A Rich Nation Denying Refugees Help Is Inhumane

Recently, there has been a lot of media coverage about Haitian refugees at our Southern border. Sadly, it seems that the majority view is that these refugees should not be admitted to our country. Too many Americans view these refugees as somehow different from us, and letting them into the country would somehow hurt the country.

This is not the only refugee crisis that has evoked this kind of feeling. Refugees from many other parts of the world have been denied entry, and many even think they do not deserve our help in any way. They are wrong.

Who are the refugees. In spite of what many think, refugees are people just like us. Most of them had jobs -- they were construction workers, sales people, lawyers, bankers, nurses/doctors, and many other professions. But something happened -- a natural disaster, war, or pogrom -- that destroyed their lives, and made it impossible for them to rebuild their lives where they lived. Others never had a chance to build a life because of discrimination or extreme poverty.

They are not trying to get anything for free or hurt the country. They just want a chance to rebuild their lives, and they are willing to work hard to do that. They will be good citizens and good neighbors if just given the chance.

Most religions, especially christianity, teach that helping the unfortunate is required. That makes it rather surprising that many of those who are not critical of refugees and most refusing to help them are religious people. Religion teaches to share what you have with those who need it, but too many have a different attitude -- it's more like, "I've got mine, so screw you!".

Refusing to help refugees shows an astounding lack of humanity. The refugees are not the monsters trying to hurt the country. The people refusing to help them are the inhumane monsters, especially in this country (built on welcoming immigrants and refugees). 

In a country as rich as ours, this is inexcusable. We should be better than this!

Majority Of Public Disagrees With Trump About Refugees

Donald Trump has done his best to demonize the refugees from Central America -- those who turn themselves in at our Southern border seeking asylum. Trump has separated families, caged children, and refused to allow them to enter and ask for asylum. He wants Americans to consider these desperate families as criminals who want to hurt this country.

Fortunately, the public is not buying his racist hate-speech against these refugees. Instead of being convinced by Trump, the opposite is happening -- more are being convinced that the U.S. should allow these refugees to enter this country.

In December, only 51% said those refugees should be allowed to enter. That has now climbed to 57% -- a significant jump of 6 points. And that increase in. wanting them to enter has grown in all political groups -- Democrats (from 82% to 85%), Independents (from 52% to 58%), and even Republicans (from 14% to 24%).

Trump's vicious actions and hate-speech may work for his deplorable base, but it is not impressing the American public.

The charts above are from The Gallup Poll -- done between July 15th and 31st of a national sample of 3,038 adults, with a margin of error of 2 points.

DHS Inspector General Finds Border A "Ticking Time Bomb"

(Photo is from the office of the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General.)

There is a terrible humanitarian crisis at our Southern border. Donald Trump won't admit it (because he has caused it), and the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol make excuses for it. But it is real, and only getting worse. The DHS Inspector General recognizes it, and has issued two reports now -- calling it a ticking time bomb. Some have called these detention

Here is how NPR reports it:

The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General is warning about "dangerous overcrowding" in Border Patrol facilities in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas.

In a strongly worded report, the inspector general said the prolonged detention of migrants without proper food, hygiene or laundry facilities — some for more than a month — requires "immediate attention and action."

The report comes amid growing outrage over detention conditions for migrants and follows reports that migrant children were kept in squalid conditions without enough food and basic necessities in a Border Patrol station in West Texas.

Inspectors from DHS's Office of Inspector General in June visited Border Patrol facilities and ports of entry across the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, the busiest sector in the country for illegal border crossings.

"We are concerned that overcrowding and prolonged detention represent an immediate risk to the health and safety of DHS agents and officers, and to those detained," they wrote. . . .

In May, according to DHS, an average of more than 4,600 people a day crossed illegally or arrived at ports of entry without the proper documents, compared to less than 700 a day in the same period two years ago.

DHS says Customs and Border Protection facilities are at "peak capacity" and that the agency is adding detention capacity at three tent facilities in order to improve the conditions for migrants. CBP also says it "continues to take steps to address the health and safety of those in custody," including by expanding medical services.

The inspector general's office released a report in May describing similarly dangerous overcrowding conditions in Border Patrol cells in the El Paso region.

The latest report from the Rio Grande Valley includes photos of migrants penned into overcrowded Border Patrol facilities — including one man pressing a cardboard sign to a cell window with the word "Help."

The inspectors quote one unnamed senior manager calling the situation a "ticking time bomb."

Inspectors found that hundreds of children were held for longer than the 72 hours, the maximum time federal rules allow. In some cases, kids were held for more than two weeks. And some adults were kept in standing-room-only cells, without access to showers, for more than a week.

Some have called these detention facilities at the border "concentration camps". That upsets Trump, the DHS, and the Border Patrol, but the deplorable conditions make the portrayal rather accurate.  And the survivors of America's past concentration camps (for the citizens of Japanese heritage during World War II) agree with the designation. The picture below (by Molly Hennessy-Fiske of the Los Angeles Times) shows some of those survivors demonstrating at Fort Sill in Oklahoma to stop the establishment of even more of these concentration camps. They are upset that this country is repeating the mistakes of the past.

Trump's Immigration Policy Is Promoting Child Abuse

It is an undeniable fact that the population of the United States is made up mostly of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants. And most Americans are proud of that, and revere the poem inscribed on the base of our Statue of Liberty (see above) that welcomes immigrants.

But there have been periods throughout our history where the racists and xenophobes have gotten powerful and tried to stop immigration -- especially people of a different ethnicity or religion from the dominant white population.

We are currently in one of those periods. With a racist and xenophobe currently living in our White House, demonizing immigrants and refugees has become government policy. And that policy has led to the denial of human rights.

Trump would like Americans to believe that refugees seeking safety and a better future for their families are criminals. They are not. The latest refugees (from Central America) are trying to escape dangerous and horrendous situations in their home country. Most have not crossed the border illegally, but have turned themselves in at the border seeking asylum -- as they have the legal right to do.

But they have been met with hate and discrimination by the Trump administration. They have been denied both their human and legal rights. They have been separated from their children, and housed in camps that truly do seem to deserve the title of "concentration camps".

But worst of all is the treatment of the refugee children. After being unlawfully separated from their parents, they are being held in facilities that deny them adequate and decent food, proper medical care, beds and blankets, soap and toothbrushes, and other items required by common decency (and law). Trump has said he did not build these facilities and has tried to blame Democrats for them. But he is the one who filled those facilities and has denied even basic care to those his policies have detained. He must be blamed for promoting child abuse at our southern border.

The following is part of an article by Caitlin Dickerson in The New York Times detailing the horrendous treatment of refugee children in Trump's border facilities. It should shame all Americans.

A chaotic scene of sickness and filth is unfolding in an overcrowded border station in Clint, Tex., where hundreds of young people who have recently crossed the border are being held, according to lawyers who visited the facility this week. Some of the children have been there for nearly a month.

Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, are caring for infants they’ve just met, the lawyers said. Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants. Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk.

Most of the young detainees have not been able to shower or wash their clothes since they arrived at the facility, those who visited said. They have no access to toothbrushes, toothpaste or soap.

“There is a stench,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, one of the lawyers who visited the facility. “The overwhelming majority of children have not bathed since they crossed the border.” . . .

Ms. Mukherjee is part of a team of lawyers who has for years under the settlement been allowed to inspect government facilities where migrant children are detained. She and her colleagues traveled to Clint this week after learning that border officials had begun detaining minors who had recently crossed the border there.

She said the conditions in Clint were the worst she had seen in any facility in her 12-year career. “So many children are sick, they have the flu, and they’re not being properly treated,” she said. The Associated Press, which first reported on conditions at the facility earlier this week, found that it was housing three infants, all with teen mothers, along with a 1-year-old, two 2-year-olds and a 3-year-old. It said there were dozens more children under the age of 12.

Ms. Mukherjee said children were being overseen by guards for Customs and Border Protection, which declined to comment for this story. She and her colleagues observed the guards wearing full uniforms — including weapons — as well as face masks to protect themselves from the unsanitary conditions.

Together, the group of six lawyers met with 60 children in Clint this week who ranged from 5 months to 17 years old. The infants were either children of minor parents, who were also detained, or had been separated from adult family members with whom they had crossed the border. The separated children were now alone, being cared for by other young detainees.

“The children are locked in their cells and cages nearly all day long,” Ms. Mukherjee said. “A few of the kids said they had some opportunities to go outside and play, but they said they can’t bring themselves to play because they are trying to stay alive in there.” . . .

Some sick children were being quarantined in the facility. The lawyers were allowed to speak to the children by phone, but their requests to meet with them in person and observe the conditions they were being held in were denied.

The children told the lawyers they were given the same meals every day — instant oats for breakfast, instant noodles for lunch, a frozen burrito for dinner, along with a few cookies and juice packets — which many said was not enough. “Nearly every child I spoke with said that they were hungry,” Ms. Mukherjee said.

Another group of lawyers conducting inspections under the same federal court settlement said they discovered similar conditions earlier this month at six other facilities in Texas. At the Border Patrol’s Central Processing Center in McAllen, Tex. — often known as “Ursula” — the lawyers encountered a 17-year-old mother from Guatemala who couldn’t stand because of complications from an emergency C-section, and who was caring for a sick and dirty premature baby.

“When we encountered the baby and her mom, the baby was filthy. They wouldn’t give her any water to wash her. And I took a Kleenex and I washed around her neck black dirt,” said Hope Frye, who was leading the group, adding, “Not a little stuff — dirt.”

Why Should Refugees/Migrants Respect Our Borders, Since We Did Not Respect Theirs?

(This image of Syrian refugees is from qasioun-news.com.)

Donald Trump, and his Republican cohorts, don't think we have any responsibility to accept refugees or immigrants into this country. They are wrong! The truth is that both the United States and other Western countries created much of the conditions that forced those refugees and immigrants to leave their country to save their families.

Here is part of an excellent and thought-provoking article by Suketu Mehta in The New York Times:

There is a lot of debate these days about whether the United States owes its African-American citizens reparations for slavery. It does. But there is a far bigger bill that the United States and Europe have run up: what they owe to other countries for their colonial adventures, for the wars they imposed on them, for the inequality they have built into the world order, for the excess carbon they have dumped into the atmosphere.

The creditor countries aren’t seriously suggesting that the West send sacks of gold bullion every year to India or Nigeria. Their people are asking for fairness: for the borders of the rich countries to be opened to goods and people, to Indian textiles as well as Nigerian doctors. In seeking to move, they are asking for immigration as reparations.

Today, a quarter of a billion people are migrants. They are moving because the rich countries have stolen the future of the poor countries. Whether it is Iraqis and Syrians fleeing the effects of illegal American wars, or Africans seeking to work for their former European colonial masters, or Guatemalans and Hondurans trying to get into the country that peddles them guns and buys their drugs: They are coming here because we were there. 

Before you ask them to respect our borders, ask yourself: Has the West ever respected anyone’s borders?

A vast majority of migrants move from a poor to a less poor country, not a rich one. Immigration quotas should be based on how much the host country has ruined other countries. Britain should have quotas for Indians and Nigerians; France for Malians and Tunisians; Belgium for very large numbers of Congolese. 

And when they come, they should be allowed to bring their families and stay — unlike the “guest workers” who were enticed to build up the postwar labor force of the colonizers and then asked to leave when their masters were done exploiting them.

The Dominican Republic, where the United States propped up the dictator Rafael Trujillo for three decades, should be high on the American preference list. So should Iraq, upon which we imposed a war that resulted in 600,000 deaths. Justice now demands that we let in 600,000 Iraqis: for each death we caused there, someone should get a chance at a new life here.

Some 12 million Africans were enslaved and carried across the Atlanticby European powers. Should not 12 million people from Africa be allowed to live in the countries enriched by the toil of their ancestors? Both will be better off: the African still suffering from what slavery has done to his country, and the host country that will again benefit from African labor, but this time without enormous pain and for a fair wage.

Just as there is a carbon tax on polluting industries, there should be a “migration tax” on the nations who got rich while emitting greenhouse gases. The United States is responsible for one-third of the excess carbon in the atmosphere; Europe, another one-quarter. A hundred million refugees fleeing hurricanes and droughts will have to be resettled by the end of the century. The United States should take a third, and Europe another quarter.

A huge bill would come to the West, but it is one it should look forward to paying. Without immigration, America’s economic growth would have been 15 percent lower from 1990 to 2014; Britain’s would have been a full 20 percent lower. Immigrants are 14 percent of the American population, but they started a quarter of all new businesses and since 2000 earned over a third of the American Nobel Prizes in chemistry, physics and medicine.

Migrants are 3 percent of the world’s population but contribute 9 percent of its gross domestic product. Their taxes prop up the pension systems of the wealthy nations, which are not making enough babies of their own. 

If you want to help the poorest people in the world, the fastest way to do so is to ease barriers to migration. Migrants sent back $689 billion in remittances last year, which amounts to three times more than the direct gains from abolishing all trade barriers, four times more than all the foreign aid given by those governments and 100 times the amount of all debt relief. . . .

There are no serious arguments that demonstrate long-term economic damage to countries that accept immigrants, even in large numbers. During the age of mass migration, a quarter of Europe moved to the United States, which went on to replace Europe at the pinnacle of wealth and power.

A world with more open borders would have a brief spasm of mass movement, and then migration might actually decrease, because money and happiness would be more equitably spread around, and more people would stay home.

To avoid paying the “migration tax,” the rich countries would have to stop propping up dictators, stop starting savage and unnecessary wars, restrain their multinational corporations from ripping off mineral wealth of poor countries and make sure that global trade is more equitable. Or else the migration bill from the devastated country would be prohibitive. . . .

History is what has happened and can never un-happen; history is happening right now. Attention needs to be paid. So does the bill.

Trump Has Lied Repeatedly About Refugees At The Border

(Photo of Central American refugees being gassed at the border, from Business Insider, is by Kim Kyung-Hoon / Reuters).

Donald Trump continues to try and scare Americans into supporting his immigration measures. He wants Americans to believe these people pose a danger -- probably thinking this will get people to support his needless and expensive border wall. But to do that, he has told a number of lies.

He has said these people are dangerous (criminals, gang members, terrorists). There is absolutely no proof that is true. These are people trying to escape a dangerous situation in their own country, or trying to find a decent future for their families.

He has said the refugees had to be tear-gassed because they were throwing rocks/bottles at immigration officer, and had seriously injured some officers. Not true. Those officers wore helmets, jackets, and carried shields. None received any serious injury.

He has said the immigration officials used a weaker type of tear gas against the refugees, and it posed no danger. Not true. The immigration officials only have one type of tear gas, and it can pose a danger to people -- especially young children (and there were children being gassed).

But perhaps the biggest lie he's told is that these refugees were trying to enter the United States illegally. That lie ignores U.S. law. It is NOT illegal to enter the United States and request refugee status -- and that is exactly what these people were doing. They were not trying to sneak into the country, but going to an official border crossing to turn themselves in and ask for asylum. That is their right, and that request should be decided by an immigration judge.

Trump is just demonstrating his desire for a white America. Note that this kind of action is not taken against white individuals from Canada or Europe (even those who enter to stay without the required documentation). Trump's lies about these refugees just expose him for what he is -- a racist.

What Americans Think Of The Refugee "Caravan"

These charts are from a new Monmouth University Poll -- done between November 9th and 12th of a national sample of 802 adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

In an effort to instill fear in voters, Donald Trump relentlessly denigrated the refugee caravan hundreds of miles from our southern border. He tried to convince people that the members of the caravan were dangerous people -- composed of gang members and terrorists.

When you look at the two poll questions above, it might seem that he was successful (even though voters rejected the Republicans). About 86% said they had heard about the caravan. And 53% thought it was a threat to the United States (29% a major threat and 24% a minor threat).

But when you look a little deeper in the poll, you see that's not really true. As the charts below show, only 26% thought the caravan should be stopped and sent back, while 70% thought they should be given the opportunity to show they deserved to be let into the country (that they were persecuted and had no criminal record).

In addition, only 38% thought it was at least likely the caravan contained terrorists, while 50% did not think that was likely.

Trump did his best to scare voters, but they aren't as stupid as he thought they were.

Does The U.S. Have A Responsibility To Accept Refugees ?

The United States likes to brag about its stand for human rights. But its current stand in opposition to accepting refugees shows that our words don't live up to reality. The current administration and the Republican Congress have worked in concert to cut off the flow of refugees into this country -- and they have been very successful in that effort. That's shameful, since U.S. policies and wars have created many of those refugees.

The Pew Research Center did a survey of Americans between April 25th and May 1st. They questioned 1,503 national adults, and their survey has a margin of error of 2.9 points.

Sadly, only slightly more than half of the public (51%) thinks the U.S. has a responsibility to accept refugees, while 43%say it does not. Those are not good numbers for a nation built on immigration (with many of those immigrants being refugees). It seems that too many Americans have accepted the Trump/Republican lies that refugees are to dangerous to accept -- even though they have always been thoroughly vetted before being allowed to enter the country.

I am very disappointed in my fellow citizens. I thought we were better than that.

Anti-Refugee Sentiment Is Nothing New In The U.S.

This picture shows Jewish refugees aboard the ship "St. Louis" in 1939. They were fleeing from Nazi Germany, but were denied entrance into the United States and returned to Europe.

There is a strong anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment in the United States. This time it's mainly directed against muslims. Throughout our history there has been discrimination against nonwhites and calls to keep them out of this country (Chinese, Hispanic, African, etc.). Sometimes even whites have turned against other groups of whites (Irish, German, etc.). And at times the discrimination has been directed at religious groups (catholics, jewish, and now muslims).

Whenever this xenophobic discrimination has risen its ugly head in this country (which has been often), it is shameful and represents a black mark on our history. But perhaps the blackest mark of all was when this country refused to accept Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler immediately before, during, and after World War II.

Here is just a small part of an excellent article by Daniel Greene and Frank Newport for the Gallup Poll. I hope it can encourage some Americans to reverse the horrible history of America rejecting refugees fleeing for their lives. They write:

Americans rarely agree as overwhelmingly as they did in November 1938. Just two weeks after Nazi Germany coordinated a brutal nationwide attack against Jews within its own borders -- an event known as "Kristallnacht" -- Gallup asked Americans: "Do you approve or disapprove of the Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany?" Nearly everyone who responded -- 94% -- indicated that they disapproved.

Yet, even though nearly all Americans condemned the Nazi regime's terror against Jews in November 1938, that very same week, 72% of Americans said "No" when Gallup asked: "Should we allow a larger number of Jewish exiles from Germany to come to the United States to live?" Just 21% said "Yes.". . .

A remarkable survey conducted in April 1938 found that more than half of Americans blamed Europe's Jews for their own treatment at the hands of the Nazis. This poll showed that 54% of Americans agreed that "the persecution of Jews in Europe has been partly their own fault," with 11% believing it was "entirely" their own fault. Hostility to refugees was so ingrained that just two months after Kristallnacht, 67% of Americans opposed a bill in the U.S. Congress intended to admit child refugees from Germany. The bill never made it to the floor of Congress for a vote.

Reluctance to admit refugees most likely resulted in part from the profound economic insecurity that typified the times. During the 1930s, nothing captured Americans' attention more than the devastating Great Depression, and hunger and employment took precedence over concerns about the rise of fascism abroad and its victims. . . .

This economic insecurity no doubt helped to intensify anti-immigrant sentiment that dated back to the 1920s. By the time Americans became aware of the refugee crisis facing Europe's Jews, America's "golden doors" for immigrants had been all but closed for nearly 15 years, ever since the U.S. Congress passed the 1924 National Origins Quota Act.

The immigration process was designed to be exclusionary and difficult. In that regard, it "worked." Most of Europe's Jews who were unable to find haven from Nazism -- whether in the U.S. or elsewhere -- did not survive the Holocaust. During the 12 years of Nazi rule, historians estimate that the U.S. admitted somewhere between 180,000 and 220,000 Jewish refugees -- more than any other nation in the world, but far fewer than it could have under existing immigration laws. . . .

Even during World War II, as the American public started to realize that the rumors of mass murder in death camps were true, they struggled to grasp the vast scale and scope of the crime. In November 1944, well over 5 million Jews had been murdered by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Yet just under one-quarter of Americans who answered the poll could believe that more than 1 million people had been murdered by Germans in concentration camps; 36% believed that 100,000 or fewer had been killed.

Only with the benefit of hindsight can we connect dots that many Americans could not have at the time. And yet, the stark contrast of these two November 1938 polls, revealing the troubling gap between disapproval of Nazism and willingness to admit refugees, continues to resonate. These findings not only shine a disturbing light on Americans' responses to atrocities during the Holocaust but also are consistent with polls conducted since. A Gallup poll just after the war still showed solid opposition to allowing European refugees fleeing their war-torn continent to come to the United States, and Gallup polls in the decades since have shown Americans' continuing reluctance to accept refugees from other nations.

More Refugees Now Than At The End Of World War II

The number of refugees worldwide is at an all-time high. Currently there are 65.3 million refugees -- about one out of every 113 people on the planet, and more than at the end of World War II (which previously had created the most refugees).

This is a worldwide shame, but the United States must accept much of the blame. It continues to support wars (like in Afghanistan and Syria) than continue to create refugees, and is the leading arms dealer to the world (creating other refugee-creating wars) -- and thanks to Trump policies, refuses to do anything to alleviate the refugee problem (including accepting refugees into this country after creating more of them).

We must change our policies. We need to stop dealing arms to the world, stop fighting unnecessary wars, and do our part to help the existing refugees (including taking in to this country our share). Failure to do so will insure that the United States is not viewed favorably in history, but will be viewed as a nation that did more to damage human rights than to insure those rights.

Some Numbers (For Those Fearing Muslim Immigrants)

From CNN:

International terrorism is a serious global issue, one that most leaders and citizens agree needs to be taken seriously. However, when the risk is boiled down to a matter of immigrants, refugees, and American citizens, the threat becomes infinitesimally small. According to a review by the CATO Institute, the chancesof an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner in the US stands at about one in 3.6 million. The breakdown includes attacks over a 41-year period and includes the 9/11 attack, in which 3,000 people died. Once you narrow it to refugees and and illegal immigrants, the threat is even smaller.

Even so, the statistics above don't tell the whole story. For instance, in 2016, the number of Americans killed in terrorists attacks in the US was unusually high because of the Orlando nightclub shooting, which claimed 49 lives and is considered an act of terrorism carried out by a Muslim extremist. However, it's important to remember that attack was also the deadliest terrorist attack -- and the deadliest mass shooting -- in the US since 9/11. 

On the other hand, the gun violence statistics do not include suicides by firearm, which usually hover around or above 20,000 per year.

The U.S. Has Met Its Quota Of 10,000 Syrian Refugees

(This photo of Syrian refugees is from Forward.com.)

Last September, President Obama promised that the United States would accept 10,000 Syrian refugees. That was a rather pathetic goal, since those refugees were created in large part because of American foreign policy and military actions -- but at least we have achieved the goal. White House advisors said the 10,000th Syrian refugee arrived in the U.S. yesterday. About 80% of the arriving refugees have been women and children.

The four states receiving the most refugees from Syria are California, Michigan, Arizona, and Texas. Those last three states all have Republican governors who had declared they would not let the Syrian refugees into their state. Of course, that was nothing but political theater. Those governors knew they did not have the authority to do such a ridiculous thing. They were just playing to the teabaggers that elected them.

Even though the United States has accepted only a fraction of the number of Syrian refugees that other Western nations have admitted, it has been a controversy in this country. That's because the the Republicans (and their presidential candidate) have opted to base their campaigns on fear by trying to demonize the refugees. They claim the United States doesn't have a good vetting process in place to insure the refugees are not terrorists. That is just not true.

Here is the very tough vetting process a refugee must go through before entering the U.S.:

The Olympic Games Opens Its Door To Refugee Athletes

The Olympic games will be held soon, when athletes from all over the world will compete in a fair, impartial, and peaceful manner. It is one of the few times all nations can meet peacefully, whether friends or enemies, and all are respected. But in the past, there have been a few athletes who have not been able to compete because they have no country to represent -- refugees. These athletes have had to leave their own country for their safety and that of their families.

Fortunately for those athletes, the International Olympic Committees Executive Board has rectified that situation. They have created a team of refugee athletes. That team currently has 10 athletes -- two from Syria, five from South Sudan, two from the Republic of Congo, and one from Ethiopia.

Here are the operational aspects concerning Team ROA (Refugee Olympic Athletes):

The name of the team will be Team Refugee Olympic Athletes;

Team ROA will get its own welcome ceremony at the Olympic Village, like all other teams;

The team will be housed like all the other teams;

A team entourage will be appointed by the IOC to meet all the required technical needs of the athletes, including: Chef de Mission, coaches and technical officials (as per official quotas);

The team uniforms will be provided by the IOC;

For all official representations of the team (including possible medal ceremonies), the Olympic flag will be raised and the Olympic Anthem will be played;

The team will march behind the Olympic flag before host team Brazil at the Opening Ceremony;

An adequate insurance policy will be contracted;

A proper doping control process will be introduced through the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA); and

Olympic Solidarity will cover travel and other participation expenses for the team and will continue to support the athletes of the team after the Olympic Games.

The Two-Faced Attitude Of Republicans On Terrorists

(This image of a gun show is from WFTV.com.)

Since the terrorist attack on innocent citizens in Paris, the Republican officials have been beating the drums loudly on the danger of terrorism in the United States. They have even gone so far as to try and keep Syrian refugees out of this country -- even though those refugees are largely women and children, and would be thoroughly vetted in a two-year process by the FBI, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security. They want Americans to believe it would be dangerous to let those refugees in (even though the refugees are fleeing from the terrorists).

But the Republicans are just playing a political game. If they were serious about protecting Americans, they would take action to keep the terrorists already in this country (and those who will come here) from easily buying firearms (and all the ammunition they desire). But they haven't done that. In fact, they have actively stopped that from being done.

It is just a fact that 40% of all the guns bought each year in this country are bought without any kind of background check being done. That's because there are some huge loopholes in our background check law for gun buyers. Anyone in this country (including psychotics diagnosed as dangerous to others, violent criminals, and terrorists) can buy a gun using these loopholes -- and that purchase would be legal (if it was done at a gun show, through the mail or off the internet, or from an individual).

And that would include those on this country's terrorist watch list. Those on that watch list could not fly in a commercial airplane (even after being thoroughly searched), but they would have no problem at all purchasing any kind of firearm (and ammunition) that they desire -- including assault weapons.

It makes no sense to deny thoroughly-vetted refugees from entering this country because of a fear of terrorism, but then to allow terrorists to legally purchase their tools of terrorism in this country. But that's the position of Republican officials.

If they truly wanted to prevent terrorist deaths in this country, they would go along with the wishes of about 90% of the American public and close the huge loopholes in the background check law. Doing so would save the lives of many Americans each year -- both from terrorists and other violent miscreants.

They won't do that though. They are just playing a political game with the refugees, and are getting too much money from the NRA to do anything that would actually help save lives. They are hypocrites.

The GOP Has Turned The U.S. Into A Nation Of Cowards

Ever since Paris was attacked by muslim radical jihadists, the Republicans in this country have steadily beaten the drums about how dangerous refugees are. Republican governors are saying they don't want any Syrian refugees in their states, and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed an onerous bill that would, in effect, make it impossible for this country to accept those refugees.

It doesn't seem to matter to them that all refugees are screened in a two-year process (and any refugee can be banned by the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, or the FBI). It doesn't matter to them that the United States has never had any problems with the refugees they accepted (including the 750,000 refugees we have taken in since the 9/11 attacks). It doesn't matter to them that Americans have a much better chance of being hit by lightening than being hurt by a terrorist (and have a much better chance of being hurt by a home-grown, right-wing terrorist than by a muslim jihadist).

Facts don't matter to them -- including the fact that we are a nation made up of immigrants and refugees, and their descendants. They are playing a political game. They are fear mongering in the hope they can scare Americans into voting for them in the next election. They are trying to pose as the party that will keep this country safe -- even though it was a Republican administration (Bush/Cheney) that laid the groundwork for the problems we now have.

And it looks like their fear mongering is working. Note in the chart above 51% of the public says we should not take any Syrian refugees. And even worse, 54% say we have no obligation to take refugees from anywhere (see chart below).

We might as well dismantle the Statue of Liberty, and remove the plaque from it. We are no longer a nation of brave defenders of liberty, who holds out hope for the world. The Republicans have made us a nation of cowards who want to close our borders, and deny freedom and opportunity to the downtrodden of the world.

Making our shame even worse, France is willing to accept at least 35,000 Syrian refugees -- and they were the nation actually attacked. Meanwhile, residents of the United States, one of the safest nations on Earth, cringes in fear.

These charts show the results of a new YouGov Poll -- done between November 17th and 19th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, and has a margin of error of 4.1 points.

Are We A Nation Of Uncaring Cowards ?

(The map above is from Daily Kos.)

That may sound like a rather harsh title to this post, but I think it's a valid question -- especially considering the fear mongering the Republicans are engaged in. The map above shows the states with governors who are ready to surrender to ISIS, and give them what they want -- a United States that fears them so much we are willing to give up our values and cringe in terror.

And it's not just the Republican governors willing to surrender. The U.S. House of Representatives has shown it's willingness to give in to ISIS and help them spread fear in this country. Yesterday, they passed HR 4038 -- an odious bill that would put such onerous restrictions on bringing refugees to this country that it would, in effect, ban those refugees from coming to the United States. The bill passed by a large margin -- 289 to 137. Two Republicans joined 135 Democrats in opposing this silly bill -- while 248 Republicans and 47 Democrats (to their eternal shame) voted to give in to ISIS.

The Republicans claimed their bill would prevent ISIS terrorists from using the refugee crisis to sneak into this country -- as one terrorist evidently did in Europe. They seem to equate refugees entering America with those flooding into Europe. But that is at least disingenuous, and probably an outright lie. The situation with refugees is very different in Europe and the United States.

While many thousands of refugees are arriving by boat in Europe every week, that is simply not happening in the United States. We are too far away from Syria and the Middle East for tiny boats full of refugees to reach us. Any refugee that wants to enter the United States must go through a serious and effective vetting process -- a process that takes from 18 to 24 months to complete, and requires clearance from the State Department, The Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (any one of which can end the process for a refugee and deny them entrance).

This system has worked very well -- so well that this country has had no problem from any immigrant that has gone through the process. And there's no reason to believe it won't work just as well for Syrian refugees. Personally, I think it's silly to think ISIS terrorists would submit themselves to this kind of scrutiny in a process that takes up to two years. There are quicker and easier ways for them to sneak into this country.

The GOP surrender monkeys know this. They are just trying to use the refugee situation for their own political gain -- and it's working with nearly half of the population. Note the chart below. About 44% of Americans are wetting their pants unnecessarily because of the GOP fear mongering, and another 9% don't know whether they should be afraid or not. These people are willing to toss traditional American values out the window out of a craven fear (that is not justified by the facts).

Are we an uncaring and cowardly country? The Republicans think so -- and they have convinced far too many Americans that cowardice is the way to go. It's shameful!

This chart reflects the results of a new YouGov Poll -- done between November 16th and 18th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, and has a margin of error of 4.1 points.