Alfonse D'Amato

The ‘Brexit’ vote was a clear response to immigration

Posted

Not long after Britain voted to leave the European Union on June 23, other European countries called for independence votes to decide their fate in the E.U.

One of the main sticking points for the British people and others who support leaving the union is the immigration crisis. Many feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of immigrants, Syrian and otherwise, who are being allowed into their countries, and feel that they no longer know who is coming in.

The historic vote in Britain will have multiple global repercussions. British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would step down. Stock markets around the globe spiraled downward. There’s no doubt that there will be continued economic consequences — trade deals with countries like the U.S., China and Canada will now all be reconsidered, along with others with non-E.U. members.

Many fear that the possibility of a negative impact on trade, economic growth, jobs and investment could send the global financial markets into a tailspin.

I support the decision of the people of England to protect themselves from floods of immigrants and to finally break away from onerous E.U. regulations. They wanted independence, they voted for it and now they are free from the union.

One of my main rationales is immigration. Campaigners for the “Leave” vote claimed that E.U. migration is to blame for one-third of its deficit. In fact, more than 40 percent of voters who backed Britain’s exit said that immigration was the most important factor in their decision. Between 2004 and 2010, 1.5 million people immigrated to E.U. countries, and Britain is expected to receive tens of thousands more immigrants from Syria over the next couple of years.

As countries such as Britain and the U.S. accept Syrian refugees, some countries in the Middle East refuse to take part. Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman have formally taken in no Syrian refugees, arguing that if they did accept them, it would open them up to the risk of terrorism. That must be a joke. It’s hard to ask Americans and the people of Britain to accept immigrants when some of their own neighbors won’t take them due to the threat of terrorism. Why should the people of the U.S. or our allies shoulder the burden?

Wouldn’t it be easier for those refugees to immigrate to places where they share a common language and common customs, instead of coming to countries where they potentially clash and could cause rifts?

It may not happen overnight, but in the long run, I believe Britain will become a stronger nation by separating from the E.U.

If only we here in the U.S. could separate from our Justice Department. The threat of terrorism isn’t just a problem in the E.U. The Justice Department has finally released answers as to why and how Omar Mateen murdered 49 innocent people in an Orlando nightclub.

After the transcripts of Mateen’s calls to the police during the assault were released, it was discovered that the Justice Department had edited and changed the exact wording of the dialogue between him and emergency dispatchers. Talk about Big Brother government! The early version released by the Justice Department deleted mentions of “Islamic State” and “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” the group’s terror leader. Mateen stated twice during 911 calls and at least once during talks with a crisis negotiator that he pledged allegiance to ISIS and al-Baghdadi.

Now our government is deciding what people should hear instead of telling them the truth? The government can now decide what we are able to handle? The Obama Administration realized that if the American public heard Mateen saying these things, it would be clear he was devoted to radical Islam, and it was be more difficult to pin this on gun control.

The Justice Department did finally cave to media pressure and release the full transcripts, in which the word “Allah” was clearly mentioned, not “God,” and that Mateen pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and ISIS. Time and time again, the Obama administration has refused to acknowledge Islamic extremism and terrorism.

The people of Britain voted and made their voices heard. Perhaps this November, our country should take a stand.

Al D’Amato, a former U.S. senator from New York, is the founder of Park Strategies LLC, a public policy and business development firm. Comments about this column? ADAmato@liherald.com.