[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHALLENGE TO EUROPE:
THE GROWING REFUGEE CRISIS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
NOVEMBER 4, 2015
Serial No. 114-119
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-462PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected]
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
TOM EMMER, MinnesotaUntil 5/18/
DANIEL DONOVAN, New YorkAs
of 5/19/15 deg.
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
TED POE, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
MO BROOKS, Alabama THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
PAUL COOK, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
Gary Shiffman, Ph.D., adjunct professor, Center for Security
Studies, Georgetown University................................. 4
V. Bradley Lewis, Ph.D., associate professor, School of
Philosophy, The Catholic University of America................. 13
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Gary Shiffman, Ph.D.: Prepared statement......................... 7
V. Bradley Lewis, Ph.D.: Prepared statement...................... 16
Hearing notice................................................... 36
Hearing minutes.................................................. 37
CHALLENGE TO EUROPE: THE GROWING REFUGEE CRISIS
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 o'clock
p.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana
Rohrabacher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I call to order this hearing of the
Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee. As we begin
today, I want to note that Congressman Meeks, the
subcommittee's ranking member, is not with us today. He is
recovering from a small, a minor, heart attack. We are
grateful, very, very grateful, that it is a small one, and that
he is on his way to recovery. He is on the mend, and we are
looking forward to having him back with us very soon. I know I
speak for all my colleagues, and we wish him the very, very
Turning the topic to this afternoon's hearing, I want to
apologize for being late, but that is what happens when you
have to do these hearings around votes.
The topic of this afternoon's hearing is a massive and
increasing tide of asylum seekers, economic vibrance, stateless
persons, and displaced people who have been and continue to
enter Europe as we have seen, all seen, in the videos and news
Migrants fleeing to Europe, they have been an issue of
humanitarian concern for several years, but a wave of
immigration erupted into a tsunami this summer, when the German
Government announced it would ignore the Dublin rules and
accept all Syrian refugees that made it to the German border.
That announcement opened the gates for a flow of people to move
from North Africa, the Middle East, and even Asia to transit
through Greece, Turkey, the Balkans, and northward into Europe.
With some notable exceptions, countries have simply facilitated
the movement of migrants through their territory as quickly as
possible, sometimes working to register the asylum seekers and
While individual stories of tragedy and humanitarian need
are compelling, the aggregate number of people on the move is
overwhelming. Earlier this week, the United Nations announced
that 218,000 migrants crossed the Mediterranean Sea to Europe
just last month. That is more than were recorded in all of
2014. It is expected that around 1 million asylum seekers of
all origins will reach Germany in this year alone.
Germany and the EU are deeply divided about how to stem the
flow of migrants, and what to do with those who have already
entered. Clearly, what we have seen over the past few months is
unsustainable, and if not checked, will change the fundamental
nature of European countries, which are now being inundated.
What we are witnessing is the destruction of western
civilization, not by an armed invasion, but instead, through
envelopment. The effects of this will not soon disappear, but
instead, could well turn out to be an historic change in the
nature of many European countries.
Europe has been struggling to assimilate large Muslim
populations, they have seen this in Europe. Increasing examples
of anti-Semitism and radical Islamic violence clearly speak to
the challenge of integration and the risk of failure in this
situation. And that was before, of course, all of these--what
we are talking about, these reports of this violence, and anti-
Semitism, was before the current flow of immigrants began.
Chancellor Merkel is full of confidence that Germany can
educate, train, and turn refugees into productive and
contributing members of society, but that is a tall task by any
Even the most optimistic scenarios say that Europe will
have to redirect billions and billions of dollars from
supporting their own citizens, to accommodating the needs of
I hope in our conversation today. We can examine and
discuss, the massive influx of people into the Europe and what
will be the consequences for European society, culture, and
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions and extraneous materials
for the record.
And I now will turn to Mr. Sires, who will give us his
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing on the migration and refugee crisis facing Europe,
which many consider the worst migration and refugee crisis
Europe has faced since World War II.
What is with the sound system?
Most of the migration is from refugees fleeing war-torn
countries like Syria. The surge of migrants and refugees have
significantly challenged and divided Europe, European
countries, and the European Union. Many of the frontline
states, such as Greece and Italy, find themselves overburdened
with the influx of refugees and lack of sufficient resources to
properly register and accommodate refugees and migrants.
It is clear that the EU and Europe, as a whole, must do a
better job of coordinating efforts across its borders to manage
the large number of people in a humane manner. As we work with
our European partners to respond to the refugee crisis, we must
remember the total influx of people our borders can cost. We
have struggled with our own borders to absorb the surge of
women and children fleeing violence in Central America. We have
learned firsthand the importance of providing a response to
these victims that is both timely and humane. Most importantly,
these crises remind us that we can't lose sight of addressing
the root causes of migration and finding a political solution
to the war in Syria.
America has a long history of helping the world's most
vulnerable people, and other countries look to the U.S. to lead
when it comes to the refugees' resettlement. The administration
recently announced that to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees, was
the first sign of a goodwill to those that are desperate to
flee the turmoil, but we can do much more.
In addition to increasing the number of refugees we accept
on Syria, we can draw our own experience--to draw our own
experiences and challenges regarding border security and
provide assistance and increased coordination to our European
allies to help them cope with the number of migrants and
I look toward to hearing from our esteemed panel of
witnesses on the best path forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Does anyone else have an opening
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the crisis in Europe has resulted in
thousands of refugees going to Europe, and not all of the
people going into Europe are trying to escape the Syrian war.
Now we understand there are people from all over the Middle
East, even as far away as Afghanistan, and all fleeing, looking
to move to Europe for various reasons. Not all of them are
seeking asylum or refugee status, but may have other motives in
mind as well.
I think part of the reason folks were moving so quick out
of the Middle East and Syria is because Russia has gotten
involved in Syria and is propping up Assad, trying to make sure
he sticks around. And people see that their lives are in
danger, so they leave the area.
Obviously, Europe was not prepared for this tremendous
influx of thousands and thousands of other people. I am not
sure that Europe has figured out a way to handle it, and I am
sure the United States, in my opinion, is not doing much to
help in the crisis. Some countries take various positions on
what to do with the migrants, let them pass through or maybe
not even let them come into their country. One such example is
Hungary, who is trying to protect the national sovereignty of
its own country. And the United States, rather than try to
understand the situation in Hungary, even last week the U.S.
Ambassador dressed down the Hungarians for what the State
Department believed was not the right course in dealing with
migrants. That does nothing to help our relationship with
Hungary, a NATO ally.
It is obvious that there has to be something to be done
with these thousands of individuals and where they are going
and how long are they going to stay? And what is the United
States going to do to help in this crisis? And I am sure that
our witnesses have all the answers to these questions. That is
why they are here. So I will thank the chairman, and I yield
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Weber, do you have an opening
Mr. Weber. We are good to go.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Good to go?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I notice Ms. Frankel is as well.
Let me note that before we start, we have with us the
distinguished Ambassador from Hungary. Thank you for joining us
today. We appreciate that.
And let me just say that Hungary has been a tremendous
friend and asset to the peace and stability of the world, and I
am personally upset that our administration has sought to find
out and try to complain about every little thing they disagree
with, with Hungary. Hungary has every right to set their own
policies, and I am pleased that Hungary has a track record of
doing good things with the United States. So we thank you.
This is also the anniversary of the Hungarian revolution.
And all of us who fought communism for decades were inspired by
the young people and others who rose up against the communist
dictatorship in Budapest back in 1956. So that is--is that 60
Mr. Poe. You were there.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I was there. That was a little bit later.
But anyway, with that said, we have two really fine
witnesses with us today. I would ask if you could try to get it
to 5 minutes, and then we will have a nice dialogue on that.
I would like to introduce Dr. Gary Shiffman. He is a
professor of security studies, Department of Georgetown
University. His work focuses on exploring the relationship
between economics and national security. Dr. Shiffman is also
the founder of Giant Oak Incorporated, a company that meets the
demand for social science-driven innovation in big data
environments like institutions countering organized crime,
money laundering, trafficking, insurgency, and terrorism. It is
a pleasure to have Dr. Shiffman here to speak with us on this
very important topic.
Also, we have with us Dr. V. Bradley Lewis. He serves as
associate professor in the School of Philosophy at Catholic
University of America, where he has taught for nearly two
decades. He also serves as associate editor of the American
Journal of Jurisprudence. Dr. Lewis specializes in political
philosophy, Plato, legal philosophy, and natural law theory. We
are delighted to have Dr. Lewis with us today.
And, again, I ask if Dr. Lewis and Dr. Shiffman could keep
it to about 5 minutes, and we will have a nice dialogue. So
thank you very much.
Dr. Shiffman, Gary, you may go first.
STATEMENT OF GARY SHIFFMAN, PH.D, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, CENTER FOR
SECURITY STUDIES, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Mr. Shiffman. Thank you, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, for inviting me to provide testimony today on the
economic views of security implications of the security----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You have to push the button.
Mr. Shiffman. Okay. Is that better? There we go.
I can offer two distinct perspectives on this challenge.
First, as a behavioral scientist and as a former senior
official at U.S. Customs and Border Protections, I have spent a
lot of time thinking about how understanding essential
characteristics of human behavior can inform our understanding
of organized violence.
I have divided my comments today into three sections. The
first provides an economist's view of a way to think about
security and the refugees. The second discusses my experience
as a practitioner of national and Homeland Security. And third
suggests a framework for policy options.
One, a behavioral economist's perspective. Economists see
all human interactions as exchanges taking place within
markets, with individuals regardless of race, religion, or
ethnicity, making decisions that maximize welfare for
ourselves, our families, and our communities. Competitive
marketplaces demand cooperation in order to maximize our goals,
leading individuals to divide the world into us and them.
Political violence, such as insurgency and terrorism, occurs
when scarce conditions allow violence to become economically
feasible. In other words, people choose violence when it is the
best way to achieve their goals in the face of scarce
In Europe today, continuing mass refugee streams will
continue to strain resources of European populations, creating
conditions of scarcity that highlight competition and sharpen
divides between host and refugee, between us and them.
As we may have predicted, we are witnessing political
parties and viewing rhetoric with divisive language
manipulating us versus them narratives and exacerbating
tensions. This increasingly divisive rhetoric recalls
historical examples of politicians using hate-creating stories
to discredit opponents and better their own positions. Harvard
economist, Edward Glaeser, points to three examples: Anti-Black
hatred in the American South, anti-Semitism in Europe, and
anti-Americanism in the Arab world. These hateful narratives
lead Glaeser to point out that when populations are socially
isolated and politically relevant, stories of hatred are likely
to take hold and recruitment and violence can follow.
European States and the EU stand at a crossroads between
becoming a melting pot or remaining a federation of nations
with distinct national ethnic and religious identities. The
economists view would suggest that regardless of the choice,
policies that create politically relevant and socially isolated
populations be avoided. So how do we do this? Section 2,
reflections of the practitioner.
Regarding security challenges, we focus on two primary
vectors. First, the possibility for terrorists to embed
themselves within refugee streams and the potential for
radicalization among refugee communities. High levels of single
men in the refugee populations raises concerns that extremist
groups, such as ISIL, have embedded members in the refugee
streams. Existing radicalization of European societies coupled
with the widening gulf between host and guest communities
raises real concerns on the potential for refugees to
radicalize and become violent.
With regard to border security, the United States offers an
opportunity for comparison. The United States screens for
terrorist risk factors throughout the screening and asylum
processes. The United States does a good job of integrating
immigrants and refugees when they arrive, and significantly,
the United States does not require border states to take full
responsibility for border security costs. Instead, the bulk of
the responsibility is shared across the entire tax base of all
States. This poses a comparative question: Is the European
Union, as a collective, capable of sharing the costs and the
benefits of screening and integration? To what extent should
border states such as Hungary and Slovenia bear the brunt of
Section 3, some thoughts on the response framework. The
European Union is capable of benefiting from the refugee
streams if it approaches the refugees as a source of needed
workers while managing risk. Despite this potential benefit, EU
member states may not have the capacity to address the speed
and scale of the current flows either from a fiscal or a
security standpoint, especially in the border states where the
initial asylum claims are made.
Issues of preserving national identity are real and must be
treated as legitimate policy goals. As a result, governments
will need to choose who is permitted to enter Europe by
increasing screening measures limiting entry and sharing the
fiscal responsibilities. Screening measures might be improved
through cooperation and data analysis. Limiting entry might
focus either on the most vulnerable population, such as women
and children, or on populations fleeing from ISIL-controlled
areas. And in integrating refugee populations into the labor
force might mitigate fears of radicalization by avoiding
isolation and minimizing social welfare costs.
So my three key takeaways, first, regardless of the
decision made on numbers and locations of refugee flows,
threats may emanate from socially isolated and politically
Two, the EU can manage risks associated with terrorism and
other organized violence, but perhaps not each member state
possesses the capacities, so we need to think about shared
costs and benefits.
And three, the EU is capable of benefiting from the refugee
streams if it approaches the problem as an opportunity to
integrate a needed workforce. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Lewis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shiffman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF V. BRADLEY LEWIS, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Chairman Rohrabacher, and members of
the subcommittee. It isn't often that a political philosopher
is invited to speak to a congressional committee, and I am
honored by your invitation.
I have been asked to speak about the present migration
crisis in Europe from the perspective of political philosophy.
Much of what we need to know about the migration crisis is
simply empirical. How many persons are involved? Where are they
from? Why are they migrating? Et cetera. Philosophy has little
to say about these questions. Rather, political philosophy is
the business of understanding what principles or reasons should
guide our political conduct and shape our institutions and
laws; what are the starting points for our thinking about our
actions as persons and communities? Our starting points are
actual goods that direct all of our practical reasoning.
Political philosophy must also be attentive to truths about how
human beings characteristically behave; that is, about the
stable aspects of human nature.
Political communities provide a context for individuals and
groups to pursue their own development. This context includes
especially legal systems that authoritatively coordinate the
actions and interactions of persons and groups. Political
communities are required by and justified by the common good of
the people who constitute them. By common good I mean, first,
the integral development and flourishing of the persons who
live in the community and, secondly, the whole ensemble of
conditions that facilitate that development. It is these things
that justify but also limit the exercise of political
Among the conditions required for persons in groups to
thrive, are the availability of resources, and these resources
first come from the earth itself. And no things, no products
from the earth, no parts of it, naturally and originally,
belong to any particular persons; however, human nature
suggests that those things are best maintained when they are
shared out in some distribution of private property.
And I believe that this explanation of private property is
also the sound reason for the existence of different
territorial political communities. Governments and their
constituents together are analogous to property owners in the
sense that they represent a determinate agency responsible for
the maintenance of the necessary conditions in a recognized
territory or jurisdiction, justified by the directedness of the
agency and those conditions to the common good of their people.
Public order, the security of persons, both individuals and
groups and their property and freedom, are essential elements
of the common good and are best protected by particular
governments with clear jurisdictions. The common good is more
than merely a set of laws and institutions. It includes a
common culture, among the elements of which are, for example, a
common language, at least one common language, and shared
sentiments of attachment and common membership. Such sentiments
are an indispensable support for the maintenance of legal and
political institutions and make possible the sacrifices that
are necessary for the preservation of any political community
over time. This is especially the case with respect to modern
democracies, which tend to be large and which often encompass
considerable diversity of ethnicity, religious faith, and moral
views among their populations, in addition to the social
mobility and dynamism characteristic of modern economies.
The role of shared practices, values, and sentiments in the
maintenance of stable political communities that really do
promote the common good of their citizens was known to Plato
and Aristotle at the very beginning of the tradition. Aristotle
in particular elaborated the notion of political friendship
based on a fundamental agreement, or like-mindedness, about the
purpose, structure, and practices of the political system.
In the 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville famously made
the habits and mores of the people central to his accounts of
how democratic political institutions were maintained in the
The willingness of citizens not only to defend one another
through military service, but also to consent in the sort of
redistributive taxation common to contemporary welfare states
assumes a sense of common membership and shared values and
sentiments. Without these things, the maintenance of
communities and their institutions would require the
application of coercive force on a far greater scale than we
associate with free societies.
Similarly, among these supports for free governments, are
more generic but nevertheless, dearly bought values like the
rule of law, an atmosphere in which legal and natural rights of
persons are acknowledged and protected by the law with habits
of civility and mutual forbearance that are informed by civic
and political friendship.
The common good of the political community is challenged,
if not threatened, by the sudden and disorderly influx of large
numbers of foreigners. And so the very common good that
justifies political authority also justifies, I would say
requires, government's concern about who enters their
territory, and even more importantly, about the assimilation of
immigrants into the community. Both the need to protect public
order and the need to assimilate, justify concern about the
number of immigrants into the country and their character.
A large group of immigrants who come predominantly from a
distinct region of the world with its own culture that is
significantly different from that of their country of
destination presents an obvious challenge that no government
could responsibly ignore. Indeed, there may be particularly
urgent concerns if the immigrant group contains large numbers
of persons who are from places where genuine political
community has not emerged and more social life is still
dominated by family and tribal loyalties, or who are reasonably
believed to hold views that are inconsistent with democratic
political institutions and the protection of basic human
rights, especially the equal legal rights of women and
Large numbers hastily or heedlessly admitted cannot only
strain a country's material infrastructure of social support,
but its legal system and larger political culture. Moreover, it
could set in motion changes, the full import of which may not
be immediately apparent but which could lead to various forms
of social and political instability later.
The collision we witness today in Europe of immense numbers
of immigrants from a distinct civilization with a demographic
collapse of Western European countries, countries with birth
rates well below replacement levels, cannot but have far-
reaching consequences not only for the internal politics of
those countries, but also for the neighboring countries of
Central and Eastern Europe and at some stage for the United
States as well. Since we cannot now know what kind of political
pressure may eventually brought to bear on those countries'
governments relative to the character and future of the Western
alliance. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rohrabacher. This has been more philosophical than I
expected, but that is fine.
I wonder, Mr. Lewis, do you think that Merkel reads
Aristotle? Is that part of what the decisionmaking process, or
do you think people there are just trying to cope with a crisis
of the moment?
Mr. Lewis. I don't know much more about the chancellor's
thinking than I read in the newspapers. And my impression is
that she is coping with a very difficult and stressful
situation. But I think it is becoming clear that the strains
that are resulting from this are going to have political
consequences for her, but are already having consequences for
other countries. So I don't know on what basis she is making
these decisions, but I think it is probably very
Mr. Rohrabacher. Dr. Shiffman, do you see this influx, and
it was interesting you went down to an analysis of when
violence happens, and when you put these factors together that
we now see as the new reality in Europe, is by your analysis,
is that then going to be--that will result in violence one way
or the other in the months and years to come?
Mr. Shiffman. Mr. Chairman, I hope not. First, let me say
this is the most esoteric congressional hearing probably in a
long time. So I appreciate the committee taking on these sort
of more philosophical ideas.
The idea that Professor Lewis was talking about and how
that merges with what I am talking about is, you know, these
ideas that create cohesion among the society are important, and
this is what allows for the provision of public goods and peace
and stability. And all of that is absolutely at risk right now.
You are absolutely right, as you said in your opening
What I tried to point to in my comments are, well, you
know, if you are not able to stem the flow, then what are the
things that we need to think about? And we need to think about
this idea of social isolation and political relevance. That is
what sort of the economic literature would suggest. What that
means is, and if you look at some of the examples that I cited,
you have got this group that doesn't integrate, that is seen as
outsiders, they are seen as others, they are not us; they are
them, but they might be in sort of in my country now, and there
might be some detriment to me from them being here. And that is
a great opportunity for what I would call entrepreneur as a
violence, to step forward and talk about, you know, recruitment
and inciting things that we don't want to see. So those are the
things I would point to.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we did see, here in our own country,
where we had some people, young men, who immigrated from
Chechnya and leaving their roots behind to come here to live in
a freer and more benevolent society and ended up committing a
brutal act of terrorism and murdering some of our fellow
In terms of prefacing your remarks, stemming the flow, I,
just for the record, I think that Hungary was totally justified
in what it is doing to try to stem the flow. And, frankly, if
our European allies are not willing to stem the flow of large
numbers of people who are not native to their territory, they
will lose their territory.
And let me note, I believe that is true of the United
States as well. And we can be proud that we bring in 1 million
people, immigrants, into our country every year, more than
every other country of the world combined in terms of legal
immigration, but we are making sure that--as you noted in your
testimony, that we have a screening process, and we are
bringing people in who then can be enculturated and assimilated
into our society. That is, according to your testimony will, I
will say, minimize the chance of some kind of damage.
Mr. Shiffman. That is right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I don't think that is possible in Europe.
Do you have a comment on what is going on there now in
relationship--are these going to be on assimilated populations
which will then lead to violence? I will turn to both of you.
Mr. Shiffman. I don't want to comment on the specifics of,
you know, any particular European country and what they are
doing, but I think from the reading of the newspapers,
absolutely, this is something that we need to be concerned
about, and that is why I am flagging it in my testimony for you
all, is to the extent that the flow is too fast, and you can't
do proper screening and vetting, that is the first threat
factor, which is sort of the terrorist integrating within the
And then the second is, even when they enter, they are not
ISIS affiliated once the threat from radicalization. And that
is where I point to those two ideas of socially isolated and
politically relevant. And that is something, if we can't slow
it down--well, I mean we have to worry about whether we slow it
down or not, but those are the things that I suggest the
committee think about as they hear further testimony from other
folks more expert on the specific policies of the European
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you like to comment on that, Dr.
Mr. Lewis. I would simply underline points that both of us
have mentioned about the importance of assimilation and the
problem, in the particular case we are talking about here, is
the numbers of people in the short period of time in which they
are coming in. They are talking about possibly of as many as
1\1/2\ million refugees into Germany just this year, and I
think one has to remember that is on top of millions of
refugees that have come in in the last 5, 6, 7 years. Germany
is a country of 80 million people, so you can do the math; at a
certain point, the percentage creeps up, and the question of
the ability to assimilate those immigrants is crucial. The
United States is a much larger country. And historically, I
think we have done a much better job of assimilating immigrants
than the European countries have.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we, of course, have a culture that
is a multi--we accept everybody in. That is what our culture is
all about, is being proud of the individual rights that people
have in terms of their own backgrounds. So that is not
necessarily what keeps the European cultures together, their
belief in--our belief in liberty and our belief in human
rights, are supposed to be something that units us as
Americans. In other areas, they have cultural elements that
unit them as a people, a particular religion and some
particular customs that they have.
I think that Europe, frankly, this massive influx is going
to be, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I believe is
going to change the very nature of Europe. And we have seen an
historic event, and I believe based on the fact that people are
not courageous enough to control their own borders will soon
lose their country. There will be some other people there, and
people who will have different values and different cultures,
and that could happen in the United States as well.
With that said, Mr. Sires, would you like to have your
Would you like to use my microphone here?
Mr. Sires. Absolutely.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There you go.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Well, having been a refugee myself at the age of 11 and
coming to this country, I can tell you from experience that I
think the assimilation process in this country has a way of
absorbing you and making you part of this country. And if you
talk to my brother and my younger brother, who was born here, I
mean, they have very little remnants of what it was to grow up
in Cuba like I did. I came over when I was 11 years old.
My concern, I mean, is that these countries do not have the
welcoming that this country has for these refugees. And I
understand that, because these are not large countries. And if
you have an influx of people, very different from your culture,
they stand to congregate and basically stand apart from the
rest of the country, which I think eventually is going to hurt
those countries. Because they will want to keep their own
culture. They do not want to be part of the country that they
are in. I don't know. This country here is very different. You
want to be part of this country, at least that was in my
And I can see where Hungary would want to close its
borders. It is not a large country. They don't have the
resources. I can see for some of the other countries closing
their borders. It is a very different situation that we have
Now, Germany needs workers, but I think even now they are
starting to rethink the amount of people that they need and the
amount of people they are going to accept.
And, you know, my question is, which of the countries have
been most impacted--what countries have been most impacted by
this influx of refugees? Dr. Shiffman?
Mr. Shiffman. So let me address your first point,
Congressman, which is there is--putting this back into economic
terms, right, there is a tradeoff. Everything is a tradeoff.
And, you know, in the United States, we have the melting pot,
the phrase I used in my testimony. We have this identity of we
are the melting pot. We have hyphenated Americans, and that is
fine. Right? I am a Cuban-American, a Russian-American, a
whatever-American, and that is welcoming here. And that is a
wonderful thing. And that has led to what makes us great, as
the chairman said, and that also contributes to economic growth
and development and GDP growth and trade and all of these other
There is a tradeoff that European States have to make right
now, which is, they need the workers, but that is going to--
they can get workers, and they can get GDP growth; they can get
economic growth at the cost of that melting pot. Right? And are
the European States really ready for a melting pot approach? Do
they want hyphenated, you know, fill in the blank, or do they
want to keep their national identity? That is the nature of the
tradeoff right now.
My third point is that there is an economic opportunity
here. Right? There is an opportunity for increasing GDP growth,
but it is going to cost you culturally. It is going to cost you
ethnically and nationally, and that may not be what people are
willing to do. And I don't think they are. And if that is the
case, then, you know, the rest of my testimony was, well, how
do we address what really might backfire on us, which is, where
is the violence going to come from. And that is what I think we
need to focus on.
Mr. Sires. And I think the influx has been so quickly, so
many, that the security issue is very important.
Mr. Shiffman. Right.
Mr. Sires. I remember as a boy when my father was taken
away when we first arrived for about 4 or 5 days. And they went
through--my father went through a whole process, did you
participate in the communist party? Were you involved in the
communist party back then. And then after, you know, after the
4 or 5 days, he was returned to us.
I don't think these countries have any way of screening the
people that are going through there like what we went through
when I first arrived here.
So to me, I agree with the notion that these countries
could be taking in some people that are going to basically try
to disrupt our country or disrupt Europe. And for those
countries, it is very difficult to keep letting people in the
countries who are not screened like they were.
Mr. Shiffman. So my quick response, in the U.S., the reason
we build walls on our border is to slow the flow and to direct
the flow where we can screen people. That is why we have walls
on the U.S. borders. If you look at high-density urban
populations without a wall, people are run across the U.S.-
Mexican border and within 60 seconds they are in a safe house.
We put a wall up, slows them down, so they have to get through
the deserts of Arizona or they have to go through a point of
entry. So walls make sense when it comes to securing borders.
That is a good thing.
And so when we see it applied in Europe, it is the same
idea. The broader point I tried to make in my testimony also
is, this isn't a Texas problem. This is a U.S. problem. So when
we think about Europe, we need to think about how do we stem
the flow? How do we slow it down? How do we get control of it?
How do we do screening in a way that it is not just Hungary's
problem, but it is something that is collectively addressed
both in the costs and the benefits side.
Mr. Sires. The other aspect of this is that I think people
who come here eventually want to become American citizens and
participate in the process. I know my grandmother was 83 years
old when she first became a citizen so she can vote for her
grandson. You know, she never learned the language.
Mr. Poe. Did she vote for you?
Mr. Sires. Absolutely. More than once.
But, you know, it was a process. And no matter how much you
try to teach her English or everything, she would never learn
it. And my mother used to say that if she ever lost this finger
in this country, she be a mute. Because she used to go to the
store and say one, one, that is how she bought things. But, you
know, you assimilate. And this country has a way of just taking
I don't think these countries have that capacity, and I
don't know if the people--and we want it to be assimilated,
quite frankly. And those people that are going to those
countries, I don't know if they want to be assimilated. Would
you agree with that, Dr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Yes. I think that is a real question at the
moment. I mean, there are two important things here I would
mention. One is that the influx of refugees, which is quite
heavy here at the moment, comes in combination with the
demographic problems, the loss of growth, the natural fertility
in most Western European countries, well below replacement, and
that is why they need workers from the outside. But what is
crucial is to have an orderly process of immigration.
My wife's grandparents came over here from Italy, and her
father, who grew up here with those parents became a decorated
veteran of World War II, loved the United States. He learned
that being here, acquired those sentiments of attachment to the
country and willingness to sacrifice for it. That takes time,
and it requires a kind of orderly process, and that is what is
Mr. Sires. That is not there. The absorption in those
countries is not there either like it is here. You know, for
some reason, you know, we drink espresso, but then we like
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Let's just note that Cuban-
Americans have done pretty well, and they have done so well in
assimilating that I predict that there will be a Cuban-American
that is President of the United States, but I won't tell you
And let me also just note here, when we were talking about
the assimilation of people in the United States in the last 50
years during the Cold War. I mentioned the Hungarian uprising.
The people who came here during the Cold War, and there were
many, many people who were escaping communism came here. They
came here and helped us to thwart this evil theory of communism
that threatened world peace. Their assimilation helped us, as
Americans, understand when our neighbors saying oh, my gosh,
they won't even let people worship God the way they want in
communist countries, that alerted the American people to a
Unfortunately, what it appears, that many of the people who
are arriving here from the Middle East, who are Islamic, are
not here as enemies of the radical Islam that drove them here.
And, in fact, just the opposite. Sometimes you have people who
come here and expect that they are going to have their women
covered up. And quite frankly, I think that is an insult to our
values as a people, and not to mention people who come here
from Islamic countries who think they can still have honor
killings and things such as this.
That's not assimilation, and that is a threat to--and on
top of it, unlike the Cubans, who came here, who are enemies of
communism, these people aren't necessarily enemies--well they
are not enemies at all of Islam. And I am not saying people of
Islam is the enemy, but certainly radical Islam is. And anybody
who comes here should be part of the team. And I could say,
Cuban-Americans, we are proud of you guys. I mean, Cuban-
Americans have do so much for our country as so many of our
immigrants that are coming from elsewhere, like your father
from--your father-in-law from Italy and such.
And I will leave that with Judge Poe, who has got some
insights for us as well.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, all, for
Professor Lewis, I am intrigued that you study and teach
natural law. I didn't know anybody did that in the country
anymore. I am a great fan of natural law and the history,
especially of the founding of our country under the theory of
I have been to Turkey, and I have seen the refugee camps.
The one I was in had about 180,000 people from Syria. And this
problem is increasing because, of course, of the situation that
we are all aware of in Syria where you have got Assad, you have
got rebels, a mixed bag of a bunch of folks, we don't know who
they all are, and then we have ISIS all in there trying to
control it, and the Russians come in trying to make a power
struggle, and everybody's running for the hills.
The people coming into Europe, we don't know who they all
are, because we don't know who they are. And it seems to me
that they are everybody. They are those genuine refugees that
are running for their lives because of Assad or ISIS. They are
people looking for economic opportunities. They are people who
are coming into Europe maybe to cause mischief, but various
reasons. And if I understand what has been reported about their
migration, the goal seems to be for a large amount of them to
go into Europe, Eastern Europe, move into Germany and then even
move up into the Nordic State. And there is no end in sight
until we run out of people.
I read some estimates that there are going to be 5 million
folks moving into Europe. I don't know if that is true or not,
but it is a lot of folks coming in. There is no unified plan on
what to do with all those people or who is going to pay for it.
One of the, I think, issues of any nation is to protect its
sovereignty or its integrity, however you want to define that.
But part of that is knowing who comes into their country and
deciding whether they can stay or not. But the main thing, know
who they are, identify them. And early on, it looked like
people were just coming in into Europe and going wherever they
can get and never did know who they were.
I think countries like the border European Union countries,
specifically like Hungary, not only have a right but an
obligation to find out who is coming into their country. For
the U.S. to second-guess them and belittle them, and our soap
opera Ambassador dressing them down last week, I thought that
was a big mistake. Because, if I understand the way the system
works, if a country identifies someone at their border as a
refugee, and the person keeps moving, let's say to Germany,
gets to Germany, Germany may have the ability, authority to
send them back to the original border entry country.
Is that your understanding, either one of you all? Under
the current agreement in the European Union? Do either one of
Mr. Lewis. The current rules, the Dublin rules, I think,
have been largely dispensed with. I think those were the rules,
but I think there really aren't many rules at the moment----
Mr. Poe. So we don't have any--we don't know what could
happen to the migrant that gets all the way to Germany or to
France or Sweden and that country decides, you are not staying
here. They go back to where they came from or the original
entry country. That seems to me to promote just chaos in
Europe is, what, 500 million; United States is 360 million
or so. And you have lots of people coming in. It would just
seem to me that nations would have the authority to identify
and track and find out who is coming in. And then as my friend
from New York pointed out, what is the purpose of folks coming
in? Are they coming in to assimilate into whatever country, or
are they coming in to form another culture in the country? I
think France has found that they have had this problem with
assimilation of people who come to their country.
So I guess my question is, what should the United States be
doing? And we are observing and criticizing, but what should we
be doing about this migration issue in Europe?
Mr. Shiffman. So, Judge Poe, I agree with the way you have
laid it out very nicely. The direct concern to the United
States is so, to the extent this happens and these folks' mass
migrations happen into Europe, they are now in visa waiver
countries, and so they now come into the United States. So this
very quickly becomes a United States, you know, national
security issue. So we absolutely have an interest in this
My comments about the way Europe could handle this better
is to look at some of the things that we have learned here.
First of all, the border states aren't solely responsible for
Mr. Poe. You mean financially?
Mr. Shiffman. Financially. Fiscally. Right? You know,
looking at the border states----
Mr. Poe. And right now, is it your understanding that the
border--every country is kind of on their own as far as paying
for the migrants that are there?
Mr. Shiffman. Again, with the caveat I am not an EU
follower, that is my understanding that the burden is falling
disproportionately on the border states for doing that
screening, which makes absolutely no sense for U.S. national
security, let alone for Europe's national security.
As you said, we need to, to use your phrase, which I like,
we have to know first and foremost who it is, and second, why
they are coming. We are not built to do that right now in
Europe, and it seems what the United States needs to do is be a
part of fixing that. Right? This is----
Mr. Poe. I am going to send you over there with your
expertise in ICE and border security.
Mr. Shiffman. Well, you know, the United States Government
knows an awful lot about border security. I was fortunate
enough to be a part of the early days of DHS here. Lots of
folks have experience that could be beneficial to the European
Union. I think they need to address it as the European Union,
though. This isn't Hungary's problem; this is EU's problem, and
by extension the United States as well.
Mr. Poe. I am about out of time, professor. In fact, I am.
Do you want to weigh in on that?
Mr. Lewis. Well, you know, the statement that I prepared,
submitted ahead of time, one element of it is, that it is an
absolute first responsibility of national governments to
protect the common good of the people of those countries, to
secure the rule of law and the protection of the fundamental
rights of those people, and they have that. It is a very solemn
obligation for the governing authority of any country. And now
there is a natural tendency and a correct tendency to want to
be generous and hospitable to immigrants; there are compelling
humanitarian reasons for that. And I think, you know, the
Germans have tried to do that, maybe overtried in some ways.
But it has to be understood that the first responsibility
of governments is to protect the security of their people. And
some of these issues really, really could have an impact there.
In just yesterday's Wall Street Journal, there was a story
about forged passports and the market in forged passports,
people coming into Europe now, usually what they do is
apparently throw the passports away once they get to the
country of destination, and then they are equipped with a whole
new set of identity documents, which could then be used to
travel to other places as well. There may be no way of knowing
where they originally came from or what their intentions are.
And it is a matter of internal security, a justified function
of government to police that.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, very much. Well, you know, we could
talk about border security and sovereign rights all day. But
here is the cruel fact of it all: We are dealing with the worst
humanitarian crisis in, what, since World War II. And these
people, they have to go somewhere, because they are getting
killed and tortured, and they are starving. It is a horrible
First question I would like you to comment--you know,
answer, if you want to weigh in, which I think is important for
our public to understand, and that is--because we are looking
at all this afar, and I think we can understand the
humanitarian part of this. I would like your opinion on what is
happening now in Europe, how that would affect our own economic
or national security here in the United States? What are the
Mr. Shiffman. So, first, let me agree that this is--it is
hard not to think of this first and foremost as a humanitarian
crisis that we all have to take very seriously. And I think--
for myself, that was my first response, is well, as a national
security professional, you are still sort of--the humanitarian
component of this still comes first to mind.
So, in my testimony, as I suggested, Ms. Frankel, there may
be ways--if you are not going to let everybody in, and as Judge
Poe said, not everybody is coming for the same reasons. Right?
Not everybody is coming in because they are persecuted and
fleeing for their lives. They see an opportunity to get into
Europe, get into Northern Europe and get into a nice welfare
Ms. Frankel. Right.
Mr. Shiffman. So if we can screen out, which is hard to do,
if we can screen out, then it makes sense to me to focus on the
most vulnerable populations first, and that is something I
think we know how to do. At least the United States knows how
to do that.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Well, thank you for saying what you
said. Maybe my question wasn't clear. I think it is important
for our public here in the United States to understand that
there are economic consequences and potential national security
consequences if we ignore what is going on in Europe and in
Syria and in other parts of the region that are affected by
these refugees. I thought maybe you could comment on that?
Mr. Shiffman. Sure. As I pointed out in my testimony, what
concerns me is having unintegrated populations that have
political relevance, and that is what I think historically,
when we look back, tends to provide the opportunity for
violence, definitely and stability.
So as Professor Lewis said, right, these shared--the common
good, the shared stories, the shared languages, these are
always in which we integrate populations, as Mr. Sires said, we
failed to do that. If they come in anyway, large numbers----
Ms. Frankel. All right. I don't mean to interrupt you, but
maybe this is just not in your area of expertise. That is not a
criticism, all right. I mean, I think there are economic
consequences and security consequences if we ignore what is
going on, but not because we are afraid of terrorists coming
in. I mean, quite frankly, I think most of the people who are
being--that are fleeing Syria are innocent people who are good,
decent people, and they are not going to threaten our lives. I
think the bigger threat is we do nothing.
So I will go to another subject then, all right. Which is--
and I think maybe Mr. Poe started to get into this with you,
but do you think that the United States should give more
financial aid toward the refugees that are now going into
Europe? Because I know we are doing it in Syria; we are doing
it in Lebanon. I mean, the displaced refugees in Syria and
Lebanon and Jordan and Turkey. Do you have an opinion as to
whether or not we should increase our efforts in Europe?
Mr. Shiffman. No, ma'am. I don't know how much we are
giving, and if it is----
Ms. Frankel. Okay. So that is outside your----
Mr. Shiffman. That is outside my----
Ms. Frankel. And I guess our philosopher over here, you
Mr. Lewis. No. I mean, the United States is a generous
country, and I hope it continues to be generous, but as far as
exactly how much money is available for what, I just don't
Ms. Frankel. Okay. All right. You know what, but I did
enjoy your testimony.
And I think I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Lewis, you said in your prepared remarks,
and I am paraphrasing, that private property doesn't belong to
anyone. Would you go back through that for me, please?
Mr. Lewis. Yeah. What I was talking about there was the
resources that people need to live, the most important ones,
come initially just from the earth itself. And my point was at
the beginning, if we sort of mentally put ourselves back, you
might say, just hypothetically at the beginning of the world,
no particular piece of the earth belongs to any particular
Mr. Weber. And yet you recognize----
Mr. Lewis. We acquire things.
Mr. Weber. You recognize from Biblical days that there was
properties bought and sold, for example. So some time back
thousands of years ago, that process began.
Mr. Lewis. Because of facts about human nature, the fact
that we tend to take care of things more effectively when we
own them and----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. People quarrel over things, it
Mr. Weber. And that is where----
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. That we parcel out.
Mr. Weber. Well, that is where I was going to go, I mean,
because ownership, actually, you know, I would submit makes
people be better stewards of their property.
Mr. Lewis. Absolutely. But I was making an analogy to
territory itself, that particular governments are better
stewards of their territory and of the order of their territory
than having no particular governments and borders and so forth.
Mr. Weber. So in your estimation, is Hungary being a good
steward of their borders?
Mr. Lewis. From what I can tell, Hungary is doing what they
think is necessary to protect their national security.
Mr. Weber. That is what I want to hear, especially with our
Ambassador sitting here.
Dr. Shiffman, you said that opportunity for economic growth
for all of these refugees or immigrants coming in, but don't
you think that perhaps it is going to be an overburdening on
the infrastructure? I mean, you talked about an opportunity for
economic growth. Is there no down side that you see? I am
talking about economically now.
Mr. Shiffman. Yeah. Right. In terms of sort of just per
capita and GDP growth, it most certainly is a net benefit, but
it might not be a benefit for everybody. So there will--I will
give you an example. And we face this in the United States with
having open borders and free trade and stuff like that. So
there are certainly individuals who will lose out on an
economic opportunity as other people come in and replace them
Mr. Weber. Is there a timeframe involved? I mean, they are
not going to get that economic benefit in the first 6 months or
a year, right? They are going to be really overburdened for a
Mr. Shiffman. So what I would do is go back to the points
we have been talking about, is knowing who is crossing the
border. I imagine there are some folks who are highly trained,
highly educated who will be able to contribute to the economy
right away. There might be other folks who, you know, it might
take a generation.
Mr. Weber. Well, let me address part of that open borders.
You mentioned the United States actually shares--has the
responsibility of--I come from Texas.
Mr. Shiffman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. I was in the Texas legislature, and my second
term I was the vice-chair of the Borders Committee, and I can
tell you things about our southern border. Of the 2,000 miles
the United States has with Mexico, Texas has about 1,167 miles,
almost two-thirds of them, and it would scare you.
The years that I was there, the 4 years I was there, the
Texas legislature put $200 million in border security;
unfortunately, the United States did not. After I left, they
came in and put $400 million the first term I was gone, and the
last term they put over $500 million in. So I want to make that
plug for not only the great state of Texas, but to point out
the country of the United States is not really shouldering up
under the responsibility of securing our southern border. Okay.
It is interesting to me, and I am trying to read my notes
while I am talking, one of you said that maybe the European
Union ought to shoulder up under that burden and pony up some
money. Was that you, Dr.--was it you?
Okay. How do you expect to make that happen if we can't get
the United States to do that?
Mr. Shiffman. I don't intend to make it happen. I am just
suggesting to the committee some things that you might want to
take up in your conversations.
Mr. Weber. That is a battle that we might not be able to
Mr. Shiffman. I understand.
Mr. Weber. And then, let's see. Dr. Shiffman, you also said
in your discourse with Congresswoman Frankel that the
humanitarian component of the crisis has to come up first, but
at what point--you were talking about--she was talking about
people being taken in, you know, that they were--I mean, I am
not going to put words in Lois's mouth, but I think she said
they were all pretty friendly and nice, most of them, you know,
insinuating that we ought to be willing to take some of them in
was, I guess, where she was going with that.
But at what point does the humanitarian concept of our
citizens take precedence because of the danger? Would you speak
Mr. Shiffman. Sure. The precedence of our citizenship
should--our citizens come first.
Mr. Weber. Should be first and foremost.
Mr. Shiffman. First and foremost, yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. Okay. How do you balance those two?
Mr. Shiffman. Through this political process that we are
taking part in here.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Are you aware of about 3:20 today, CNN is
reporting that the United States intelligence are saying that
they believe a bomb brought the airliner down in Egypt, a bomb
onboard the plane? So when you talk about people coming over
and either assimilating into their--you, know, there was--I
don't remember which one said that there was a problem that
maybe terrorists were being embedded in the refugee stream, or
that once they got there, they would radicalize others in the
Well, I think what we are seeing is the effect of some
radicalization, some terrorism right now. Do you know how many
men and women and children lost their lives on that airliner?
It is about 230 something, wasn't it?
So I am just struggling with the idea that somehow we have
to focus on the humanitarian crisis to the exclusion of our own
citizens' safety. That is just a huge concern to me.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Just a few thoughts--
and, Mr. Sires, do you have a 1-minute or so, 2-minute closing
Mr. Sires. Well, I just wanted----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Use this microphone.
Mr. Sires. I just wanted to thank you. And I am still very
concerned about the long-term impact of the constant refugee
flow into Europe. I think it is going to disrupt some of these
countries, because they just don't have the money or the
ability to take in this population.
So I think we have to just keep an eye on this situation,
because eventually we are going to have to make sure that the
security of this country comes first.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for
And just a few thoughts, that the massive influx and out-
of-control influx that we see in Europe is not simply a
European phenomena, although I believe that one of the factors
that we have to look at, historic factors in Europe, that
Europe lost tens of millions of young men in World War I and
World War II. And during that time period, those young men
disappeared from the population equation, thus, the children of
the people who were prevented from having children because they
died at a younger age, and their children don't exist.
And you go right down how many people exist, Europe would
probably have many more, maybe hundreds of millions, maybe 100
million more people had those people killed in these vicious
wars not been eliminated from the equation. And thus, we see a
Europe that is underpopulated now from what it would have been
except for war. During that time period, there wasn't a massive
war of extermination going on in the Middle East, and in the
Muslim parts of the world.
That is bound to--you also see the effect of abortion on
Europe. Abortion has been a major factor in limiting the
population in Europe. And, again, the babies that have been
aborted in the last 50 years don't have children who don't have
children, and thus you have a shrinkage of population going on.
With that, we face a population where we have people who were
having families of six and seven and eight people. And when you
have societies juxtaposed like that, you are going to have--it
is going to have an impact, and we are seeing it now.
And so with that said, that massive influx, however, should
not be looked at as only a possible European situation. In the
United States, I believe this influx was started when Merkel
decided that she would then change the policy, and anybody who
could get to Germany, they were going to take them in. Well,
when that word went out, all of a sudden trying to stop the
flow of immigrants illegally into Europe became untenable. That
is the same dynamic at play in the United States.
When the people, the poor people of the world figure out
that they can come here, and once they get here, they are going
to be able to get a job, they are going to be able to get
government benefits just like everybody else, there will be the
out of control massive inflow that Europe has had right now, to
the point that it might change or undermine the basic cultural
elements that unite all of us. And that is a great threat.
We should be taking a lesson here, because whether it is--
and I am not just talking about--most people--unfortunately,
the immigration debate has been focused on Mexico, and this is
not a Mexican problem. This is an idea that once the word goes
out to the world, we have a major illegal immigration from
China now and in Asia, we also have people from all over Latin
America. And if we put out the same message that Merkel put out
for her country, we will have the same out of control influx
into our society, and we are on the edge of that right now. So
let us learn the lesson of Europe.
Thank you for joining us and giving us your insights, both
philosophically and practically. And with that said, this
hearing--one moment. I am going to announce one thing. At the
close of the hearing, I thought I would announce tomorrow I
will be submitting a piece of legislation that suggests that
those people in Middle Eastern countries that are now suffering
from radical Islamic terrorism, those countries in which
Christians have been targeted for genocide, that when it comes
to immigration and refugee status, that those Christians, who
are targeted for genocide, will have priority over other people
in trying to find refuge in the United States. I will be
dropping that bill tomorrow.
Thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]