The debate about Syrian refugees causes heated passions on both sides of the political aisle. However, when addressing the issue, it’s important to note that the big question is U.S. national security.  Refugees brought here cost ten times as much as refugees settled closer to their homes.  We can only help one tenth as many refugees if we do it by bringing them here.  The only argument to bring them here, then, is if there is no national security risk and they offer some significant benefit to the United States.

Unfortunately, the State of Texas found out recently that no matter what they say about the subject it doesn’t matter in the end.  Texas ended up losing a long battle about the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their state. The background of the Texas case follows:

In the aftermath of terrorist attacks in Paris that left 130 dead, Texas’ Republican leaders raised concerns about the refugee vetting process. Abbott in November directed resettlement nonprofits in Texas to halt the resettlement of any Syrian refugees last month.

But the federal government warned Texas it did not have the power to reject Syrian refugees, and the International Rescue Committee’s Dallas branch informed the state it would continue aiding Syrian refugees placed in Texas.

(Refugee resettlement in the United States is completely funded by the federal government, but the state is in charge of contracting with local nonprofit organizations and distributing federal dollars to those agencies.)

This case not only reminds us about the federal government’s power in refugee resettlement in America, but more importantly, the potential threat of terrorism. A report this year shows dozens more people, many of whom are listed as immigrants, “have been implicated in terrorist plots in the United States since 2014, bringing the total number of terrorists discovered since that time to 113.”  FBI Director James Comey has even warned about the lack of information for properly vetting Syrian refugees, saying, “We can query our databases until the cows come home, but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person…You can only query what you have collected.” Just the other day, CIA Director John Brennan advised Senate lawmakers about ISIS exploiting, “refugee streams, traditional smuggling routes and legitimate travel” in order to transfer fighters.

The Center for Security Policy sums up how Islamists use the immigration of Muslim refugees for their political agenda, stating:

Hijra [migration] remains the model to this day for jihadists who seek to populate and dominate new lands. Their migrations are not for the purpose of assimilating peacefully in a new host nation, adopting as their own its traditions and legal systems. Rather, Mohammed’s followers, in keeping with the example established by their prophet, are driven first to colonize and then to transform non-Muslim target societies – whether through violent means or via stealthy, pre-violent ones favored by the Muslim Brotherhood when it is not powerful enough to use violence decisively [civilization jihad].

Since we know that the resettlement of Syrian refugees poses a grave threat to U.S. national security, why do states like Texas get demonized for trying to block such misguided policies? It’s time to take the political correctness out of U.S. immigration policy, and get serious about protecting this country.