the biggest liars next to Saddam. They were the source of much of the phony WMD intelligence, and the ones that convinced and how they as Elite exiles with BIG connnections - were in the best position to advise the US that it would be a cakewalk, a secular Israel-friendly democracy would rapidly form and the ministries the exiles were put in charge of in Iraq would of course defray much or most of the occupation costs.

Other exiles, in the US and Canada, have been the source of violent and even terroristic activities directed at their homeland or even their host country. Cuban exiles bombing planes and "Castro-supporters", the Blind Shekh and his merry band of political refugees trying to blow up the WTC, shoot buses with Jewish schoolkids, plotting to kill thousands in NYC tunnels because while the US was good enough to demand entrance into, it is an oppressor nation. Half the Islamoid terrorists arrested in the UK are "refugees" or relatives the refugees brought in.

And plenty of Jewish refugees warping our political system and understanding of the ME for decades.

And there is the other issue of high crime, unwilling to assimilate enough to work and not be a net welfare drain - type of refugees....

The Roma, the Hmong, Somalis, Haitians - come to mind.

****************
The less refugees to America, generally, the better. We don't succor cowards and shirkers of fighting to fix their own national messes or dysfunctional religions, it reduces or eliminates the dangerous ones in refugee groups like the Blind Sheikh or the Hmong that killed 7 hunters in cold blood, it blocks multigenerational lifetime parasites form coming here vs stay in a camp in an adjacent nation rather than return.

And the better for what the "refugees" claim they wish for their homeland. Many countries, like Cuba, have assured their tyrants remain in power by exporting their opposition - the dissenters and troublemakers.

Posted by chris ford | March 17, 2008 11:00 PM

And Matt's comment section is, once again, graced by the racist drivel that is the only output to be found with the name "chris ford."

Posted by Circus Freak | March 17, 2008 11:37 PM

"And Matt's comment section is, once again, graced by the racist drivel that is the only output to be found with the name "chris ford.""

Ford may have his prejudices, but he also makes points worth considering. If you refuse to listen to everyone whose opinions offend you, you might as well spend all your time reading liberal blogs.

Posted by Fred | March 18, 2008 12:44 AM

Ford almost never has a point worth considering.

Although his point that we should exporting assholes like him to other countries - say, Israel - is probably a good one.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 18, 2008 2:52 AM

Ford's points worth considering are that brown people are scary. I've considered that, and concluded that Ford's full of shit.

Posted by Persia | March 18, 2008 9:49 AM

On a sidenote: Rohrabacher is the really slimy representative of my district in California. He's in an incredibly gerrymandered district which lets him get away with saying anything he wants (things like "I freed Kosovo!" to Bill Gates) but this year, the district has a candidate that may be able to beat him.

Posted by Bill | March 18, 2008 11:45 AM

Re Chris Ford

"And plenty of Jewish refugees warping our political system and understanding of the ME for decades."

By this statement, I assume that Mr. Ford is including such refugees from Nazi Germany as Albert Einstein, Edward Teller, Hans Bethe, Wolfgang Pauli, Leo Szilard, etc. Some of these folks were responsible for the US beating old Adolf to the bomb.

Posted by SLC | March 18, 2008 8:58 PM