Premise: The United States, Canada, and Western Europe have been serving as a relief valve for every third-world craphole on the planet.
Think about it: The number of international "refugees" from North Africa, the Middle East, and the rest of the Third World doesn't go to Russia. They don't go to China. They don't go to Brazil, or at least, they do so in comparatively small numbers. No, they come to the United States, Europe, and Canada. This, along with some writing I've done in the last few days on the topic, brings up one serious question:
Why is it our responsibility to take all these people in, to feed them, shelter them, pay them, and put up with the inevitable friction they cause? Why is it our responsibility to bring in "refugees" in the millions, people who have no intention of assimilating to Western standards of behavior? Why is it our responsibility to absorb a steady stream of "refugees" from low-trust societies, when it's a near-certainty that they will behave as though they are still in that low-trust society?
Why us?
The numbers here are considerable. Just here in the United States, the number of people who have entered and remain in the country is staggering. Let's look at just the last few years. (Note that the Refugee Council USA, from whence these numbers come, uses the older name "Burma" instead of the current "Myanmar" for unknown reasons.)
In 2023, under the Biden administration, the goal (why do we have a goal to reach, like more is somehow better?) was 125,000 refugees. 60,014 actually entered, with the top five countries of origin being the Democratic Republic of Congo (18,145), Syria (10,781), Afghanistan (6,594), Burma (6,185), and Guatemala (1,748). The top five states where these people landed were Texas (5,039), New York (3,846), California (3,664), Pennsylvania (2,768), and Arizona (2,613), with the balance elsewhere.
In 2024, again under the Biden administration, the goal was again 125,000. The number was up, with 100,034 refugees actually entering. The top five countries of origin were the Democratic Republic of Congo (19,923), Afghanistan (14,708), Venezuela (12,878), Syria (11,274), and Burma (7,347). The top five states where these people landed were Texas (9,764), California (7,597), New York (6,234), Florida (4,578), and Pennsylvania (4,445), with the balance elsewhere.
In 2025, under President Trump, the goal was still 125,000. 38,102 refugees actually entered, a considerably lower number, one we might call "a good start." The top five countries of origin were the Democratic Republic of Congo (9,764), Afghanistan (7,597), Venezuela (6,234), Syria (4,578), and Burma (4,445). The top five states where these people landed were California (7,214), Texas (6,842), New York (4,917), Pennsylvania (3,189), and Florida (2,936).
In 2026 - obviously numbers are not complete - the goal was lowered to 7,500.
This is just one organization's numbers. In fact, they seem low. The Refugee Council USA doesn't mention Haiti, for example, and that number is certainly in the thousands.
Read More: Refugee Numbers Tank, Violent Crime Plummets: Coincidence?
Unreal: Former Minnesota 'Refugee of the Year' Busted on Fraud Charges
So, these numbers may well be on the low side. We can expect similar numbers from Canada, and probably more in Europe, especially considering recent events in Spain.
The real question here isn't the numbers. The real question remains: Why us?
There are, of course, people we should take in. We should take in white South African farmers, who face confiscation of their land and worse; these are industrious people, products of a Western culture themselves, and they would and do have much to contribute in the United States. And, in the name of keeping faith with people who helped us in difficult times, the mention of Afghanistan prompts memories of military members I know who served there, alongside the interpreters, scouts, and supportive village chiefs who probably face torture and death under the resurgent Taliban.
But that doesn't warrant setting a goal of 125,000 refugees a year, or even 7,500 a year. A goal implies something you should strive to achieve. Allowing in refugees should have two primary criteria:
1) People who have allied themselves with the United States and now face no-Schiff danger if they remain in their country of origin because of that, and
2) People who will assimilate and add to, not detract from, our nation's prosperity; people who will become Americans, and enjoy our system that protects the liberty and property of the American people.
But just allowing floods of people claiming to be "refugees?" People who want to come to the United States because they see it as a gravy train of free stuff? Because their cousins already in the United States have sold them on the wonders of defrauding our generous social-welfare systems? Because they have learned about the joys of reliable electricity and clean air and water?
Again, why us? Why is it our responsibility to take these people in?
Here's the thing, and I've been saying and writing this for years: Import the Third World, and become the Third World. That's just how it is. We see the examples everywhere: In Dearborn, Michigan, in Minneapolis, even now in Texas, where a large number of the "refugees" numbered above seem to have been sent. Too many of these people aren't assimilating. They aren't becoming American. They aren't adopting American standards. They are forming enclaves, and they have no intention of changing. We see the same thing in Canada; we see the same thing in Europe.
Enough is enough. Set the goal to zero. Take in only the few that I describe above. We can no longer be the entire world's keepers. The Third World can d**n well fix itself, and if they want a road map as to how to do that, send them a translated copy of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
