U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–462PDF 2015

CHALLENGE TO EUROPE:

THE GROWING REFUGEE CRISIS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND 

EMERGING THREATS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 4, 2015

Serial No. 114–119

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Gary Shiffman, Ph.D., adjunct professor, Center for Security Studies, Georgetown University .................................................................................................... 4

V. Bradley Lewis, Ph.D., associate professor, School of Philosophy, The Catholic University of America ..................................................................................... 13

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Gary Shiffman, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .......................................................... 7

V. Bradley Lewis, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ...................................................... 16

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 36

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 37

(1)

CHALLENGE TO EUROPE: THE GROWING 

REFUGEE CRISIS 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I call to order this hearing of the Europe, 

Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee. As we begin today, 

I want to note that Congressman Meeks, the subcommittee’s ranking member, is not with us today. He is recovering from a small, 

a minor, heart attack. We are grateful, very, very grateful, that it 

is a small one, and that he is on his way to recovery. He is on the 

mend, and we are looking forward to having him back with us very 

soon. I know I speak for all my colleagues, and we wish him the 

very, very best. 

Turning the topic to this afternoon’s hearing, I want to apologize 

for being late, but that is what happens when you have to do these 

hearings around votes. 

The topic of this afternoon’s hearing is a massive and increasing 

tide of asylum seekers, economic vibrance, stateless persons, and 

displaced people who have been and continue to enter Europe as 

we have seen, all seen, in the videos and news reports. 

Migrants fleeing to Europe, they have been an issue of humanitarian concern for several years, but a wave of immigration erupted 

into a tsunami this summer, when the German Government announced it would ignore the Dublin rules and accept all Syrian refugees that made it to the German border. That announcement 

opened the gates for a flow of people to move from North Africa, 

the Middle East, and even Asia to transit through Greece, Turkey, 

the Balkans, and northward into Europe. With some notable exceptions, countries have simply facilitated the movement of migrants 

through their territory as quickly as possible, sometimes working 

to register the asylum seekers and sometimes not. 

While individual stories of tragedy and humanitarian need are 

compelling, the aggregate number of people on the move is overwhelming. Earlier this week, the United Nations announced that 

218,000 migrants crossed the Mediterranean Sea to Europe just 

last month. That is more than were recorded in all of 2014. It is 

2

expected that around 1 million asylum seekers of all origins will 

reach Germany in this year alone. 

Germany and the EU are deeply divided about how to stem the 

flow of migrants, and what to do with those who have already entered. Clearly, what we have seen over the past few months is 

unsustainable, and if not checked, will change the fundamental nature of European countries, which are now being inundated. 

What we are witnessing is the destruction of western civilization, 

not by an armed invasion, but instead, through envelopment. The 

effects of this will not soon disappear, but instead, could well turn 

out to be an historic change in the nature of many European countries. 

Europe has been struggling to assimilate large Muslim populations, they have seen this in Europe. Increasing examples of antiSemitism and radical Islamic violence clearly speak to the challenge of integration and the risk of failure in this situation. And 

that was before, of course, all of these—what we are talking about, 

these reports of this violence, and anti-Semitism, was before the 

current flow of immigrants began. Chancellor Merkel is full of confidence that Germany can educate, train, and turn refugees into 

productive and contributing members of society, but that is a tall 

task by any measure. 

Even the most optimistic scenarios say that Europe will have to 

redirect billions and billions of dollars from supporting their own 

citizens, to accommodating the needs of these refugees. 

I hope in our conversation today. We can examine and discuss, 

the massive influx of people into the Europe and what will be the 

consequences for European society, culture, and political institutions. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions and extraneous materials for 

the record. 

And I now will turn to Mr. Sires, who will give us his opening 

statement. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing 

on the migration and refugee crisis facing Europe, which many consider the worst migration and refugee crisis Europe has faced since 

World War II. 

What is with the sound system? 

Most of the migration is from refugees fleeing war-torn countries 

like Syria. The surge of migrants and refugees have significantly 

challenged and divided Europe, European countries, and the European Union. Many of the frontline states, such as Greece and Italy, 

find themselves overburdened with the influx of refugees and lack 

of sufficient resources to properly register and accommodate refugees and migrants. 

It is clear that the EU and Europe, as a whole, must do a better 

job of coordinating efforts across its borders to manage the large 

number of people in a humane manner. As we work with our European partners to respond to the refugee crisis, we must remember 

the total influx of people our borders can cost. We have struggled 

with our own borders to absorb the surge of women and children 

fleeing violence in Central America. We have learned firsthand the 

importance of providing a response to these victims that is both 

3

timely and humane. Most importantly, these crises remind us that 

we can’t lose sight of addressing the root causes of migration and 

finding a political solution to the war in Syria. 

America has a long history of helping the world’s most vulnerable people, and other countries look to the U.S. to lead when it 

comes to the refugees’ resettlement. The administration recently 

announced that to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees, was the first sign 

of a goodwill to those that are desperate to flee the turmoil, but we 

can do much more. 

In addition to increasing the number of refugees we accept on 

Syria, we can draw our own experience—to draw our own experiences and challenges regarding border security and provide assistance and increased coordination to our European allies to help 

them cope with the number of migrants and refugees. 

I look toward to hearing from our esteemed panel of witnesses 

on the best path forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does anyone else have an opening statement? 

Judge Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the crisis in Europe has resulted in thousands of 

refugees going to Europe, and not all of the people going into Europe are trying to escape the Syrian war. Now we understand there 

are people from all over the Middle East, even as far away as Afghanistan, and all fleeing, looking to move to Europe for various 

reasons. Not all of them are seeking asylum or refugee status, but 

may have other motives in mind as well. 

I think part of the reason folks were moving so quick out of the 

Middle East and Syria is because Russia has gotten involved in 

Syria and is propping up Assad, trying to make sure he sticks 

around. And people see that their lives are in danger, so they leave 

the area. 

Obviously, Europe was not prepared for this tremendous influx 

of thousands and thousands of other people. I am not sure that Europe has figured out a way to handle it, and I am sure the United 

States, in my opinion, is not doing much to help in the crisis. Some 

countries take various positions on what to do with the migrants, 

let them pass through or maybe not even let them come into their 

country. One such example is Hungary, who is trying to protect the 

national sovereignty of its own country. And the United States, 

rather than try to understand the situation in Hungary, even last 

week the U.S. Ambassador dressed down the Hungarians for what 

the State Department believed was not the right course in dealing 

with migrants. That does nothing to help our relationship with 

Hungary, a NATO ally. 

It is obvious that there has to be something to be done with 

these thousands of individuals and where they are going and how 

long are they going to stay? And what is the United States going 

to do to help in this crisis? And I am sure that our witnesses have 

all the answers to these questions. That is why they are here. So 

I will thank the chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Weber, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. WEBER. We are good to go. 

4

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Good to go? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I notice Ms. Frankel is as well. 

Let me note that before we start, we have with us the distinguished Ambassador from Hungary. Thank you for joining us 

today. We appreciate that. 

And let me just say that Hungary has been a tremendous friend 

and asset to the peace and stability of the world, and I am personally upset that our administration has sought to find out and try 

to complain about every little thing they disagree with, with Hungary. Hungary has every right to set their own policies, and I am 

pleased that Hungary has a track record of doing good things with 

the United States. So we thank you. 

This is also the anniversary of the Hungarian revolution. And all 

of us who fought communism for decades were inspired by the 

young people and others who rose up against the communist dictatorship in Budapest back in 1956. So that is—is that 60 years? 

Mr. POE. You were there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was there. That was a little bit later. 

But anyway, with that said, we have two really fine witnesses 

with us today. I would ask if you could try to get it to 5 minutes, 

and then we will have a nice dialogue on that. 

I would like to introduce Dr. Gary Shiffman. He is a professor 

of security studies, Department of Georgetown University. His 

work focuses on exploring the relationship between economics and 

national security. Dr. Shiffman is also the founder of Giant Oak Incorporated, a company that meets the demand for social sciencedriven innovation in big data environments like institutions countering organized crime, money laundering, trafficking, insurgency, 

and terrorism. It is a pleasure to have Dr. Shiffman here to speak 

with us on this very important topic. 

Also, we have with us Dr. V. Bradley Lewis. He serves as associate professor in the School of Philosophy at Catholic University 

of America, where he has taught for nearly two decades. He also 

serves as associate editor of the American Journal of Jurisprudence. Dr. Lewis specializes in political philosophy, Plato, legal philosophy, and natural law theory. We are delighted to have Dr. 

Lewis with us today. 

And, again, I ask if Dr. Lewis and Dr. Shiffman could keep it to 

about 5 minutes, and we will have a nice dialogue. So thank you 

very much. 

Dr. Shiffman, Gary, you may go first. 

STATEMENT OF GARY SHIFFMAN, PH.D, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES, GEORGETOWN 

UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Thank you, distinguished members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to provide testimony today on the economic views of security implications of the security——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You have to push the button. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Okay. Is that better? There we go. 

I can offer two distinct perspectives on this challenge. First, as 

a behavioral scientist and as a former senior official at U.S. Customs and Border Protections, I have spent a lot of time thinking 

5

about how understanding essential characteristics of human behavior can inform our understanding of organized violence. 

I have divided my comments today into three sections. The first 

provides an economist’s view of a way to think about security and 

the refugees. The second discusses my experience as a practitioner 

of national and Homeland Security. And third suggests a framework for policy options. 

One, a behavioral economist’s perspective. Economists see all 

human interactions as exchanges taking place within markets, 

with individuals regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity, making 

decisions that maximize welfare for ourselves, our families, and our 

communities. Competitive marketplaces demand cooperation in 

order to maximize our goals, leading individuals to divide the world 

into us and them. Political violence, such as insurgency and terrorism, occurs when scarce conditions allow violence to become economically feasible. In other words, people choose violence when it 

is the best way to achieve their goals in the face of scarce resources. 

In Europe today, continuing mass refugee streams will continue 

to strain resources of European populations, creating conditions of 

scarcity that highlight competition and sharpen divides between 

host and refugee, between us and them. 

As we may have predicted, we are witnessing political parties 

and viewing rhetoric with divisive language manipulating us 

versus them narratives and exacerbating tensions. This increasingly divisive rhetoric recalls historical examples of politicians 

using hate-creating stories to discredit opponents and better their 

own positions. Harvard economist, Edward Glaeser, points to three 

examples: Anti-Black hatred in the American South, anti-Semitism 

in Europe, and anti-Americanism in the Arab world. These hateful 

narratives lead Glaeser to point out that when populations are socially isolated and politically relevant, stories of hatred are likely 

to take hold and recruitment and violence can follow. 

European States and the EU stand at a crossroads between becoming a melting pot or remaining a federation of nations with distinct national ethnic and religious identities. The economists view 

would suggest that regardless of the choice, policies that create politically relevant and socially isolated populations be avoided. So 

how do we do this? Section 2, reflections of the practitioner. 

Regarding security challenges, we focus on two primary vectors. 

First, the possibility for terrorists to embed themselves within refugee streams and the potential for radicalization among refugee 

communities. High levels of single men in the refugee populations 

raises concerns that extremist groups, such as ISIL, have embedded members in the refugee streams. Existing radicalization of European societies coupled with the widening gulf between host and 

guest communities raises real concerns on the potential for refugees to radicalize and become violent. 

With regard to border security, the United States offers an opportunity for comparison. The United States screens for terrorist 

risk factors throughout the screening and asylum processes. The 

United States does a good job of integrating immigrants and refugees when they arrive, and significantly, the United States does 

not require border states to take full responsibility for border secuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\110415\97462 SHIRL
6

rity costs. Instead, the bulk of the responsibility is shared across 

the entire tax base of all States. This poses a comparative question: 

Is the European Union, as a collective, capable of sharing the costs 

and the benefits of screening and integration? To what extent 

should border states such as Hungary and Slovenia bear the brunt 

of this responsibility? 

Section 3, some thoughts on the response framework. The European Union is capable of benefiting from the refugee streams if it 

approaches the refugees as a source of needed workers while managing risk. Despite this potential benefit, EU member states may 

not have the capacity to address the speed and scale of the current 

flows either from a fiscal or a security standpoint, especially in the 

border states where the initial asylum claims are made. 

Issues of preserving national identity are real and must be treated as legitimate policy goals. As a result, governments will need to 

choose who is permitted to enter Europe by increasing screening 

measures limiting entry and sharing the fiscal responsibilities. 

Screening measures might be improved through cooperation and 

data analysis. Limiting entry might focus either on the most vulnerable population, such as women and children, or on populations 

fleeing from ISIL-controlled areas. And in integrating refugee populations into the labor force might mitigate fears of radicalization by 

avoiding isolation and minimizing social welfare costs. 

So my three key takeaways, first, regardless of the decision made 

on numbers and locations of refugee flows, threats may emanate 

from socially isolated and politically relevant populations. 

Two, the EU can manage risks associated with terrorism and 

other organized violence, but perhaps not each member state possesses the capacities, so we need to think about shared costs and 

benefits. 

And three, the EU is capable of benefiting from the refugee 

streams if it approaches the problem as an opportunity to integrate 

a needed workforce. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Lewis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shiffman follows:]

7


97462a-1.eps
8


97462a-2.eps
9


97462a-3.eps
10


97462a-4.eps
11


97462a-5.eps
12


97462a-6.eps
13

STATEMENT OF V. BRADLEY LEWIS, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Chairman Rohrabacher, and members of 

the subcommittee. It isn’t often that a political philosopher is invited to speak to a congressional committee, and I am honored by 

your invitation. 

I have been asked to speak about the present migration crisis in 

Europe from the perspective of political philosophy. Much of what 

we need to know about the migration crisis is simply empirical. 

How many persons are involved? Where are they from? Why are 

they migrating? Et cetera. Philosophy has little to say about these 

questions. Rather, political philosophy is the business of understanding what principles or reasons should guide our political conduct and shape our institutions and laws; what are the starting 

points for our thinking about our actions as persons and communities? Our starting points are actual goods that direct all of our 

practical reasoning. Political philosophy must also be attentive to 

truths about how human beings characteristically behave; that is, 

about the stable aspects of human nature. 

Political communities provide a context for individuals and 

groups to pursue their own development. This context includes especially legal systems that authoritatively coordinate the actions 

and interactions of persons and groups. Political communities are 

required by and justified by the common good of the people who 

constitute them. By common good I mean, first, the integral development and flourishing of the persons who live in the community 

and, secondly, the whole ensemble of conditions that facilitate that 

development. It is these things that justify but also limit the exercise of political authority. 

Among the conditions required for persons in groups to thrive, 

are the availability of resources, and these resources first come 

from the earth itself. And no things, no products from the earth, 

no parts of it, naturally and originally, belong to any particular 

persons; however, human nature suggests that those things are 

best maintained when they are shared out in some distribution of 

private property. 

And I believe that this explanation of private property is also the 

sound reason for the existence of different territorial political communities. Governments and their constituents together are analogous to property owners in the sense that they represent a determinate agency responsible for the maintenance of the necessary 

conditions in a recognized territory or jurisdiction, justified by the 

directedness of the agency and those conditions to the common 

good of their people. 

Public order, the security of persons, both individuals and groups 

and their property and freedom, are essential elements of the common good and are best protected by particular governments with 

clear jurisdictions. The common good is more than merely a set of 

laws and institutions. It includes a common culture, among the elements of which are, for example, a common language, at least one 

common language, and shared sentiments of attachment and common membership. Such sentiments are an indispensable support 

for the maintenance of legal and political institutions and make 

14

possible the sacrifices that are necessary for the preservation of 

any political community over time. This is especially the case with 

respect to modern democracies, which tend to be large and which 

often encompass considerable diversity of ethnicity, religious faith, 

and moral views among their populations, in addition to the social 

mobility and dynamism characteristic of modern economies. 

The role of shared practices, values, and sentiments in the maintenance of stable political communities that really do promote the 

common good of their citizens was known to Plato and Aristotle at 

the very beginning of the tradition. Aristotle in particular elaborated the notion of political friendship based on a fundamental 

agreement, or like-mindedness, about the purpose, structure, and 

practices of the political system. 

In the 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville famously made the 

habits and mores of the people central to his accounts of how democratic political institutions were maintained in the United States. 

The willingness of citizens not only to defend one another 

through military service, but also to consent in the sort of redistributive taxation common to contemporary welfare states assumes 

a sense of common membership and shared values and sentiments. 

Without these things, the maintenance of communities and their 

institutions would require the application of coercive force on a far 

greater scale than we associate with free societies. 

Similarly, among these supports for free governments, are more 

generic but nevertheless, dearly bought values like the rule of law, 

an atmosphere in which legal and natural rights of persons are acknowledged and protected by the law with habits of civility and 

mutual forbearance that are informed by civic and political friendship. 

The common good of the political community is challenged, if not 

threatened, by the sudden and disorderly influx of large numbers 

of foreigners. And so the very common good that justifies political 

authority also justifies, I would say requires, government’s concern 

about who enters their territory, and even more importantly, about 

the assimilation of immigrants into the community. Both the need 

to protect public order and the need to assimilate, justify concern 

about the number of immigrants into the country and their character. 

A large group of immigrants who come predominantly from a distinct region of the world with its own culture that is significantly 

different from that of their country of destination presents an obvious challenge that no government could responsibly ignore. Indeed, 

there may be particularly urgent concerns if the immigrant group 

contains large numbers of persons who are from places where genuine political community has not emerged and more social life is 

still dominated by family and tribal loyalties, or who are reasonably believed to hold views that are inconsistent with democratic 

political institutions and the protection of basic human rights, especially the equal legal rights of women and religious freedom. 

Large numbers hastily or heedlessly admitted cannot only strain 

a country’s material infrastructure of social support, but its legal 

system and larger political culture. Moreover, it could set in motion 

changes, the full import of which may not be immediately apparent 

15

but which could lead to various forms of social and political instability later. 

The collision we witness today in Europe of immense numbers of 

immigrants from a distinct civilization with a demographic collapse 

of Western European countries, countries with birth rates well 

below replacement levels, cannot but have far-reaching consequences not only for the internal politics of those countries, but 

also for the neighboring countries of Central and Eastern Europe 

and at some stage for the United States as well. Since we cannot 

now know what kind of political pressure may eventually brought 

to bear on those countries’ governments relative to the character 

and future of the Western alliance. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]

16


97462b-1.eps
17


97462b-2.eps
18


97462b-3.eps
19


97462b-4.eps
20


97462b-5.eps
21


97462b-6.eps
22

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This has been more philosophical than I expected, but that is fine. 

I wonder, Mr. Lewis, do you think that Merkel reads Aristotle? 

Is that part of what the decisionmaking process, or do you think 

people there are just trying to cope with a crisis of the moment? 

Mr. LEWIS. I don’t know much more about the chancellor’s thinking than I read in the newspapers. And my impression is that she 

is coping with a very difficult and stressful situation. But I think 

it is becoming clear that the strains that are resulting from this 

are going to have political consequences for her, but are already 

having consequences for other countries. So I don’t know on what 

basis she is making these decisions, but I think it is probably very 

improvisational. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Dr. Shiffman, do you see this influx, and it 

was interesting you went down to an analysis of when violence 

happens, and when you put these factors together that we now see 

as the new reality in Europe, is by your analysis, is that then going 

to be—that will result in violence one way or the other in the 

months and years to come? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope not. First, let me say this 

is the most esoteric congressional hearing probably in a long time. 

So I appreciate the committee taking on these sort of more philosophical ideas. 

The idea that Professor Lewis was talking about and how that 

merges with what I am talking about is, you know, these ideas that 

create cohesion among the society are important, and this is what 

allows for the provision of public goods and peace and stability. 

And all of that is absolutely at risk right now. You are absolutely 

right, as you said in your opening statement. 

What I tried to point to in my comments are, well, you know, if 

you are not able to stem the flow, then what are the things that 

we need to think about? And we need to think about this idea of 

social isolation and political relevance. That is what sort of the economic literature would suggest. What that means is, and if you 

look at some of the examples that I cited, you have got this group 

that doesn’t integrate, that is seen as outsiders, they are seen as 

others, they are not us; they are them, but they might be in sort 

of in my country now, and there might be some detriment to me 

from them being here. And that is a great opportunity for what I 

would call entrepreneur as a violence, to step forward and talk 

about, you know, recruitment and inciting things that we don’t 

want to see. So those are the things I would point to. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we did see, here in our own country, 

where we had some people, young men, who immigrated from 

Chechnya and leaving their roots behind to come here to live in a 

freer and more benevolent society and ended up committing a brutal act of terrorism and murdering some of our fellow citizens. 

In terms of prefacing your remarks, stemming the flow, I, just for 

the record, I think that Hungary was totally justified in what it is 

doing to try to stem the flow. And, frankly, if our European allies 

are not willing to stem the flow of large numbers of people who are 

not native to their territory, they will lose their territory. 

And let me note, I believe that is true of the United States as 

well. And we can be proud that we bring in 1 million people, immiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\110415\97462 SHIRL
23

grants, into our country every year, more than every other country 

of the world combined in terms of legal immigration, but we are 

making sure that—as you noted in your testimony, that we have 

a screening process, and we are bringing people in who then can 

be enculturated and assimilated into our society. That is, according 

to your testimony will, I will say, minimize the chance of some kind 

of damage. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. That is right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I don’t think that is possible in Europe. Do 

you have a comment on what is going on there now in relationship—are these going to be on assimilated populations which will 

then lead to violence? I will turn to both of you. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. I don’t want to comment on the specifics of, you 

know, any particular European country and what they are doing, 

but I think from the reading of the newspapers, absolutely, this is 

something that we need to be concerned about, and that is why I 

am flagging it in my testimony for you all, is to the extent that the 

flow is too fast, and you can’t do proper screening and vetting, that 

is the first threat factor, which is sort of the terrorist integrating 

within the flow. 

And then the second is, even when they enter, they are not ISIS 

affiliated once the threat from radicalization. And that is where I 

point to those two ideas of socially isolated and politically relevant. 

And that is something, if we can’t slow it down—well, I mean we 

have to worry about whether we slow it down or not, but those are 

the things that I suggest the committee think about as they hear 

further testimony from other folks more expert on the specific policies of the European Union. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would you like to comment on that, Dr. 

Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. I would simply underline points that both of us have 

mentioned about the importance of assimilation and the problem, 

in the particular case we are talking about here, is the numbers 

of people in the short period of time in which they are coming in. 

They are talking about possibly of as many as 11⁄2 million refugees 

into Germany just this year, and I think one has to remember that 

is on top of millions of refugees that have come in in the last 5, 

6, 7 years. Germany is a country of 80 million people, so you can 

do the math; at a certain point, the percentage creeps up, and the 

question of the ability to assimilate those immigrants is crucial. 

The United States is a much larger country. And historically, I 

think we have done a much better job of assimilating immigrants 

than the European countries have. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we, of course, have a culture that is a 

multi—we accept everybody in. That is what our culture is all 

about, is being proud of the individual rights that people have in 

terms of their own backgrounds. So that is not necessarily what 

keeps the European cultures together, their belief in—our belief in 

liberty and our belief in human rights, are supposed to be something that units us as Americans. In other areas, they have cultural elements that unit them as a people, a particular religion and 

some particular customs that they have. 

I think that Europe, frankly, this massive influx is going to be, 

as I mentioned in my opening statement, I believe is going to 

24

change the very nature of Europe. And we have seen an historic 

event, and I believe based on the fact that people are not courageous enough to control their own borders will soon lose their country. There will be some other people there, and people who will 

have different values and different cultures, and that could happen 

in the United States as well. 

With that said, Mr. Sires, would you like to have your time? 

Would you like to use my microphone here? 

Mr. SIRES. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There you go. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Well, having been a refugee myself at the age of 11 and coming 

to this country, I can tell you from experience that I think the assimilation process in this country has a way of absorbing you and 

making you part of this country. And if you talk to my brother and 

my younger brother, who was born here, I mean, they have very 

little remnants of what it was to grow up in Cuba like I did. I came 

over when I was 11 years old. 

My concern, I mean, is that these countries do not have the welcoming that this country has for these refugees. And I understand 

that, because these are not large countries. And if you have an influx of people, very different from your culture, they stand to congregate and basically stand apart from the rest of the country, 

which I think eventually is going to hurt those countries. Because 

they will want to keep their own culture. They do not want to be 

part of the country that they are in. I don’t know. This country 

here is very different. You want to be part of this country, at least 

that was in my family. 

And I can see where Hungary would want to close its borders. 

It is not a large country. They don’t have the resources. I can see 

for some of the other countries closing their borders. It is a very 

different situation that we have here. 

Now, Germany needs workers, but I think even now they are 

starting to rethink the amount of people that they need and the 

amount of people they are going to accept. 

And, you know, my question is, which of the countries have been 

most impacted—what countries have been most impacted by this 

influx of refugees? Dr. Shiffman? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. So let me address your first point, Congressman, 

which is there is—putting this back into economic terms, right, 

there is a tradeoff. Everything is a tradeoff. And, you know, in the 

United States, we have the melting pot, the phrase I used in my 

testimony. We have this identity of we are the melting pot. We 

have hyphenated Americans, and that is fine. Right? I am a 

Cuban-American, a Russian-American, a whatever-American, and 

that is welcoming here. And that is a wonderful thing. And that 

has led to what makes us great, as the chairman said, and that 

also contributes to economic growth and development and GDP 

growth and trade and all of these other things. 

There is a tradeoff that European States have to make right now, 

which is, they need the workers, but that is going to—they can get 

workers, and they can get GDP growth; they can get economic 

growth at the cost of that melting pot. Right? And are the European States really ready for a melting pot approach? Do they want 

25

hyphenated, you know, fill in the blank, or do they want to keep 

their national identity? That is the nature of the tradeoff right 

now. 

My third point is that there is an economic opportunity here. 

Right? There is an opportunity for increasing GDP growth, but it 

is going to cost you culturally. It is going to cost you ethnically and 

nationally, and that may not be what people are willing to do. And 

I don’t think they are. And if that is the case, then, you know, the 

rest of my testimony was, well, how do we address what really 

might backfire on us, which is, where is the violence going to come 

from. And that is what I think we need to focus on. 

Mr. SIRES. And I think the influx has been so quickly, so many, 

that the security issue is very important. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Right. 

Mr. SIRES. I remember as a boy when my father was taken away 

when we first arrived for about 4 or 5 days. And they went 

through—my father went through a whole process, did you participate in the communist party? Were you involved in the communist 

party back then. And then after, you know, after the 4 or 5 days, 

he was returned to us. 

I don’t think these countries have any way of screening the people that are going through there like what we went through when 

I first arrived here. 

So to me, I agree with the notion that these countries could be 

taking in some people that are going to basically try to disrupt our 

country or disrupt Europe. And for those countries, it is very difficult to keep letting people in the countries who are not screened 

like they were. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. So my quick response, in the U.S., the reason we 

build walls on our border is to slow the flow and to direct the flow 

where we can screen people. That is why we have walls on the U.S. 

borders. If you look at high-density urban populations without a 

wall, people are run across the U.S.-Mexican border and within 60 

seconds they are in a safe house. We put a wall up, slows them 

down, so they have to get through the deserts of Arizona or they 

have to go through a point of entry. So walls make sense when it 

comes to securing borders. That is a good thing. 

And so when we see it applied in Europe, it is the same idea. 

The broader point I tried to make in my testimony also is, this isn’t 

a Texas problem. This is a U.S. problem. So when we think about 

Europe, we need to think about how do we stem the flow? How do 

we slow it down? How do we get control of it? How do we do screening in a way that it is not just Hungary’s problem, but it is something that is collectively addressed both in the costs and the benefits side. 

Mr. SIRES. The other aspect of this is that I think people who 

come here eventually want to become American citizens and participate in the process. I know my grandmother was 83 years old 

when she first became a citizen so she can vote for her grandson. 

You know, she never learned the language. 

Mr. POE. Did she vote for you? 

Mr. SIRES. Absolutely. More than once. 

But, you know, it was a process. And no matter how much you 

try to teach her English or everything, she would never learn it. 

26

And my mother used to say that if she ever lost this finger in this 

country, she be a mute. Because she used to go to the store and 

say one, one, that is how she bought things. But, you know, you 

assimilate. And this country has a way of just taking you in. 

I don’t think these countries have that capacity, and I don’t know 

if the people—and we want it to be assimilated, quite frankly. And 

those people that are going to those countries, I don’t know if they 

want to be assimilated. Would you agree with that, Dr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. I think that is a real question at the moment. 

I mean, there are two important things here I would mention. One 

is that the influx of refugees, which is quite heavy here at the moment, comes in combination with the demographic problems, the 

loss of growth, the natural fertility in most Western European 

countries, well below replacement, and that is why they need workers from the outside. But what is crucial is to have an orderly process of immigration. 

My wife’s grandparents came over here from Italy, and her father, who grew up here with those parents became a decorated veteran of World War II, loved the United States. He learned that 

being here, acquired those sentiments of attachment to the country 

and willingness to sacrifice for it. That takes time, and it requires 

a kind of orderly process, and that is what is not there. 

Mr. SIRES. That is not there. The absorption in those countries 

is not there either like it is here. You know, for some reason, you 

know, we drink espresso, but then we like coffee, too. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Let’s just note that Cuban-Americans have done pretty well, and they have done so well in assimilating that I predict that there will be a Cuban-American that is 

President of the United States, but I won’t tell you which one. 

And let me also just note here, when we were talking about the 

assimilation of people in the United States in the last 50 years during the Cold War. I mentioned the Hungarian uprising. The people 

who came here during the Cold War, and there were many, many 

people who were escaping communism came here. They came here 

and helped us to thwart this evil theory of communism that threatened world peace. Their assimilation helped us, as Americans, understand when our neighbors saying oh, my gosh, they won’t even 

let people worship God the way they want in communist countries, 

that alerted the American people to a threat. 

Unfortunately, what it appears, that many of the people who are 

arriving here from the Middle East, who are Islamic, are not here 

as enemies of the radical Islam that drove them here. And, in fact, 

just the opposite. Sometimes you have people who come here and 

expect that they are going to have their women covered up. And 

quite frankly, I think that is an insult to our values as a people, 

and not to mention people who come here from Islamic countries 

who think they can still have honor killings and things such as 

this. 

That’s not assimilation, and that is a threat to—and on top of it, 

unlike the Cubans, who came here, who are enemies of communism, these people aren’t necessarily enemies—well they are not 

enemies at all of Islam. And I am not saying people of Islam is the 

enemy, but certainly radical Islam is. And anybody who comes here 

27

should be part of the team. And I could say, Cuban-Americans, we 

are proud of you guys. I mean, Cuban-Americans have do so much 

for our country as so many of our immigrants that are coming from 

elsewhere, like your father from—your father-in-law from Italy and 

such. 

And I will leave that with Judge Poe, who has got some insights 

for us as well. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, all, for 

being here. 

Professor Lewis, I am intrigued that you study and teach natural 

law. I didn’t know anybody did that in the country anymore. I am 

a great fan of natural law and the history, especially of the founding of our country under the theory of natural law. 

I have been to Turkey, and I have seen the refugee camps. The 

one I was in had about 180,000 people from Syria. And this problem is increasing because, of course, of the situation that we are 

all aware of in Syria where you have got Assad, you have got 

rebels, a mixed bag of a bunch of folks, we don’t know who they 

all are, and then we have ISIS all in there trying to control it, and 

the Russians come in trying to make a power struggle, and 

everybody’s running for the hills. 

The people coming into Europe, we don’t know who they all are, 

because we don’t know who they are. And it seems to me that they 

are everybody. They are those genuine refugees that are running 

for their lives because of Assad or ISIS. They are people looking for 

economic opportunities. They are people who are coming into Europe maybe to cause mischief, but various reasons. And if I understand what has been reported about their migration, the goal 

seems to be for a large amount of them to go into Europe, Eastern 

Europe, move into Germany and then even move up into the Nordic State. And there is no end in sight until we run out of people. 

I read some estimates that there are going to be 5 million folks 

moving into Europe. I don’t know if that is true or not, but it is 

a lot of folks coming in. There is no unified plan on what to do with 

all those people or who is going to pay for it. 

One of the, I think, issues of any nation is to protect its sovereignty or its integrity, however you want to define that. But part 

of that is knowing who comes into their country and deciding 

whether they can stay or not. But the main thing, know who they 

are, identify them. And early on, it looked like people were just 

coming in into Europe and going wherever they can get and never 

did know who they were. 

I think countries like the border European Union countries, specifically like Hungary, not only have a right but an obligation to 

find out who is coming into their country. For the U.S. to secondguess them and belittle them, and our soap opera Ambassador 

dressing them down last week, I thought that was a big mistake. 

Because, if I understand the way the system works, if a country 

identifies someone at their border as a refugee, and the person 

keeps moving, let’s say to Germany, gets to Germany, Germany 

may have the ability, authority to send them back to the original 

border entry country. 

Is that your understanding, either one of you all? Under the current agreement in the European Union? Do either one of you know? 

28

Mr. LEWIS. The current rules, the Dublin rules, I think, have 

been largely dispensed with. I think those were the rules, but I 

think there really aren’t many rules at the moment——

Mr. POE. So we don’t have any—we don’t know what could happen to the migrant that gets all the way to Germany or to France 

or Sweden and that country decides, you are not staying here. They 

go back to where they came from or the original entry country. 

That seems to me to promote just chaos in Europe. 

Europe is, what, 500 million; United States is 360 million or so. 

And you have lots of people coming in. It would just seem to me 

that nations would have the authority to identify and track and 

find out who is coming in. And then as my friend from New York 

pointed out, what is the purpose of folks coming in? Are they coming in to assimilate into whatever country, or are they coming in 

to form another culture in the country? I think France has found 

that they have had this problem with assimilation of people who 

come to their country. 

So I guess my question is, what should the United States be 

doing? And we are observing and criticizing, but what should we 

be doing about this migration issue in Europe? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. So, Judge Poe, I agree with the way you have laid 

it out very nicely. The direct concern to the United States is so, to 

the extent this happens and these folks’ mass migrations happen 

into Europe, they are now in visa waiver countries, and so they 

now come into the United States. So this very quickly becomes a 

United States, you know, national security issue. So we absolutely 

have an interest in this immediately. 

My comments about the way Europe could handle this better is 

to look at some of the things that we have learned here. First of 

all, the border states aren’t solely responsible for this. Right? 

Mr. POE. You mean financially? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Financially. Fiscally. Right? You know, looking at 

the border states——

Mr. POE. And right now, is it your understanding that the border—every country is kind of on their own as far as paying for the 

migrants that are there? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Again, with the caveat I am not an EU follower, 

that is my understanding that the burden is falling disproportionately on the border states for doing that screening, which makes 

absolutely no sense for U.S. national security, let alone for Europe’s 

national security. 

As you said, we need to, to use your phrase, which I like, we 

have to know first and foremost who it is, and second, why they 

are coming. We are not built to do that right now in Europe, and 

it seems what the United States needs to do is be a part of fixing 

that. Right? This is——

Mr. POE. I am going to send you over there with your expertise 

in ICE and border security. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Well, you know, the United States Government 

knows an awful lot about border security. I was fortunate enough 

to be a part of the early days of DHS here. Lots of folks have experience that could be beneficial to the European Union. I think they 

need to address it as the European Union, though. This isn’t HunVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\110415\97462 SHIRL
29

gary’s problem; this is EU’s problem, and by extension the United 

States as well. 

Mr. POE. I am about out of time, professor. In fact, I am. Do you 

want to weigh in on that? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, you know, the statement that I prepared, submitted ahead of time, one element of it is, that it is an absolute 

first responsibility of national governments to protect the common 

good of the people of those countries, to secure the rule of law and 

the protection of the fundamental rights of those people, and they 

have that. It is a very solemn obligation for the governing authority 

of any country. And now there is a natural tendency and a correct 

tendency to want to be generous and hospitable to immigrants; 

there are compelling humanitarian reasons for that. And I think, 

you know, the Germans have tried to do that, maybe overtried in 

some ways. 

But it has to be understood that the first responsibility of governments is to protect the security of their people. And some of these 

issues really, really could have an impact there. In just yesterday’s 

Wall Street Journal, there was a story about forged passports and 

the market in forged passports, people coming into Europe now, 

usually what they do is apparently throw the passports away once 

they get to the country of destination, and then they are equipped 

with a whole new set of identity documents, which could then be 

used to travel to other places as well. There may be no way of 

knowing where they originally came from or what their intentions 

are. And it is a matter of internal security, a justified function of 

government to police that. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Ms. Frankel. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, very much. Well, you know, we could 

talk about border security and sovereign rights all day. But here 

is the cruel fact of it all: We are dealing with the worst humanitarian crisis in, what, since World War II. And these people, they 

have to go somewhere, because they are getting killed and tortured, and they are starving. It is a horrible situation. 

First question I would like you to comment—you know, answer, 

if you want to weigh in, which I think is important for our public 

to understand, and that is—because we are looking at all this afar, 

and I think we can understand the humanitarian part of this. I 

would like your opinion on what is happening now in Europe, how 

that would affect our own economic or national security here in the 

United States? What are the long-term implications? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. So, first, let me agree that this is—it is hard not 

to think of this first and foremost as a humanitarian crisis that we 

all have to take very seriously. And I think—for myself, that was 

my first response, is well, as a national security professional, you 

are still sort of—the humanitarian component of this still comes 

first to mind. 

So, in my testimony, as I suggested, Ms. Frankel, there may be 

ways—if you are not going to let everybody in, and as Judge Poe 

said, not everybody is coming for the same reasons. Right? Not everybody is coming in because they are persecuted and fleeing for 

their lives. They see an opportunity to get into Europe, get into 

Northern Europe and get into a nice welfare State. 

30

Ms. FRANKEL. Right. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. So if we can screen out, which is hard to do, if 

we can screen out, then it makes sense to me to focus on the most 

vulnerable populations first, and that is something I think we 

know how to do. At least the United States knows how to do that. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Okay. Well, thank you for saying what you said. 

Maybe my question wasn’t clear. I think it is important for our 

public here in the United States to understand that there are economic consequences and potential national security consequences if 

we ignore what is going on in Europe and in Syria and in other 

parts of the region that are affected by these refugees. I thought 

maybe you could comment on that? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Sure. As I pointed out in my testimony, what concerns me is having unintegrated populations that have political relevance, and that is what I think historically, when we look back, 

tends to provide the opportunity for violence, definitely and stability. 

So as Professor Lewis said, right, these shared—the common 

good, the shared stories, the shared languages, these are always in 

which we integrate populations, as Mr. Sires said, we failed to do 

that. If they come in anyway, large numbers——

Ms. FRANKEL. All right. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but maybe 

this is just not in your area of expertise. That is not a criticism, 

all right. I mean, I think there are economic consequences and security consequences if we ignore what is going on, but not because 

we are afraid of terrorists coming in. I mean, quite frankly, I think 

most of the people who are being—that are fleeing Syria are innocent people who are good, decent people, and they are not going to 

threaten our lives. I think the bigger threat is we do nothing. 

So I will go to another subject then, all right. Which is—and I 

think maybe Mr. Poe started to get into this with you, but do you 

think that the United States should give more financial aid toward 

the refugees that are now going into Europe? Because I know we 

are doing it in Syria; we are doing it in Lebanon. I mean, the displaced refugees in Syria and Lebanon and Jordan and Turkey. Do 

you have an opinion as to whether or not we should increase our 

efforts in Europe? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. No, ma’am. I don’t know how much we are giving, 

and if it is——

Ms. FRANKEL. Okay. So that is outside your——

Mr. SHIFFMAN. That is outside my——

Ms. FRANKEL. And I guess our philosopher over here, you just—

no comment? 

Mr. LEWIS. No. I mean, the United States is a generous country, 

and I hope it continues to be generous, but as far as exactly how 

much money is available for what, I just don’t know. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Okay. All right. You know what, but I did enjoy 

your testimony. 

And I think I will yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Dr. Lewis, you said in your prepared remarks, and 

I am paraphrasing, that private property doesn’t belong to anyone. 

Would you go back through that for me, please? 

31

Mr. LEWIS. Yeah. What I was talking about there was the resources that people need to live, the most important ones, come initially just from the earth itself. And my point was at the beginning, 

if we sort of mentally put ourselves back, you might say, just hypothetically at the beginning of the world, no particular piece of the 

earth belongs to any particular person naturally. 

Mr. WEBER. And yet you recognize——

Mr. LEWIS. We acquire things. 

Mr. WEBER. You recognize from Biblical days that there was 

properties bought and sold, for example. So some time back thousands of years ago, that process began. 

Mr. LEWIS. Because of facts about human nature, the fact that 

we tend to take care of things more effectively when we own them 

and——

Mr. WEBER. Right. 

Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. People quarrel over things, it makes 

sense——

Mr. WEBER. And that is where——

Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. That we parcel out. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, that is where I was going to go, I mean, because ownership, actually, you know, I would submit makes people 

be better stewards of their property. 

Mr. LEWIS. Absolutely. But I was making an analogy to territory 

itself, that particular governments are better stewards of their territory and of the order of their territory than having no particular 

governments and borders and so forth. 

Mr. WEBER. So in your estimation, is Hungary being a good steward of their borders? 

Mr. LEWIS. From what I can tell, Hungary is doing what they 

think is necessary to protect their national security. 

Mr. WEBER. That is what I want to hear, especially with our Ambassador sitting here. 

Dr. Shiffman, you said that opportunity for economic growth for 

all of these refugees or immigrants coming in, but don’t you think 

that perhaps it is going to be an overburdening on the infrastructure? I mean, you talked about an opportunity for economic growth. 

Is there no down side that you see? I am talking about economically now. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Yeah. Right. In terms of sort of just per capita 

and GDP growth, it most certainly is a net benefit, but it might not 

be a benefit for everybody. So there will—I will give you an example. And we face this in the United States with having open borders and free trade and stuff like that. So there are certainly individuals who will lose out on an economic opportunity as other people come in and replace them and——

Mr. WEBER. Is there a timeframe involved? I mean, they are not 

going to get that economic benefit in the first 6 months or a year, 

right? They are going to be really overburdened for a while? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. So what I would do is go back to the points we 

have been talking about, is knowing who is crossing the border. I 

imagine there are some folks who are highly trained, highly educated who will be able to contribute to the economy right away. 

There might be other folks who, you know, it might take a generation. 

32

Mr. WEBER. Well, let me address part of that open borders. You 

mentioned the United States actually shares—has the responsibility of—I come from Texas. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. I was in the Texas legislature, and my second term 

I was the vice-chair of the Borders Committee, and I can tell you 

things about our southern border. Of the 2,000 miles the United 

States has with Mexico, Texas has about 1,167 miles, almost twothirds of them, and it would scare you. 

The years that I was there, the 4 years I was there, the Texas legislature put $200 million in border security; unfortunately, the 

United States did not. After I left, they came in and put $400 million the first term I was gone, and the last term they put over $500 

million in. So I want to make that plug for not only the great state 

of Texas, but to point out the country of the United States is not 

really shouldering up under the responsibility of securing our 

southern border. Okay. 

It is interesting to me, and I am trying to read my notes while 

I am talking, one of you said that maybe the European Union 

ought to shoulder up under that burden and pony up some money. 

Was that you, Dr.—was it you? 

Okay. How do you expect to make that happen if we can’t get the 

United States to do that? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. I don’t intend to make it happen. I am just suggesting to the committee some things that you might want to take 

up in your conversations. 

Mr. WEBER. That is a battle that we might not be able to win. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. I understand. 

Mr. WEBER. And then, let’s see. Dr. Shiffman, you also said in 

your discourse with Congresswoman Frankel that the humanitarian component of the crisis has to come up first, but at what 

point—you were talking about—she was talking about people being 

taken in, you know, that they were—I mean, I am not going to put 

words in Lois’s mouth, but I think she said they were all pretty 

friendly and nice, most of them, you know, insinuating that we 

ought to be willing to take some of them in was, I guess, where she 

was going with that. 

But at what point does the humanitarian concept of our citizens 

take precedence because of the danger? Would you speak to that? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Sure. The precedence of our citizenship should—

our citizens come first. 

Mr. WEBER. Should be first and foremost. 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. First and foremost, yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. How do you balance those two? 

Mr. SHIFFMAN. Through this political process that we are taking 

part in here. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Are you aware of about 3:20 today, CNN is 

reporting that the United States intelligence are saying that they 

believe a bomb brought the airliner down in Egypt, a bomb onboard 

the plane? So when you talk about people coming over and either 

assimilating into their—you, know, there was—I don’t remember 

which one said that there was a problem that maybe terrorists 

were being embedded in the refugee stream, or that once they got 

there, they would radicalize others in the nation. 

33

Well, I think what we are seeing is the effect of some 

radicalization, some terrorism right now. Do you know how many 

men and women and children lost their lives on that airliner? It 

is about 230 something, wasn’t it? 

So I am just struggling with the idea that somehow we have to 

focus on the humanitarian crisis to the exclusion of our own citizens’ safety. That is just a huge concern to me. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Just a few thoughts—

and, Mr. Sires, do you have a 1-minute or so, 2-minute closing 

statement? 

Mr. SIRES. Well, I just wanted——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Use this microphone. 

Mr. SIRES. I just wanted to thank you. And I am still very concerned about the long-term impact of the constant refugee flow into 

Europe. I think it is going to disrupt some of these countries, because they just don’t have the money or the ability to take in this 

population. 

So I think we have to just keep an eye on this situation, because 

eventually we are going to have to make sure that the security of 

this country comes first. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for 

the witnesses. 

And just a few thoughts, that the massive influx and out-of-control influx that we see in Europe is not simply a European phenomena, although I believe that one of the factors that we have to 

look at, historic factors in Europe, that Europe lost tens of millions 

of young men in World War I and World War II. And during that 

time period, those young men disappeared from the population 

equation, thus, the children of the people who were prevented from 

having children because they died at a younger age, and their children don’t exist. 

And you go right down how many people exist, Europe would 

probably have many more, maybe hundreds of millions, maybe 100 

million more people had those people killed in these vicious wars 

not been eliminated from the equation. And thus, we see a Europe 

that is underpopulated now from what it would have been except 

for war. During that time period, there wasn’t a massive war of extermination going on in the Middle East, and in the Muslim parts 

of the world. 

That is bound to—you also see the effect of abortion on Europe. 

Abortion has been a major factor in limiting the population in Europe. And, again, the babies that have been aborted in the last 50 

years don’t have children who don’t have children, and thus you 

have a shrinkage of population going on. With that, we face a population where we have people who were having families of six and 

seven and eight people. And when you have societies juxtaposed 

like that, you are going to have—it is going to have an impact, and 

we are seeing it now. 

And so with that said, that massive influx, however, should not 

be looked at as only a possible European situation. In the United 

States, I believe this influx was started when Merkel decided that 

she would then change the policy, and anybody who could get to 

Germany, they were going to take them in. Well, when that word 

34

went out, all of a sudden trying to stop the flow of immigrants illegally into Europe became untenable. That is the same dynamic at 

play in the United States. 

When the people, the poor people of the world figure out that 

they can come here, and once they get here, they are going to be 

able to get a job, they are going to be able to get government benefits just like everybody else, there will be the out of control massive 

inflow that Europe has had right now, to the point that it might 

change or undermine the basic cultural elements that unite all of 

us. And that is a great threat. 

We should be taking a lesson here, because whether it is—and 

I am not just talking about—most people—unfortunately, the immigration debate has been focused on Mexico, and this is not a 

Mexican problem. This is an idea that once the word goes out to 

the world, we have a major illegal immigration from China now 

and in Asia, we also have people from all over Latin America. And 

if we put out the same message that Merkel put out for her country, we will have the same out of control influx into our society, 

and we are on the edge of that right now. So let us learn the lesson 

of Europe. 

Thank you for joining us and giving us your insights, both philosophically and practically. And with that said, this hearing—one 

moment. I am going to announce one thing. At the close of the 

hearing, I thought I would announce tomorrow I will be submitting 

a piece of legislation that suggests that those people in Middle 

Eastern countries that are now suffering from radical Islamic terrorism, those countries in which Christians have been targeted for 

genocide, that when it comes to immigration and refugee status, 

that those Christians, who are targeted for genocide, will have priority over other people in trying to find refuge in the United States. 

I will be dropping that bill tomorrow. 

Thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

36

f


97462n.eps
37

Æ


97462m.eps