Hikind: Nadler Presents False Narrative in Opposing HR 4038; This Is Not About Refugees—It’s About Protecting Our National Security


Congressman Jerrold NadlerAssemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) blasted Congressman Jerrold Nadler for his floor statement opposing H.R. 4038, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015, which would require additional background checks on Iraqi and Syrian refugees seeking admission to the United States.

“In today’s statement, Congressman Nadler presents a false narrative. This issue is not about America refusing to admit refugees. It is about protecting America from those who want to cause havoc to our country. Congressman, are you aware that 47 of your Democrat colleagues supported this bill? We want to make sure that the people that come into this country are not coming in under the guise of being a refugee when in fact they adhere to a radical Islamic ideology that threatens our national security.”

Hikind added, “We all support refugees—my parents both came to the United States after the horrors of the Holocaust. We’re a country of refugees. But as the recent attacks in Paris demonstrate, the security concerns are serious and we cannot be naive. Is America today equipped to do that today? Until we are certain of that, we’ve got to be very tough.”

H.R. 4038 would require the FBI director to certify a background investigation for any national or resident of Iraq or Syria seeking admission to United States. The Director of National Intelligence and the Director of Homeland Security would also have to concur in that assessment. The bill passed today in the House by 289-137, with 47 Democrats voting in favor.

{Matzav.com Newscenter}


  1. Are they actually so stupid to think otherwise?
    With the exception of taking in Jewish refugees during and just before the outbreak of WWll the compassion of this country to the plight of refugees around the world has always been exemplary. These refugees are different! They all hail from terroristic attitudes and think that in the name of moe-HAM-mid or whomever they have the moral and legal privilege, right and obligation to obliterate the world. Their record is clear for even the blind to see and the deaf to hear. Is Nadler so stupid?

  2. The bill is useless. It takes 18-24 months to vet a refugee; terrorist wannabes from countries in the visa waiver program can travel to the US with no vetting at all; most of the 11/13 terrorists were citizens of such countries. They could have pulled off the attacks here! Assemblyman Hikind and the House of Representatives should be worried about that!

  3. It is also 100% true that one of the excuses for not allowing Jewish refugees into the US during the Nazi era was that some of the refugees would be Nazis. Yet even Jewish children were not allowed in.

    We are hearing the exact same arguments today; some pols don’t even want Syrian children. This is NOT a false narrative.

  4. Charlie Hall will always support the most extreme Leftist point of view but we need to be concerned about our own safety.

    The migrants coming in are 80% young, virile males. How are these refugees? There is an extreme threat of ISIS from these people and there is absolutely no justification for threatening the American public with these very dangerous people.

    These are the reasons why there is no comparison between Jewish refugees and the current Syrian refugees

    1. Jews were not a terror threat; there is evidence terrorists are hiding among Syrian refugees. Jewish refugees were not a threat to the countries where they sought asylum. In the early 1920s, fears of communist activism among Jewish immigrants had helped drive restrictive immigration laws, but that threat–and the over-reaction to it–had long passed. In contrast, at least one, and as many as three, of the terrorists in the recent Paris attacks allegedly hid among Syrian refugees, prompting legitimate fears.

    2. Jews were singled out for persecution by the Nazis, not (initially) fleeing an ongoing war. If anyone has a unique moral claim that parallels the Jews of Europe, it is the Syrian Christians, Iraqi Yazidis, and other minorities being persecuted by radical Islamist forces in the Middle East. But that is not true of the broader wave of Syrian refugees. That is not to blame them for the war, but it does suggest there is a good moral case for distinguishing among refugees, rather than admitting all who wish to come.

    3. Jews had nowhere to go; Syrian refugees should have many places to go. When Nazi Germany began persecuting Jews, the Jewish population had few–and dwindling–alternatives. The State of Israel did not exist, and Britain, to appease Arab leaders, tried to keep Jewish refugees out of Palestine. Syrian refugees, however, theoretically have many options. There are 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, for example; some, unconscionably, are refusing so far to admit any refugees.

    4. Opposition to Jewish refugees was “racial”; opposition to Syrian refugees is based on security concerns. One of the main reasons immigration laws restricted Jewish entry into the U.S. was to promote the racial, i.e. genetic, superiority of the national “stock.” (Such eugenicist ideas were widespread, far beyond Nazi Germany.) In contrast, resistance to Syrian refugees has to do with fear of terrorism (see above), and valid concerns about importing radical Islam (a severe problem among Somali refugees).

    5. Many of the Syrian “refugees” are neither Syrian, nor refugees. Many of those who have joined the “refugee” wave are from other countries in the Middle East, or even further afield. They pose as Syrian because they know they are likelier to be received sympathetically, given the civil war there. In addition, some–perhaps a majority–are “migrants,” not “refugees” as defined by international law. The “migrants” include those who have found shelter elsewhere, but prefer the West’s opportunities.

    6. The Jewish refugees had communities willing and able to resettle them; the Syrian refugees may not. While the Jewish community in the United States was still struggling to climb the social ladder in the mid-20th century, it had an extensive network of charitable organizations (and still does). It is not clear the Arab-American or Muslim-American communities have similar abilities–or interest. A recent report to Congress revealed that 90% of recent Middle East refugees in the U.S. are on food stamps.