It’s dishonest to use the actual definition rather than include people who were born in the U.S.
Judd Legum

First of all, it’s arguable whether or not that’s the ‘actual definition’. By many standards — and what I consider the most proper — people are only ‘refugees’ while they’re in the first available country of refuge. As soon as they venture further, they become migrants (usually economic migrants since they’re seeking a higher standard of living) and lose their refugee status. Also, refugees are typically people seeking temporary refuge due to a specific set of circumstances and, once the circumstances change, they’ll return. Note that the situation with these people in the US doesn’t meet either of these criterion.

Secondly, it’s a bit dishonest to parse the difference between ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’ (i.e. the Tsarnaev brothers). Granted, they’re administered differently vis-a-vis US immigration law, but it’s a disingenuous distinction to make and one which seems motivated primarily by a desire to avoid mentioning the Boston Marathon Bombing.

I also question how honest these numbers are in the first place; considering the role local governments and local businesses play in these ‘refugee resettlement’ programs, I’m sure many crimes by refugees go unreported as such (Look at the rape of that 5 year old girl in Twin Falls, ID and the reluctance of local authorities to share information).

Finally, it’s also dishonest to ignore the offspring of these refugees/asylum seekers. This in my eyes is the most egregious distortion since it directly refutes the assertion that these people are assimilating, instead providing evidence that they’re radicalizing along the lines already observed in Europe.

I get it that you probably don’t agree but, considering you are the author of the piece, just extending you the courtesy of a reply.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.