March 4, 2016
Congressmen Bera, M.D.
I received your letter dated 12-8-15, that was in response to my phone call to your local office objecting to the settling of Syrian refugees in the United States. First, let me say that I appreciate your responding to my call.
This letter of mine may appear antagonistic, but it is not meant to be so. It is meant to correct certain statements of yours that are factually incorrect, and to question your policy stance. If I am wrong in anything that I say, I am perfectly willing to change my mind if my statements can be refuted.
I find your response troubling at best. First things first: your opinion, and hence your vote, are exactly the opposite of mine, so you are NOT representing me as your title suggests. I can understand that people can have good faith disagreements regarding policy, and that does not necessarily put me off.
But there are other things that do put me off. You make statements in your letter that are patently false. That indicates either an insufficient knowledge of American history to qualify you for your current office, or a deliberate attempt to take both sides of an issue in order to not lose a vote. If you can think of another reason, I am open to hearing and considering it.
I have enclosed a copy of your letter and highlighted the statements that I consider to be false. I have also copied the statements to this letter of mine to better refute your beliefs and hopefully change your opinion. Your statements are underlined and my response appears beneath each one.
Our nation has always been a place for those fleeing violence or oppression and we must stay true to those values.
This is simply not true. Our nation has not always been a place for those fleeing violence or oppression. There have been numerous periods in American history when we have turned away thousands of so-called refugees because having them here was not in the best interests of the American people. The late 1930's come to mind. We turned away boatload after boatload of so- called refugees because of the war building in Europe, and accepting them would have unnecessarily involved us in that war. The vast majority of American voters were united in that policy. There are many other instances of our refusal to admit foreign nationals fleeing their responsibility to fix their own problems.
There have also been numerous periods in our history when we have stopped ALL immigration for lengthy periods of time, again, because it simply was not in the best interests of the American people to accept immigrants at a particular time for various reasons. There have also been many instances when we have restricted various categories, nationalities, and even individuals from entering the U.S. At this very moment as I write, there are such restrictions in force denying entry to this country. The most obvious pertain to Russian nationals whom our government is currently using as a proxy dispute against Russia for reasons that may or may not be legitimate. In any case, the current restrictions have the force of law and the American people have not voiced any objection to that policy.
I suggest you look up american immigration and “refugee” policy throughout our history to better educate yourself to the truth of the matter, rather than making sweeping emotional statements that are false. The Founding Fathers of the United States wrote very specifically on this issue and advised extreme caution on the topic. Men such as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton wrote on the topic and it would behoove you to read their words.
The vast majority of refugees are mothers, children, and the elderly
This is another false statement. I have been following this situation very closely. From everything i've read in multiple domestic and foreign news outlets, the majority of the so-called refugees are young men of military age. I have seen many cases of these Syrian men admit on camera that they are fleeing military service in their own country. I have seen multiple reports from volunteers who are actually helping these so-called refugees state that the majority of them are young men. Significant numbers of them are not even from Syria, but rather, muslim men from eastern Europe seeking to take advantage of generous welfare benefits in western European countries.
There are hundreds of video clips showing hoards of young men traversing fields in Europe, with just enough small children sprinkled in to give them plausible deniability. The port city of Calais in France has become unlivable because of the crime and violence brought by these same “refugees”. There are dozens of reports and videos of them storming the Chunnel in order to illegally enter Great Britain. There are also innumerable accounts of rapes, sexual assault, battery and generalized crime in the refugee camps that hold them. I don't want them in my country.
we must honor the long American tradition of helping to resettle refugees.
I have addressed your similar statement above. This one is false , too. There is no such tradition. This is the second time in your letter that you have made the statement. Repetition does not make it true, or any the less false. Repetition counts against a debate team. It is a sure sign of a weak or disingenuous case.
That's why I voted for H.R. 4038, a bill that requires government agencies that are already doing refugee background checks to certify that a refugee applicant is not a national security risk.
This statement is especially troubling. It indicates unequivocally that the security checks currently in place were not stringent enough and therefore it was necessary to add something to them. You may not have been in office when the first bill was passed, in which case you are not responsible for its deficiencies. But it makes a statement about congress in general that does not inspire confidence. After the atrocity of 9/11, shouldn't they have been able to get it right the first time? And shouldn't you have addressed that the first day you took office?
Instead, it builds upon our already strong security screening process to ensure Syrian refugees are thoroughly vetted and are not a security threat.
Thoroughly vetted?? Is that a joke? The simple fact is that in Syria, as in many middle eastern countries, all civil order has collapsed, and meaningful background checks are impossible. The recent San Bernardino mass murder terrorist attack backs up my assertion and proves beyond doubt that the laws that congress has passed to prevent these attacks are completely worthless. Fourteen Americans were killed and 22 wounded.
The woman terrorist attacker easily obtained a fiancé visa and entered the U.S. without question, even though she had posted extremest rants on social media and pledged her allegiance to ISIS publicly. Where was “our already strong security screening process” the day she effortless walked into our country? And if our security screening process is already strong, as you say, how did she get in? And why did we need an additional bill to make it stronger? Because it's not strong, that's how. It is just more politically correct bullshit that ignores actual threats and instead, harasses old women and children, and even U.S. congressmen.
We prudently take extra precautions to keep Americans safe.
I refer you to my previous 2 paragraphs. If congress is prudent and takes extra precautions to keep Americans safe, why do these attacks keep happening? Another example is the Boston Marathon attack. Russian officials alerted the CIA about those particular suspects TWO YEARS BEFORE the attacks took place. TWICE. But that agency, along with the FBI, only did a perfunctory investigation and then dropped the matter. American citizens again paid for their incompetence with their lives. We spend $40 billion a year on so-called intelligence and yet can't follow up on information that is handed to us on a silver platter.
At present, we don't have enough jobs for the people who are already here. Why take in more? The U.S. taxpayer is not responsible for the rest of the world's standard of living. We have VETERANS, men and women who put their lives on the line for our country, who are now homeless. Tens of thousands of them, and we don't seem to have the money to give them adequate care. The VA hospital system is shamelessly underfunded. Veterans have to wait months to get an appointment, and many times must travel long distances to get to a VA facility. This is a national disgrace and a treacherous betrayal of the men and women in uniform who serve our country at great risk to themselves.
Money that could be used to adequately provide care for them is instead diverted to provide a new life for foreign nationals who refuse to fight for their own countries, and who refuse to address the political problems in their own countries. Why would I want cowardly and irresponsible people like that in my country? I wouldn't and I don't.
Apart from veterans, we have thousands upon thousands of homeless people in the U.S. that we are not taking care of. I live in Sacramento. There are well over a thousand homeless people here. They are everywhere. They are in neighborhoods that we would never have imagined them being in even 10 years ago.
It has been reported that congress is spending 1.6 BILLION DOLLARS to resettle ILLEGAL aliens within the United States. We are giving billions of dollars to known criminals who have invaded our country and broken our laws. And you want to spend billions more on thousands of foreign nationals who have proven themselves to be unworthy citizens in their own countries. But we don't have the money to take care of American citizens that you were elected to represent? I cannot abide by that.
Your policy stance on refugees seems to put the interests of foreigners and criminals ahead of our own citizens.
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your positions are just a matter of being insufficiently acquainted with historical facts, and genuinely misled on the situation in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Iran and others. You may laugh at that statement since you seem to be a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, whereas I am just a common citizen. But I would just tell you that I have seen many high level officials and even Cent/Com generals make statements that I know to be factually incorrect.
Bottom line: I see two possibilities here: 1. I can work for you and help you get a better grasp of American history and to reconfigure your priorities in such a way that is unassailable, honorable and right for Americans. Or, 2. I can volunteer to work for your opponent and defeat you in the upcoming election, because as it stands now, your policies are absolutely unacceptable to me.
I look forward to hearing from you within a week of the date of this letter. But in case I don't hear from you in that time, you can contact me henceforth at the headquarters of your opponent for the election in November 2016, where I will be working diligently 14 hours a day to oust you from office.
Sincerely,
