U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–966PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

MASS MIGRATION IN EUROPE: ASSIMILATION,

INTEGRATION, AND SECURITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND 

EMERGING THREATS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 26, 2018

Serial No. 115–123

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.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 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

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 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

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 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Robin Simcox, Margaret Thatcher Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center 

for Freedom, Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, 

The Heritage Foundation .................................................................................... 3

Marta Vrbetic, Ph.D., global fellow, Global Europe Program, Woodrow Wilson 

International Center for Scholars ....................................................................... 8

Victor Davis Hanson, Ph.D., Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow, Hoover 

Institution, Stanford University ......................................................................... 17

Mr. Wa’el Alzayat, chief executive officer, Emgage .............................................. 22

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Robin Simcox: Prepared statement ................................................................. 5

Marta Vrbetic, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................ 10

Victor Davis Hanson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................. 19

Mr. Wa’el Alzayat: Prepared statement ................................................................. 24

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 54

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 55

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and 

Emerging Threats: 

The EU response to the migration crisis ............................................................ 56

Hungarian Ambassador letter to the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher dated 

April 24, 2018 ................................................................................................... 65

‘‘Post-Brexit, Europeans More Favorable Toward EU,’’ by Bruce Stokes, 

Richard Wike and Dorothy Manevich, Pew Research Center, June 2017 ... 67

Marta Vrbetic, Ph.D.: Material submitted for the record ..................................... 68

(1)

MASS MIGRATION IN EUROPE: ASSIMILATION, 

INTEGRATION, AND SECURITY 

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2018

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Whereas, I have been informed that the 

ranking member will be here momentarily and I have been given 

permission by the staff and by Ms. Kelly, as well, that we can proceed and he will be joining us. 

Good afternoon. I call this hearing to order. The subcommittee’s 

topic for this afternoon is mass migration in Europe, its history, 

the current reality, the consequences of migration and what those 

consequences mean to the transatlantic relationship. 

Let me say that from the start what this hearing is not and it 

is not and cannot simply be a discussion of recent Syrian refugees 

going, pouring into Europe. Yes, that is part of the discussion, but 

it is only one part of the discussion. This is a big topic, one with 

a history which stretches back decades and in terms of migration 

perhaps even centuries. 

We cannot do justice to the issue or the lives of all the people 

affected without being respectful of the history of what we are talking about today. In recent history, European demographics began 

to change dramatically after the Second World War. The continent, 

depleted of manpower after the war, turned to a guest workers program from Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, and elsewhere. That was for 

labor to rebuild their countries destroyed during the war. Additionally, as Europe’s colonial empires came apart, that too spurred migration from Africa, the Asian Subcontinent, and the Middle East. 

Both the collapse of the Soviet Union and the implosion of Yugoslavia brought new migrants who sought safety, education, jobs, 

and being reunited with their families. 

In 2015, famine and collapsing economies in the Middle East and 

Africa, as well as the wars in Syria and in the Middle East, caused 

a spike in migration bringing more than 1 million people into Europe, some of them fleeing ISIS or some of them just desperate to 

get away from the horrible conditions in refugee camps. Others 

came seeking employment and a means to support their families. 

A small portion of those who entered Europe came with bloody and 

2

radical intentions. A very small percentage, very small number of 

these people were terrorists. That, too, will be part of the discussion. 

While the 2015 wave has tapered off, the ramification from that 

event are still with us today. Politically, it has damaged solidarity 

within the European Union as some states have rejected the Berlin-Brussels position on geographically redistributing asylum seekers throughout Europe. So it has caused some problems there. And 

it has also raised sensitive questions about how successful European societies have been at assimilating past groups of immigrants. 

It is prudent to ask how can European societies absorb hundreds 

of thousands, perhaps millions of sub-Saharan Africans and Arabs 

from the Middle East, many of whom are Muslims and all of whom 

come from a vastly different culture than the ones found in Europe, 

especially when reaching Europe is an achievable goal now for so 

many and the mechanisms to return failed asylum seekers and unlawful economic migrants is woefully insufficient or maybe even 

nonexistent. 

The answers have been clearer and they have been also, however, unnerving to many European populations. From the Brexit 

vote to the rise of the AfD in Germany, and yes, elections in Hungary and the rhetoric about controlling borders and maintaining 

cultures and preventing radicalization, all of this has been a constant. For the United States, our European NATO allies are among 

the most valuable partners we have. Their reduced unity and increased political instability do not serve our interests. 

However, this hearing will shed some light on constructive ways 

that we can approach the challenges that we are talking about. 

I will now turn to—Mr. Meeks is not here. Maybe Ms. Kelly, do 

you have an opening statement? Okay. And we will find a way to 

mark time until Meeks gets here, but I will instead introduce all 

of the witnesses. 

Starting with number one with Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, a Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is a 

scholar of classics and military history and having written nearly 

two dozen books, his latest is a history of the Second World War, 

a book which is right on my desk ready to be read and it has been 

there for a couple of weeks I might add waiting for me. I appreciate 

that you have traveled all the way from California to be with us 

today and to share with us your understanding of this and put in 

perspective the history of what we are talking about. 

We also have with us Dr. Marta Vrbetic. Now with a name like 

Rohrabacher, no one ever mispronounces my name, so anyway, we 

are very happy to have you with us today. You are a Fellow with 

the Global Europe Program within the Woodrow Wilson Center. 

Previously, you were an Ambassador or Assistant Professor, that is, 

of Government at Gallaudet University. And she is an expert on 

European politics and conflict resolution. 

Robin Simcox is a Margaret Thatcher Fellow at the Heritage 

Foundation. He is widely published and an expert in counterterrorism and counterradicalism and I am happy he is with us today 

and serving as a witness. 

And finally now, I am going to try to pronounce this correctly, 

too. I have failed so far, but here goes, Wa’el Alzayat. Got it. Okay. 

3

He is the CEO of the Emgage, an organization that advocates for 

Muslim Americans and he has had a distinguished career at the 

State Department, serving in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, the U.S. 

Mission to the United Nations, and the Department’s Syria Outreach Coordinator. 

I want to thank all of you for being with us today. Should we 

proceed? Okay. I would ask the witnesses to summarize your testimony into 5 minutes. Anything you want to say more than that you 

can put into the record and we will also get to a more extensive 

dialogue once the questions begin. 

So Mr. Simcox? 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBIN SIMCOX, MARGARET THATCHER 

FELLOW, MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR FREEDOM, 

DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN 

POLICY, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. SIMCOX. Chairman Rohrabacher and distinguished members 

of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here 

today. 

My name is Robin Simcox. I am the Margaret Thatcher Fellow 

at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony 

are my own and do not represent any official position of The Heritage Foundation. 

My goal this afternoon is to highlight some of the challenges Europe will face in the future due to both historic and more recent 

decisions on mass migration. 

First are the security concerns related to recently arrived asylum 

seekers and refugees. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham or 

ISIS is known to have infiltrated Europe using the unprecedented 

refugee flow. This was particularly common in 2015 when Chancellor Merkel opened up Germany’s borders. Yet, its ideology has 

also proven attractive to recent arrivals into Europe who were not 

previously part of the ISIS orbit. 

Forthcoming Heritage research documents the impact of the recent influx of refugees and asylum seekers has had on European 

security. Since January 2014, either refugees or asylum seekers or 

those exploiting the migrant routes into Europe have been involved 

in dozens of separate plots in Europe leading to hundreds of deaths 

and injuries including that of American citizens. The majority of 

these plots have direct ties to ISIS. 

Furthermore, the plots took place throughout Western Europe, 

with Germany the number one target. The perpetrators came from 

a broad variety of countries, but most commonly from Syria. Several individuals even had their asylum applications rejected but 

were unfortunately not immediately deported and this includes 

those who carried out vehicular attacks in Berlin and Stockholm. 

Second are concerns over the doctrine of state multi-culturalism 

in Europe. This doctrine accepts that different cultures will live 

segregated lives with no expectation to integrate, leading to the development of separate, parallel societies with competing laws and 

customs. In the U.K., for example, there are dozens of sharia councils. They adjudicate on a variety of civil issues, including shariacompliant financial advice and resolving family disputes. These 

councils operate legally under British civil law. However, one reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:39 May 23, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_EEET\042618\29966 SHIRL
4

cent U.K. Government report carried out for the Home Office determined that these councils are encroaching on legal matters outside 

their purview. This report stated that there are now an estimated 

100,000 sharia marriages without state recognition, meaning that 

women do not have the legal rights they should under U.K. law. 

Certain sharia councils were also adjudicating on child custody and 

domestic violence issues. The Home Office report went on to highlight ‘‘claims that some Sharia Councils have been supporting the 

values of extremists, condoning wife-beating, ignoring marital rape 

and allowing forced marriage’’

Thirdly, mass immigration can also adversely affect foreign policy. In January 2014, The Guardian reported that senior officials 

in the U.K.’s Ministry of Defence had assessed that the reality of 

‘‘an increasingly multi-cultural Britain’’ could influence future strategic defense decisions. These Ministry of Defence officials cited 

worries that British troops had largely been deployed to Muslimmajority countries in recent years, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. 

There were concerns about deploying troops in the future to countries from which British citizens or their families had historic ties. 

This was an acknowledgment that U.K. policy could see strategic 

interests abroad sacrificed for domestic security interests at home. 

And despite the recent modest contributions to U.S. military actions in Syria, there is nonetheless the possibility of future constraints on the U.S.’s closest allies. 

Chairman Rohrabacher, distinguished members of the subcommittee, the humanitarian situation many refugees flee from is, 

of course, horrific. Syria, especially epitomizes this. Nations wishing to adopt the policy of controlled migration in response is entirely understandable. Furthermore, the concerns I have referred to 

in Europe do not exist solely because of the most recent inflow. Europe has struggled with integration and domestic security concerns 

for decades. Yet, the most recent inflow has, unfortunately, exacerbated these problems. As a possible solution, European Governments could more rigorously vet asylum seekers, commit more resources to counterterrorism, be more willing to deport those in Europe illegally and place an expectation on newcomers that they integrate into their new environment and respect core European values. 

Thank you for inviting me today and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simcox follows:]

5


29966c-1.eps
6


29966c-2.eps
7


29966c-3.eps
8

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Dr. Vrbetic. 

STATEMENT OF MARTA VRBETIC, PH.D., GLOBAL FELLOW, 

GLOBAL EUROPE PROGRAM, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS 

Ms. VRBETIC. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Meeks, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify before the House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and 

Emerging Threats. 

I will be speaking in my own name and the opinions expressed 

in my testimony should not be understood as reflecting the official 

views of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 

Since I have only 5 minutes, I will go and talk about the most 

important issues that I find: How European politics is changing, 

what impact might be on the transatlantic relationship, and if I 

have time, I will go back to the Balkans and the impact of the migration crisis on the Balkans in 2015. 

First of all, as you mentioned, the anti-establishment and farright parties are gaining ground in Europe, as we have seen the 

recent electoral victories in Austria, Italy, and Germany. Chancellor Merkel took its centrist conservative party to the left, and 

some of her supporters defected to the far-right Alternative for Germany, AfD. And with just 13 percent of the national vote, AfD has 

been able to disrupt German politics, making it more difficult, for 

example, for Chancellor Merkel to form the new government. 

I should also say that Russia has been supporting some far-right 

politicians in Europe and probably is doing so in order to increase 

divisions within Europe and upset the established governments. 

Recently, the United States, joined by France and the United 

Kingdom, launched air strikes against Syria. The German Chancellor said the action was appropriate, but didn’t join the allies in 

taking the action due to the opposition at home. Basically, the migration crisis, and everything that followed, left the German Chancellor weaker. And we see here how the transformation of European politics could possibly have impacts on transatlantic relationship. 

Furthermore, European leaders are beginning to worry about the 

possibility of devastating far-right attacks which could potentially 

radicalize Muslims, provoke more attacks by radicalized immigrants and far-right groups, and lead to the breakdown of law and 

order. I am referring to the hypothetical scenario developed by the 

EU Institute for Security Studies, which reflects some of the concerns in Europe right now. 

Migration has also become a big source of contention in Europe 

between the new democracies in the east and their western counterparts, especially over how to reallocate 160,000 asylum seekers 

from Greece and Italy. The Visegrad Four countries—Hungary, 

Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland—remain opposed. They insist 

that the EU should protect its borders and prevent migratory pressures, rather than distribute asylum seekers. Germany and West 

European states insist on solidarity and burden sharing. 

Because I have very little time left, I will go to what the United 

States can do and is doing to help Europe. First of all, the United 

States and NATO should continue disrupting the smuggling and 

9

trafficking across the Mediterranean, thereby also helping protect 

European borders. 

Second, there should be no repetition of the experience we have 

seen in 2015 when 1 million migrants, virtually unvetted, made it 

to the heart of Europe. Besides posing security risks, and some of 

the Paris attackers passed through the refugee shelters of the Balkans, the migration influx was destabilizing the Western Balkans 

and Southeast Europe, causing lots of quarrels among the countries 

that are still unstable and still have neighborly disputes. 

The United States should also urge Europeans to put their differences aside. Eastern Europeans look up to the United States of 

America, and we should urge them to end their present quarrels 

with their Western counterparts. Eastern Europeans should embrace solidarity and accept the need to shape the common asylum 

policies in Europe. Western Europeans need to stop talking down 

to Eastern Europeans and be ready to examine their failing integration policies at home. 

I am overtime, therefore I will end here, as there will be more 

opportunity for discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vrbetic follows:]

10


29966b-1.eps
11


29966b-2.eps
12


29966b-3.eps
13


29966b-4.eps
14


29966b-5.eps
15


29966b-6.eps
16


29966b-7.eps
17

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, PH.D., MARTIN AND 

ILLIE ANDERSON SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION, 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

Mr. HANSON. Thank you. I will try to summarize very briefly my 

written statement, Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Pull the microphone a little closer, we are 

having a little volume problem there. 

Mr. HANSON. What we see now is the largest group of potential 

migrants since World War Two in the displaced persons that were 

the result of the invasion of Russia in 1941 and the Russian 

counter offensive. And it is a pool of 60 to 65 million people would 

like to leave Asia, Africa, or Latin America, so what we have seen 

is maybe the tip of the iceberg. 

There is a commonality that we share in the United States with 

Europe. It is always, almost always, a non-Western to a Western 

phenomenon, that is, the former British Commonwealth, the 

United States, and Europe have a greater propensity for consensual government, free market economics, transparency in the judiciary and that attracts people who want to enjoy that atmosphere. 

Most of the people who are arriving, unfortunately, are coming 

under illegal auspices. They tend to not have language fluency in 

the host country in which they arrive. They are not often a diverse 

group of people. They tend to be concentrated from a particular 

country or region and they are coming, as I said, in unprecedented 

numbers. They cause a lot of political ramifications for the host 

country. Politically, the divide is often progressives who are at least 

stereotyped to be more sympathetic to social welfare programs or 

more sympathetic versus conservatives that are worried about tradition, customs and are more skeptical. But more importantly, 

there is a class divide. The elites who tend to favor open borders, 

if I could use that term, through their influence and power, are 

often immune from the ramifications of their own ideology. And the 

lower and middle class native citizens deal with the problems first 

hand and that has caused a rise in populist movements, both left 

and right in Europe and the United States. 

There is also a little bit of chauvinism on their arrival because 

the demography is much more fertile, sometimes three to four replacement numbers rather than 1.4 or 0.5 in Europe or not even 

2 in the United States and that tends to suggest that you hear this 

term demography is destiny and it is a very Orwellian situation 

where the arrival starts to dictate to the host that they are the future of the country. 

Let me just quickly say we in the United States are very fortunate because we have about twice the number of migrants. We 

have double the percentage of non-native born, but we have a much 

stronger tradition of the melting pot. Americans are racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse. You cannot identify an American by 

his appearance in the way that Austrians or Greeks are. 

We have a country. Europe is a confederation. And the Schengen 

Agreement, area agreement, the Dublin, are not as successful in 

creating a uniform approach to the problem. We have one border 

that is porous. Europe has many borders, eastern and southern, 

18

land and sea, as anybody who has been to the Dodecanese islands 

and seen what is happening. 

We, in America, most of the people who come in have the same 

faith as the host population, Christianity. That is not true in Europe with the Islamist difference and disconnect. People arriving to 

Europe are more inordinately male. They are about 65 percent. 

Ours are about 55 percent. Males, historically, are the root of most 

problems, especially the younger they are. 

Let me just conclude by suggesting there are strategic ramifications for the United States that we often—and I don’t want to repeat what Mr. Simcox so eloquently pointed out which I am in 

agreement with, but NATO is no longer using a draft. Only two 

countries are left. It is a volunteer army. Experience shows usually 

when you have a volunteer army, people from the newer-arriving 

classes are the less economically successful will join the military 

and that will have a larger number of immigrants. 

Secondly, only six countries in Europe are meeting their 2 percent goals of GDP and with this increased social cost, whether it 

is actual or psychological, they will be more reluctant to meet their 

commitments. 

Germany has been the historic leader of Europe and it is really 

suffering somewhat being discredited after the financial northsouth divide in Europe and then the Brexit divide of which in both 

cases Germany was at the fore. They are creating a great level of 

animosity, especially from Eastern Europeans who felt that they 

had been condescended to by German leadership. And I think this 

has enormous security ramifications for the United States if Germany is not a credible leader of the EU and the EU itself is not 

able without a stricter political framework to address this. And we 

really see an EU now cut not in half north-south but in four ways. 

And then finally, we have strong ties to Israel and we know now 

that the level of perceptible anti-Semitism is rising and there has 

been an out migration to Israel. That has security ramifications to 

the United States. And that is, I think, mostly a result of incoming 

arrival. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanson follows:]

19


29966a-1.eps
20


29966a-2.eps
21


29966a-3.eps
22

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much and Mr. Wa’el Alzayat. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WA’EL ALZAYAT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, EMGAGE 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Chairman Rohrabacher, honorable members, 

thanks for having me here today. My name is Wa’el Alzayat. I am 

CEO of Emgage which is a civic education and engagement organization for Muslim and minority communities. As was mentioned 

earlier, I served for 10 years at the Department of State on Iraq, 

Syria, and a lot of the other easy to deal with countries that we 

are all discussing. I served under some incredible diplomats including Ambassador Samantha Power, Ambassador Jim Jeffery in 

Baghdad twice. And I worked with Ambassador Robert Ford on the 

very difficult Syrian crisis for 3 years. So I hope what I am sharing 

with here is understood as my personal professional reflection on 

what I have seen firsthand. 

As has been mentioned, there are approximately 65 million refugees worldwide, the largest since World War Two. And I know we 

don’t want to dwell just on Syria, but it was the Syrian crisis that 

led to a 40 percent spike after 2011 in that number. And that is 

a really in term of the annual displacement. And Syrians right now 

are the largest number of refugees, over 5 million. 

And it is important to understand how we got here just very 

quickly. It was the escape from terrorist organizations, but mainly 

from the brutality of the Assad regime which was cited by most refugees as the reason for their displacement. Most Syrians I have 

spoken with and dealt with had no intention of leaving their country and wish they were still there, had they not been literally barrel bombed out of their homes. And we have seen also subjugated 

to other means of torture including chemical weapons, etcetera, 

etcetera. 

On top of that, it was really the Russian intervention in Syria 

in 2015 that led to an increase in that displacement on top of the 

existing displacement. In fact, the same year Russia entered the 

conflict in Syria, 1.2 million first time asylum seekers applied in 

Europe, twice the number the year before. So there is a direct correlation there. 

So if we are serious about stemming the flow of refugees into Europe, then part of the answer lies in civilian protection in Syria and 

other countries that are hemorrhaging people. Now with this latest 

wave of migration, there is completely understandable anxiety. It 

is normal. The world is shrinking. It feels like it is shrinking. And 

not always in a good way. 

But we need to level set a little bit. When we look at the terrible 

phenomenon of terrorist strikes and attacks in Europe, the majority have been done actually by European citizens, not by immigrants and not by refugees. In fact, according to my research and 

I am not an expert in this field, but this is my research, from January 2016 to April 2017, only four asylum seekers, four, were involved in terrorist attacks. Something else is going on here. 

Now clearly, the European project has not been as successful in 

integrating its Muslim refugees and migrants as we have here. 

That is clear to me. But why? There is a lot of reasons being cited 

here, but we cannot neglect the institutional discrimination and 

23

public sphere and particularly in the job market, combined with 

strict interpretation of what it means to be a citizen. This has 

alienated particularly second and third generation children of immigrants who feel disconnected from the only country they know. 

But regardless of all of this, European Muslims are very young. 

Over half is under the age of 30. These are the continent’s future. 

They are engaged and empowered and we know they are already 

attached to their societies. For example, 76 percent speak the local 

European language as their native language. Seventy-five percent 

regularly intermingle with non-Muslims. And they identify with 

the host country and that identification is increasing over time. 

But more importantly, 94 percent said they felt connected to the 

country they lived in. These are Muslims in Europe. With the new 

defeat of ISIL on the battlefield, it is more important than ever to 

distinguish its nihilist ideology. It has to be defeated. But this requires engagement and tolerance rather than demonization and 

bigotry. It requires trust building between law enforcement and 

local communities. It requires creating equal opportunity for everyone and requires respect for people regardless of their faith and 

treating them as equal citizens. 

I know much is usually said about the Judeo-Christian values. 

I can tell you that you can’t have Judeo-Christian values with Islamic values. They are inherently the same. They worship the 

same God and follow the teachings of the same prophets. Perhaps 

the best model of integration is right here at home where religious 

freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution and citizens are not 

asked to choose between their faith and being American. 

According to pure research here in 2017, Muslim Americans 

overwhelming say they are proud to be Americans, believe that 

hard work generally brings success in this country and are satisfied with the way things are in their own lives, despite 100 percent 

increase in hate crimes against Muslims since 2014. 

I, myself, I am one of those proud Americas who is also an immigrant and a Muslim and a Syrian. It is the belief of the ideals of 

America where we are judged by what we do rather than the color 

of our skin that gave me the impetus to become a public servant 

and the privilege to work on some of our country’s most challenging 

national security issues. I fear those ideals are under assault. 

I personally feel that the real challenges, the emerging challenges facing Europe and elsewhere, it is not the refugees or the 

migrants. It is the willful abandonment of our cherished values of 

tolerance and equality under the law. I hope we can all work together on resolving some of these real pressing issues together in 

a constructive manner for the sake of our country, our European 

allies, and really the world. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alzayat follows:]

24


29966d-1.eps
25


29966d-2.eps
26


29966d-3.eps
27


29966d-4.eps
28


29966d-5.eps
29


29966d-6.eps
30


29966d-7.eps
31

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good afternoon, everyone. I apologize for being a little tardy. I want to thank Chairman Rohrabacher for calling our attention to an on-going concern 

of ours as we look at Europe from this side of the Atlantic. Large 

migration flows into Europe including from majority Muslim countries is not a new phenomenon. But let us remember the flows from 

the Middle East, Turkey in the ’50s and the ’60s and from the Balkans and Iraq in the ’90s. So although I know we will inevitably 

talk about Chancellor Merkel’s decision on Dublin as a pivotal moment, I would like for us to keep in mind the changing nature of 

European populations throughout the 20th century and earlier. 

Some facts have changed, but we have been here before. 

I also cannot help but comment on our own changing refugee 

policies here in the United States. As the world rapidly becomes a 

smaller place where transcontinental threats affect us all, the 

Trump administration is acting, in my belief, in an incomprehensible manner: By bombing Syria when he sees fit, not solving the 

problem, and tightening our refugee policy here at home, a policy 

that I might add has been very successful. Our refugee policies and 

mechanisms, by the way, can teach other societies, including those 

in Europe, best practices. 

Before we criticize Europe for trying to integrate from refugees 

from bloody massacres in Syria or often from regions where are directly involved, I suggest we reflect a bit on what it means when 

we turn away refugees. 

Finally, on a personal note, my family came to New York from 

the South, from South Carolina, in very difficult conditions that I 

did not quite understand as a young boy growing up. But they were 

internal migrants, looking for better opportunities for their children and risked a great deal. They had to travel 12 hours from 

South Carolina to New York. You go 12 hours, you can be almost 

anyplace else in the world today. And although they were not escaping a conflict zone, I cannot help but think of my family’s experience when looking at videos of families at the Hungarian border, 

for example. 

And I understand that not all of these people are refugees. I understand that they may not have the legal rights in Europe and 

should be turned away after due process, but I cannot stand for 

treating the traveler, the lost, the impoverished, the naked, as 

nonhuman, as a disease coming to infect the West. It pains me to 

see populations in Europe, political groups across Europe, and even 

some voices here in Congress, treat fleeing migrants, all of whom 

went through horrendous journeys, as a political tool to scare their 

populations instead of pragmatically addressing the causes, the difficulties, and the opportunities of the situation at hand which is 

what we should be doing. 

As Europe or the EU grapples with newly-arrived migrants and 

integrating refugees, I see this as a test of our liberal values. Can 

our system, the one in which we fought world wars and cold wars 

to build and protect, treat the individual, regardless of race or 

creed, as one with equal rights and opportunity. I believe that the 

United States can be an example of how to successfully integrate 

new citizens from far away countries with different cultures. 

32

I proudly represent Queens, New York, which is one of the most 

diverse in all of the United States. And although I know that this 

may be difficult or uncomfortable for elements of European and 

American societies to see, I nevertheless believe in our values and 

institutions as we move forward. Let us look to incorporate the 

youth and foster future leaders from all walks of life for they will 

help today’s leaders navigate this change. 

I look forward questioning and listening to our panelists as we 

go forward and I think that this is not a new normal. And if we 

are to protect our values, our way of life, our societies, we have to 

have these difficult conversations about race, religious, and individual rights in a free society. I welcome this honest dialogue and 

I hope that our transatlantic ties can only become stronger as we 

address the issues at hand and address them collectively. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Cicilline, do you have an opening statement that you would like to put in? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEEKS. And I can’t wait to hear it. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I want to thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher and 

Ranking Member Meeks for holding today’s hearing on mass migration, Europe, and security. 

Over the past several years, Europe has experienced significant 

refugee and migrant flows as people have fled conflict and poverty 

in bordering regions. This population increase, coupled with horrific violent attacks, has led to heightened concerns about terrorism 

and crime. 

As we discuss this important issue, we should take care not to 

conflate refugees or migrants with terrorists or criminals. The vast 

majority of refugees who have sought shelter and protection in Europe are running from brutal dictators, fleeing environmental catastrophe, are seeking a home where they can live, contribute, and 

worship in peace. It is clear to me that the international community must do more to assist those in need while ensuring the safety 

of all. 

I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony about the current efforts under way in Europe, the challenges that they are facing, and ways that the United States can assist our partners there. 

I think yesterday we heard from President Macron who identified 

the necessity of American leadership to shape the 21st century 

world order and the responsibility to stand up against this tide of 

authoritarianism and the effort to undermine important democratic 

institutions that are essential to freedom and justice in our society. 

And I want to just conclude by saying I strongly agree with the 

final witness who just testified that the real challenge that we face 

is not refugees and migrants. It is the systematic undermining of 

our democratic institutions and as you said, the willful abandonment of our values of tolerance, equality, and the value and respect 

of human dignity. So I hope that we will have a discussion that focuses on how we can promote those universal values of human dignity and respect and universal human rights and recognize that we 

are a nation that is renewed in every generation by immigrants 

and refugees and the same happens all over the world. 

I thank you and I yield back. 

33

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would like to thank our witnesses and 

thank members of the subcommittee who joined us today. 

I would like to just to get some fundamentals from Dr. Hanson 

first. Do you see that—you are well known for your analysis of history and a really detailed and in-depth knowledge of this. 

Mr. HANSON. We all agree to democratic tolerance and liberal 

values, but we have to realize that whether we like it or not, that 

is largely a Western phenomenon that doesn’t exist in Africa, or 

Asia, or Latin America with the same degree it does in Europe and 

the United States. 

So we are appealing to a tradition and that tradition has emphasized that newcomers engage in a brutal bargain. They give up 

something of their—we don’t ask people who arrive here to give up 

their food or culture or religion, but we do say they have to give 

us something to be part of the whole, and that is to accept democratic values and tolerance. And we know from historical exempla 

that assimilation, integration, and intermarriage, and I am speaking as both of my brothers are married to people from Mexico, it 

only works when immigration is measured, mostly legal, and diverse. 

And what we really want to do then is to make Americans, that 

is number one. Number two is we do have a lot of hate crimes, but 

unfortunately, in the United States in the last 3 years most of the 

hate crimes have been of the anti-Semitic nature and many of them 

have been the greatest perpetrator were second generation Muslim 

youth. And so what I am trying to get at is that it is not just the 

first generation immigration. If you look at Fort Hood, if you look 

at Orlando, if you look at San Bernardino, if you look at the Boston 

massacre, we who integrate and assimilate people much better 

than Europe does, have failed to stress the melting pot and the 

salad bowl has allowed certain zealots to appeal to a second generation who is more vulnerable to separatism and chauvinism than 

is the first generation, because they grew up with a bounty of the 

United States or Europe without the struggle and the ordeal of 

their home country, so it is very important that we stress liberal 

values of tolerance to the second generation that are much more 

prone to violence as we see in Europe. 

Mr. Alzayat is quite right. It is the second generation. But the 

second generation is a phenomenon of massive immigration. 

Finally, I think all of us agree that we do a much better job with 

the melting pot, and assimilation, and integration than Europe, but 

we are not in a position, especially vis-a-vis Europe to dictate how 

they are going to run their internal affairs. What we need to do is 

prepare ourselves to react to maybe their mistakes or their successes. And what we are seeing now is that Europe is dividing left 

and right, east and west, and north and south over immigration. 

And Vladimir Putin, for example, is championing a chauvinistic 

view that has wide appeal in Eastern Europe because elites in the 

EU have been condescending and giving lectures to people about 

you have to be more tolerant, you have to be more liberal minded. 

And yet, they themselves are not subject to the ramifications because of their influence and power and wealth. It is the lower middle classes of Eastern and Central Europe that deal firsthand with 

34

this and are most vulnerable to propaganda coming from autocracies that say the Europeans don’t represent you or it has failed. 

So it is a much more complex idea, but the idea that we can give 

lectures to the Europeans about their French Revolutionary values, 

it is wonderful that we would try to do that and we should, but in 

a practical sense, we have to deal with the realities that they may 

make unfortunate decisions and we have to protect our security interests accordingly. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was just informed that an amendment that 

I was hoping would be discussed before, will be on the floor in 4 

minutes, so that is how frustrating this job can be. 

Dr. Hanson, thank you for making those points. I wanted to, let 

me just say, we want America and we love America for its openness and we are hoping that, as Dr. Hanson was indicating, that 

what we are doing is making Americans out of them rather than 

having them change those fundamental values that are American 

and that relates directly to the insistence on some people who are 

Muslims who are coming here on, and as they are in London, demanding that they have sharia law and that their families be governed under sharia law. I will just let you have a go at refuting 

that, but isn’t that a very legitimate concern when you have a large 

number of Muslims coming into another country and then suggesting that they have to have the rights that are totally inconsistent with the culture here of how they treat women and how 

they treat young girls, send them out to be married at a young age, 

as well as some of the other elements of sharia law that are totally 

inconsistent with our beliefs of liberty? 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Thank you for that question. You know, there is 

a lot to unpack. I think here is there is the statement that a lot 

of Muslims there and here want sharia law. Statistically speaking, 

most Muslims according to most surveys do not want sharia law, 

first of all, in the countries that they are living in, particularly in 

Western countries. 

Second of all, we need to understand what sharia law is. Sharia 

law is the body of religious teaching that a devout Muslim may 

choose to follow in their daily affairs. And now we are talking here 

about praying, fasting for Ramadan——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. As you know, no one is complaining about 

that. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. But that includes——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No one is complaining about that. When you 

are complaining about that are things that go absolutely contrary 

to what America is supposed to be about. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Correct. But there are no indications or any evidence that Muslims in any place whether in Britain or the United 

States have insisted on undermining the existing laws or Constitutions and implementing——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is no evidence that Muslims in England or here have insisted that their families will be—they will 

conduct themselves with their young daughters, that they will be 

able to give them into fixed marriages or there have been actually, 

what I understand murders of women who have committed adultery. But that doesn’t happen? 

35

Mr. ALZAYAT. Of course they happen and they are horrible. But 

we are talking about most Muslims or a lot of Muslims versus a 

minority that is extremist and must be dealt with. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we are dealing with a situation in the 

modern world. It doesn’t take all Muslims. If you have one Muslim 

who goes like in San Bernardino where you had two Muslim immigrants who murdered all of these social workers. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Same as white supremacists——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, but the point is they are there and 

that is impacting them and resulting in this death doesn’t mean 

because they represented only a smaller group of Muslims that we 

shouldn’t understand that there is a psychological part of this 

whole equation that has led to the death of all these Americans. 

And, I might add, leads to situations in London and elsewhere 

where you have violence or you have activities that are going on 

that wouldn’t go on. You don’t have to say most of them want it, 

but if you just have a certain number of people there that have 

not—okay, being vetted you say. Well, I guess that is the question. 

Should we—I am going to give up the floor in 1 minute. 

Should we be then vetting people who come from the Islamic 

world as to what things they——

Mr. ALZAYAT. We should be vetting anybody who would like to 

come to the United States. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, right. But that is not what this hearing—this hearing isn’t about anybody. This hearing is about how 

we deal directly with the Islamic migration. 

Okay, so when we deal with Islamic migration, do you think that 

we should vet Muslim would-be immigrants here, and they should 

be vetted the same in Europe, to make sure that they do not want 

to conduct various practices? 

Mr. ALZAYAT. I think any immigrant to any European or Western 

country, including the United States, should be vetted to make 

sure that they have no ties with any illicit groups and do not hold 

any illicit views. I do. But that should be for anybody. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you do believe then that we can ask a 

Muslim whether or not he or she believes in four wives or some 

sort of treatment or some sort of punishment of daughters that is 

differentiated from sons? Do you think that is okay to vet them for 

that? Deny them——

Mr. ALZAYAT. If it is applied consistently for the applicant, I am 

fine for it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I wonder if the gentleman would yield? I wonder 

if you have the same concerns about all of the teachings in the 

Bible about mixing two kinds of fabrics, about stoning for infidelity, 

you go through that list. Do we ask Christians whether they should 

denounce those teachings? Nobody practices those. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that——

Mr. CICILLINE. Great examples, if you Google all of the claims 

that are in the Bible that people don’t actually do today because 

if you took them literally, cutting off the hand of your spouse, 

would we make the same inquiry of Christians coming in? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Christians and Jews and everybody else who 

tries to come here should be vetted. 

36

Mr. CICILLINE. I think that is what the witness aid. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But I will suggest that the last time someone 

like that who is an immigrant from another country who exploded 

because of their deep faith in Judaism or Christianity, I don’t remember any incident right now because where there deaths because of it. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, I think the witness said that most of the 

deaths were caused by people who were citizens of the country 

when they caused the attack. So that is a fact. We ought to rely 

on some of evidence and not just sort of our own. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Can I give the time to the ranking member? 

Mr. CICILLINE. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Meeks, you have the floor. 

Mr. MEEKS. I was going to let David if he had anything else to 

say. Because the thing I was going to say just about anybody in 

America immigrated from somewhere other than Native Americans 

and I know of a group that still exists in America that was responsible for a whole lot of deaths. They are called lynchings. They are 

called the Ku Klux Klan. These are Christians and they believe in 

separation and they believe in violence. They have been very violent in this country. They immigrated from somewhere else. And 

many of them were involved, not all of them, but many of them, 

they are still involved in the democracy called the United States 

of America. 

And so to—now I don’t blame everybody that happens to be 

Christians and/or white to say that that for minority who believes 

in those things that means everybody believes that. And I think 

what Mr. Alzayat is saying is that there is a small minority. You 

can find a small minority of people of any faith, of any ethnic group 

that are horrible people, but you don’t go after the whole spectrum 

when the overwhelming majority—because it is human nature to 

have somebody that is evil. And we want to stop out and make sort 

of the evil folks don’t get in or don’t stay here. But that is not because they are not evil because they are Muslim. Just like you 

don’t—they are evil people and we call them who they are. 

But Muslims, if you look at the religion, it is a very peaceful religion and that is what they teach and that is how they live by. And 

for us to color it some other kind of way is not going to resolve 

issues. It is going to cause issues. And I think that what we are 

talking about, I mean, the fact of the matter is in the United States 

previously all you had to do was get here. When you came into 

Staten Island, you registered, they didn’t care, as long as you got 

here because it says give me your tired, give me your weary, give 

me, you know, we want you, except for those that were brought 

over in the hulls of slave ships. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you want to give him a question? 

Mr. MEEKS. I am, but you opened the door. I wasn’t going that 

way at all, so there is no way in any good conscience because I sit 

back and just allow, you know, me and you are good friends, and 

I often have to come back after you have made a statement, you 

take me off my game plan and I have got it on automatic because 

I have got to address it because I don’t want the record to indicate 

that I can allow a statement that I so 180 degree disagree with to 

stand and to go. 

37

I don’t want the record to indicate to anybody that might be listening to this hearing, who might be in this room, or who—this is 

being recorded, that Gregory Meeks stood by and just allowed the 

kind of questioning and the statements that were just made to go 

without hearing my strong opposition to those statements and to 

what was insinuated here. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that to be interpreted that you don’t believe in vetting people for their religious convictions that may be 

violent and cause——

Mr. MEEKS. I believe in vetting everyone, not just because of 

their religious beliefs. I think that as a result, I want to make 

sure—I don’t care if you are a Muslim, if you are Jewish, if you 

are Buddhist, if you are anyone who is going to come here that you 

are evil and you are coming here to do harm, I want to vet them, 

but not because you are a Muslim. That is not what makes the reason why, just because you are a Muslim. 

There are Christians that commit more crime in America than 

anyone else. There are more Christians that commit crimes in the 

United States of America than any other religious belief. There has 

been more deaths of people of the Christian faith in the United 

States of America than any other religion. And I am a Christian, 

but I yield the question to Ms. Kelly. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You are next, Ms. Kelly. Go right ahead. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do associate myself with 

the comments of the ranking member, but with the unrest in the 

Middle East and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe has experienced increased migration flows not seen since the fall of communism. Many European countries have taken in significant numbers of refugees looking for employment and a better way of life. 

Many countries, however, have used the increased flows to stoke 

xenophobic sentiments and push anti-immigration policies. Many of 

these policies are aimed at Muslim populations, but countries like 

Poland have taken in a significant number of Ukrainians. 

The Polish Government claims to host about 1 million Ukrainian 

refugees of its territory. Many of these people are migrant workers, 

in fact, filling the labor demand in a currently well-performing 

economy. At the same time, there is also tension between the local 

population and Ukrainians which recalls troubling history between 

the two nations in the 20th century. 

Warsaw touts the fact that they host Ukrainians who are more 

like the Poles culturally as a reason to not accept Syrians. 

I think it is important to note that the migration issue in Europe 

is not just about Muslim populations. There are many different 

groups immigrating to Europe, reports of anti-Ukraine job postings 

reminiscent of the Irish Need Not Apply, are now popping up in 

new reports out of Poland. And yet, Polish unemployment is low 

and the immigration wave has delayed Poland’s migration aging by 

years. 

Ms. Vrbetic, what type of rights do Ukrainians have when they 

are entering the EU as migrant workers versus refugees? In interest of full disclosure, my grandmother on my mother’s side, they 

are Ukrainian, so half of my family is. 

38

Ms. VRBETIC. Thank you for your question. I am afraid I wouldn’t 

know about the rights of Ukrainians who enter into Poland. I could 

research that and get back to you. 

I am aware though that yes, Poland has accepted many Ukrainians. Yes, I am aware of that. 

Ms. KELLY. Can anyone else answer? 

Ms. VRBETIC. I do have some other comments. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. 

Ms. VRBETIC. If I could add to this general discussion. 

Ms. KELLY. Sure. 

Ms. VRBETIC. First of all, and I am making comments as somebody who is an immigrant. Can you hear me? I am trying to speak 

into the mic now. Someone who is an immigrant, and somebody 

who was raised and born and Europe. I am a U.S. citizen. I am a 

minority in several ways, including being completely deaf, and you 

know, just a minority, lots of things. So I do sympathize with many 

things that were expressed here. And I think we may be talking 

past each other. 

So let me tell you the reasons why I think that the migration to 

Europe, that the solution is not just to accept everybody who wants 

to come. First of all, because there are so many migrants. We are 

talking about 60 million that might appear at European borders, 

and when I use the term migrant, I am using it as a general term. 

It can include asylum seekers. It could include refugees. It could 

include those who are seeking economic opportunity. 

The second thing is, we are talking about the upcoming problems 

in Africa, where there will be one third of the world’s youth by 

2050. The youth bulge is usually associated with protests and possibly radicalization. There will be no jobs. There is no way that Europe can absorb all of the people who want to appear on its borders, so this is the reason. 

The second——

Ms. KELLY. I know you are—I only have a certain amount of 

time myself, so I wanted to get another question in. 

Ms. VRBETIC. I apologize. The first time in a hearing, so I may 

not fully know the procedure. 

Ms. KELLY. No problem. 

Ms. VRBETIC. I apologize. 

Ms. KELLY. Mr. Alzayat, I understand that many immigrants to 

the U.K. come from outside the EU and are not new to the U.K. 

In fact, we are looking at second or third or fourth generation British citizens or French or Belgian who do not feel like they are fullyfledged Brits. How can we work with the powers that be, the old 

guard in economics and politics, to open doors and provide equal 

opportunity to all citizens? This is the tool against radicalization. 

What success stories have there been if you know of and it seems 

like we only focus on the negative aspects of all of this. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Thank you for that question. You know, it is clear 

to me that true social integration requires investment in education 

and also in employment as the basic ingredients. If you look at 

France, they actually do a great job in education, but the labor 

market is overly regulated and inherently discriminatory. So you 

end up with well-educated minorities with no jobs. 

39

Germany does not have quite the same robust educational system, particularly for minority communities especially in early age, 

however—and there are more barriers, especially because of the 

language, but a much more lax and welcoming labor market. And 

as such, you see big difference in terms of the perception of those 

communities of themselves, of the connectiveness to the society and 

their success and their income which by the way irrespective of 

that, it is still lower actually than the white Europeans. 

So really the way forward here is to invest more in education of 

these children and providing job opportunities. But another piece 

really is in Britain this has been, I think, done in the right way. 

Islam needs to be recognized as one of the major religions. And it 

needs to be true inclusivity of people who are practicing that religion in the public sphere. 

There was a comment made earlier that this fear that the more 

Muslims there are in the armed forces of NATO or in the policy 

circles, somehow that is going to negatively affect European foreign 

policy and engagement abroad. I think the opposite happens. You 

have a more committed, civically engaged community that is helping you flesh out these ideas and tackle some very difficult issues 

and giving you diversity of opinion and credibility when engaging 

with those. And that is my own experience as a representative of 

the State Department. I would like to think that people like me 

and us actually help our country be stronger when we engage 

abroad with people of different faith, color, and religions. 

Ms. KELLY. I know I am out of time, but when I listen to you, 

I am very big in the gun violence prevention fight and I can apply 

what you said to some of our urban areas, the investment and education and employment would make such a difference and more 

inclusivity. So thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am going to put the subcommittee on recess 

for 1⁄2 hour. And we will come back and hopefully have—there have 

been some very profound statements made. I certainly would like 

to hear some comments on them, but we will be back in 1⁄2 hour. 

This committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This hearing is readjourned or unadjourned, 

that is it. Reconvened, that is the word I am looking for. 

Okay, I have been running back and forth to the floor where I 

had an amendment on the floor and it would not have been able 

to be brought up unless I was there, and I want to thank all of you 

for joining us today and being understanding of this hectic schedule. 

We had a very lively discussion and I would like Dr. Hanson and 

perhaps Dr. Vrbetic, as well, to have a chance to comment on what 

we were saying before. So Dr. Hanson. 

Mr. HANSON. I think that we have to be precise in the nomenclature when we talk about as was mentioned violence. Violence is 

endemic in any society. There is such a thing called politically-motivated violence and the statistics suggest that politically-motivated 

violence with an agenda to further a political cause in Europe and 

in the United States most of the incidents in the last two decades 

or since 9/11 have been so-called Islamic inspired. That is what the 

perpetrators have suggested. 

40

Second is that a minority of Muslims are prone to violence, I 

think that is correct. But when you are working with a pool of 5 

million over the last decade that have migrated or you have 1.7 

million in Europe, just 1 percent of that pool would be 50,000 people, so that is something to watch. You can be successful in 99 percent of the case, but if you have a group of people who feel alienated from society and are prone to radical Islamic doctrine, that is 

a large pool, given the European inexperience and inability to assimilate in the fashion that we do. 

I think when we talk about hate crimes, we have to be very specific. If you go to the FBI statistics, the group that is most subject 

to hate crime violence are American Jews in the United States of 

Jewish faith. At least according to FBI statistics, the group that is 

most identified with perpetrating those hate crimes are Islamic 

zealots. So it is not accurate to say that American Jews are not the 

most—they are the most targeted group, at least according to Federal statistics. 

Again, I don’t think that the United States, given our long relations with Europe, it is very ironic that Europe is used to lecturing 

us, but I don’t think we are in a position to alter fundamentally 

European policy. What our prerogative and our duty is to do is to 

protect us and this question has affected the NATO alliance, especially the southern flank with tensions with Turkey and Greece 

over immigration. It has affected the cohesion of the EU. It has affected NATO contributions. It is especially, and I think we haven’t 

talked about this, it has made Eastern Europeans far more susceptible to the propaganda of Vladimir Putin who is appealing in a 

populist sense. If you go to Greece today, you can see that he is 

the most popular figure there. And his message is a nationalist, 

populist, Orthodox Christendom message that appeals to people 

who feel that their own elites in the EU do not listen to what are 

often legitimate worries about the ability to assimilate and intervene. 

And finally, I think it is sort of disingenuous to talk about second 

generation as if that is not connected with the first generation immigration pattern. If you look at Boston, the Boston Marathon 

massacre, if you look at Orlando, if you look at San Bernardino, if 

you look at Fort Hood, we have a reoccurring pattern of second 

generation Muslims who have been alienated or radicalized and 

have committed acts of terrorism. So the problem is again with assimilation, integration, intermarriage, and historically throughout 

society across time and space, if you want to assimilate people, you 

want to integrate them, you want to intermarry them, and make 

them part of the body politic, then you don’t have problems in the 

second generation. 

Most of the terrorist incidents that are connected with radical 

Islam in Europe are second generation because of the failure. And 

we know how we facilitate that process of Americanization and 

that is by numbers that are manageable, legal, and meritocratic 

and diverse. We want immigrants from all over the world because 

having influxes from one particular place or one particular group 

and not having them live among the population in a dispersed 

manner makes it much more difficult. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Dr. Vrbetic. 

41

Ms. VRBETIC. Thank you, Chairman. I would just like to talk a 

little bit about something that I read about Germany and German 

schools and their canteens to illustrate the problem that I feel 

there is with integration. Some of the German schools are dropping 

pork from menu altogether, and this is because they have a few 

Muslim kids. Now I am not suggesting that there should be forceful 

assimilation in the sense of forcing Muslim kids to eat pork. But 

I don’t see why German schools wouldn’t offer a variety of choices 

so that the Muslim kids take their lamb or vegetarians taken their 

vegetarian meal and those Germans students who want to eat 

pork, they eat pork. And they all eat this together in a canteen. 

But instead, we have a situation there are a few Muslim students, that the German schools drop pork from menu altogether for 

fear of offending minority. And this is the point that I am trying 

to make, and this is the issue of toleration. 

In liberal democracies, some just push this issue of toleration to 

the extreme, and when we push it to the extreme, we don’t actually 

encourage toleration as in this case. 

By the way, the issue came to the attention of the lawmakers in 

Schleswig-Holstein, which is one of the German provinces. They 

wanted to keep pork on the menu. 

Going back to this issue, I see the problem between two models. 

One is liberal multi-culturalism. We try to integrate minorities 

within this framework. I have exceeded my time. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, go ahead. Go ahead. 

Ms. VRBETIC. When we try to integrate minorities within this liberal framework. The other is pluralist multi-culturalism, where 

there are separate minorities, where we set up parallel societies. 

And the problem with the issue of toleration is that when you push 

it to the extreme, it becomes politics of indifference. We don’t interfere with these communities and we permit, ultimately, some practices that don’t stimulate integration and where we end up with 

both liberal and illiberal elements. I will end here. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is a fascinating analysis. Thank you. 

Mr. Simcox? 

Mr. SIMCOX. The points I would make, first of all, on the kind 

of the nature of the threat, it is certainly true that in Europe most 

plots are home grown in nature. There is a little bit more to that 

in somebody like Salman Abedi, for example, who was the suicide 

bomber in Manchester last May was second generation Libyan, so 

it was a home-grown case, but still a refugee element. Yes, most 

are home grown. 

But some of the numbers I have been doing on this between 2004 

and 2017, there is 32 plots in Europe, so 8 a year, that were perpetrated by refugees and asylum seekers. So it is not an insignificant number and of course, that includes something like Paris, November 2015, where there was obviously a very large body count. 

The other point I would make on the numbers, European experience with integration and assimilation is obviously very different 

to the U.S. I think the U.S. has always done this much more successfully than we in Europe have, to be honest. So I think of a 

country like Sweden where I was just there the week before last. 

They took in 163,000 people in 2015. And obviously, regardless, 

42

they consider themselves to be a humanitarian superpower and 

that they view this as truly, it is like an international obligation. 

In terms of what ratio that would be in the U.S., that would be 

like the U.S. taking in 5.2 million people. It is a very significant 

number in Sweden. And Sweden, as many in Europe, doesn’t really 

have the experience of making this kind of thing work, like you in 

the U.S. do. So I would just raise that as one of the potential challenges a lot of Europe countries are going to have to deal with. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Go for it. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. So you know what is interesting is in the European 

countries with the most refugees, you don’t necessarily see correlating fear of refugees. So in Germany, specifically right? They took 

1 million Syrians. Not only was Chancellor Merkel at the end of 

the day elected to a fourth term, but German public opinion of refugees is actually one of the best in Europe. So why is that? Clearly, 

leadership and the political rhetoric is having something to do with 

it. 

In a place like Hungary and Bulgaria, where you do have farright parties, who literally were advertising on billboards pretty 

racist themes against incoming migrants and the threat that will 

pose to European women specifically, these are societies that have 

nowhere near the amount of refugees, Muslim refugees, as Germany, yet the public perception and views are quite negative now. 

I mean it is a clear indication to me that also leadership, the 

rhetoric, the policies, play a big role in that. And remember, we are 

talking about addressing an issue of radicalization potentially. 

So my question to everyone is do we think that stereotyping, exclusion, demonization, guilty by association, will lessen the problem 

of radicalization? Well, address it. And I understand about the fact 

that maybe there are no more refugees coming right now at the 

same levels, but the ones that are in Germany, that are in Europe, 

what is the best way to deal with this situation? They are there 

right now. It is quite frankly, illegal under international law for 

those who have been designated as refugees to be refouled to their 

country of origin without their consent, particularly in places that 

are experiencing war. So this is now the reality. 

So my remarks regarding investing in education, in helping them 

integrate, in entering the labor force, but also in showing them 

that tolerance truly applies to them as well is going to have to be 

key. In terms of percentages, God forbid if 50,000 Muslims in Europe were ISIL followers. We would have a completely different 

conversation right now. We are talking about tens. That is what we 

are talking about. That is the number of actual attacks in the tens. 

So it is clearly not 1 percent. It is .0001, whether here or abroad. 

So we have got to assess the problem for what it is and then when 

you look at that and compare it to the rise in hate crimes, assaults 

by neo-fascists, and neo-Nazi groups against Jews, against Muslims, and people of color, on both sides of the Atlantic, to me, that 

is a real worrying trend. And that is what I would really consider 

as an emerging threat as well. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Can you hear me? Let’s just have 

Dr. Hanson’s response. 

Mr. HANSON. I think it is a little bit disingenuous because——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. A little louder, Dr. Hanson. 

43

Mr. HANSON. Oh, I am sorry. We are the seeing the largest out 

migration of Jews since World War II to Israel, and there is a good 

chance that France within 10 years, if these rates continue, will 

be—there won’t be a sizable Jewish population in France. It is not 

just terrorism because it is individual attacks on Jewish people 

who were obviously identified as Jews, Orthodox Jews. There are 

areas within Paris and I think we have all been to places in Rotterdam and Brussels where if you were to wear a yarmulke, you 

would be in danger of physical assault. But that is not really the 

catalyst for that out migration. It is a sense and my colleague here 

referred to it, there is a sense that the government has lost the 

confidence and tradition of Western values of tolerance and pluralism. 

We are not talking about chauvinism and prejudice and I think 

Representative Meeks made a good point. What we are talking 

about is the Western tradition that we all understand and tolerate 

differences in the periphery of culture, but we unite on democracy 

and constitutional government and transparency and these core 

Western values. 

Often in inexperience with this number of immigrants or maybe 

clumsiness or whatever the reason is, European Governments have 

not been able to address this problem in a liberal sense. They 

haven’t been able to say we welcome you to come in here and it 

is a two-way street. If you give up some of your identity as all immigrants do and accept the core Western values and that means 

that if you see people of a different religion or your cultural traditions come in conflict with tolerance and plurality, you have to give 

that up and we can require that as the host country. But that 

hasn’t been happening in Europe. And that means that we have to 

deal with it. 

The other thing is we would like to lecture Europe and say why 

don’t you look at the United States and see how much a better job 

we do, but that is not the way nations, there is no international 

court of good manners. But what happens is we have to make the 

adjustments of this problem and this problem is going to affect 

Turkey’s membership in NATO in the short term. It is going to affect whether—we can deplore racism all we want. I think we 

should, but there is a schism growing between Eastern and Western Europe and it is giving Vladimir Putin a lot of opportunities 

that we don’t want. And we have to deal with the world as it is, 

rather than what we would like it to be. 

So I agree with my colleague on the left that we have to reach 

out, I mean literally the left, not the ideological left. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. See, I can say both of those here. 

Mr. HANSON. In a geographical sense, but what I am saying is 

we have to reach out and try to suggest politely that Europe, without being chauvinistic, might want to learn from the melting pot 

tradition. It has made us the most diverse country in the world. 

But in lieu that they might not do that, we have to take security 

precautions in the United States because I think the EU is seriously facing some existential crises that are going to affect the national security of our alliance. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are talking about Western civilization. 

We are talking about basically the melting pot theories. We are 

44

talking about how people—and nationalism. These are forces at 

play that are part of our analysis of what is going to happen and 

how to approach this moment in history. And I don’t think—this 

is my opinion that Western civilization has brought more freedom 

to more people. And the fact that freedom as we know it exists 

where Western civilization is the dominant force and not the Islamic world which if you look there I don’t know any examples of 

the democratic institutions that we are talking about and we hold 

dear as Americans. Malaysia? Okay, there is one. Maybe Indonesia, 

maybe. But when I take a look at those countries that are the most 

Islamic in terms of actually taking their religion so seriously, there 

is no freedom in those countries. 

In terms of the melting pot, I don’t see that you can have a melting pot with people who think that they will not meld in with the 

notions that other people have a right to worship God as they see 

fit. Because that is part of the melting pot theory and you do have, 

I have seen, various opinion polls taken in London, I believe it was, 

that suggested that those people, those Islamic people in London, 

well, of all the people who were saying no, people do not have the 

right to worship God as they see fit, if it is different than my faith, 

almost all of them are Muslims and almost none of them are Christians, saying no, if someone disagrees with me and my faith, they 

don’t have a right to practice it. Almost all the ones who say well, 

and I don’t believe—Mr. Meeks, just to be fair about it, I don’t 

think the interpretation, I mean I know that we have been told 

that we have to assume that Islam is a faith of peace and it 

means—but Islam to some interpretations and correct me, you 

probably know more about this than I do, that Islam means submission. The more accurate interpretation is submission, not peace. 

And for those who don’t submit, it is anything but peace. Is that 

right? 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Islam comes from the word salaam and that is 

peace. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. All right. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. In fact, you know, the greeting of Muslims is peace 

be upon you. It is not you shall submit to me. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, well, I am sure—salaam alaikum. 

Okay, well, I will have to admit that I just don’t see any countries 

in the world right now cutting the heads off where Christians are 

cutting the heads off Muslims, but I have seen the opposite. And 

all I am saying here is you don’t—obviously, you cannot put all 

Muslims in one category, but you can realize that when you see 

things happening, if there is a significant more of Muslims doing 

something that is something you don’t want to happen in your society, like refuse to recognize somebody else’s right to worship God 

as they see fit, well, then you should be aware of that. That should 

be something and also in second generation type of things where 

we are talking about, yes, we have had people in our own country 

and our own culture, Dr. Hanson, we have had our own people 

shooting kids up at schools that have nothing to do with Islam, but 

in terms of the Muslim population, the number of Muslims here 

and the number of actual situations where second generation Muslims have gone crazy, it is very demonstrable and I don’t know another case like in San Bernardino where you had that. 

45

Dr. Hanson, basically, do you have second generation Christians 

coming here and doing that? I don’t remember one case of that happening, where someone who has immigrated here from another 

country and is a Christian or as a Buddhist or some other religion, 

I don’t know one case where the second generation Buddhist or second generation Christian went out and committed these mass murders. Maybe you can enlighten me. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. You have fourth, fifth, sixth generation Christians 

are committing it. So that is actually even more worrying. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, that is skipping the question. Do you 

have—that is getting around the question. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. So when we have, for example, you know, well, by 

the way when we say a white Christian, no one knows how religious these people are or whether they are true believers. In fact, 

I doubt their faith if they were true Christians, they wouldn’t do 

this. But that aside, you have statistically speaking far more violence by white Christian males in this country, statistically speaking, than any other group. Excuse me, I didn’t interrupt you. And 

so what you have is right now amplification of a particular problem. It is a real problem. Terrorism in the name of Islam is a real 

problem and needs to be dealt with. We are not ignoring it, but 

what we are saying is that are we being fair to the religion and 

its adherence and people, the overwhelming majority of people who 

condemn it and are looking for real ways to address it. 

As Americans, we have to be honest about the numbers in this 

country in terms of the actual attacks that have happened, by 

which groups, and address them accordingly. From Oklahoma City 

to the mail bombs in Austin, just a few weeks ago, to Charlottesville, clearly other people—the Waffle House just a few days, to the 

horrible school shootings——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And which ones of those were motivated by 

religion? 

Mr. ALZAYAT. They were all Christian. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It wasn’t based on anybody’s religion. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. How do we know that the Muslims did it because 

of religion and not just because they were horrible people or they 

had mental illness? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that there has been indication. 

Dr. Hanson, do you want to say something and then we will let 

Mr. Meeks go. 

Mr. HANSON. We don’t know how disingenuous anybody is who 

commits a crime, but we can only go on the pretext of what they 

say and it is a matter of fact that violent incidents that have a political agenda, the perpetrators have identified themselves as selfappointed representatives of Islam and we don’t have corresponding numbers. In a country that is about 80 percent selfidentified as Christian, we don’t have corresponding numbers of 

people who commit violence against people who are not Christian 

because of a Christian identity. That is just a fact. 

So to say——

Mr. ALZAYAT. Oklahoma City is a political bombing. 

Mr. HANSON. No, it was not a Christian bombing. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Political terrorist bombing, in fact. 

46

Mr. HANSON. It was not a Christian bombing against non-Christians. When we go outside this building, most—you asked me not 

to interrupt. I would request the same courtesy from you. When we 

go outside this building, most of the people today who commit traffic accidents, most of the people who jaywalk, will be Christian. So 

that citation means almost nothing in a predominantly Christian 

country. 

What we are talking about is politically-motivated violence by 

people who self-identify, even if they misuse the religion, with a 

particular religion against people they feel are enemies of that religion. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Well, that is Srebrenica. 

Mr. HANSON. I am talking about inside the United States. 

Mr. MEEKS. Even in the United States, if I can——

Mr. ALZAYAT. In Srebrenica, there were 10,000 Muslims who 

were butchered by fundamentalist Christians in Serbia in the 

name of religion. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. MEEKS. But even in the United States——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Let me just say this because I have to go. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Meeks has the floor. 

Mr. MEEKS. Because even in the United States, the Ku Klux 

Klan identify themselves as Christians and they believe in the 

Bible, slavery, the slave masters said that they could enslave people in Christianity in the name of Christ. They believe that is what 

they did. 

You talk to white nationalists today, they will tell you they are 

acting in the same manner as the Bible calls for, that slavery is 

okay because it is in the Bible. I have met and talked to them. 

When I was raised, my parents were raised in the South and within my lifetime, a lot of what they have done was in the name of 

Christianity and justified what they did by being Christians. 

Now in response also though to this whole—I think Mr. Rohrabacher, what you just indicated in regards to this nation or that 

nation, you know, they don’t have Western principles, etcetera, but 

let me just say this, even democracy, because for me and my father, didn’t have democracy in America. So democracy that is something that is out there for most—I can recall being in South Carolina and my grandfather, my father, my mother, not being able to 

vote. I can recall being told I had to get underneath the bed as my 

grandfather got on the porch with a shotgun because folks who 

went to church on Sunday morning were now coming to get the socalled N people. This is in my lifetime that I have witnessed. 

And then you also talk about democracies in many of these other 

places, these places were places that were colonized by the West 

and brutal dictators were put in place to keep them in order. And 

this is less than 50, 60 years ago. They were colonies of Western 

democracies. And there were certain things that was done to put—

and so some of what you talk was put into place to keep them in 

certain controls, whether you talk about the Middle East, whether 

you talk about Asia, whether you talk about Africa, all of these 

places were colonized by Western so-called democracies. 

47

If you look at our country, 25, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, this 

was the wild wild West, all kind of craziness was going on. And so 

now we are 240 years later and there are still problems. So to go 

after some other country who has a new democracy, basically an 

infant, and try to compare it to the democracy of the United States, 

which still needs a lot of work, to me is like comparing apples to 

oranges. 

And what we need to be doing in one sense, people are—one of 

the things we have in common is our—we are all human. No matter what our race or our religion, we are human. And so we should 

be focusing on the human problems and people leave from one area 

to another because there is a human problem that exists. And so 

they all—that is why I used my family’s experience as an example 

of people trying to go someplace else. My parents would never have 

left South Carolina if they had an opportunity there. Never would 

have left. I might have been a member from South Carolina instead of New York. But they left because they needed an opportunity. They went to a place that they thought they could have a 

better life for their family. 

So it is the same thing when you have a lot of individuals—they 

are not leaving Syria just because they want to leave Syria. They 

are leaving Syria for a reason. In fact, that was one of my questions. You know, sometimes it is easy for us to say go bomb. But 

there is consequences, because we don’t look at the human lives 

that are affected by the bombing. The women and children and 

men who are innocent, who just want to—they leave because—they 

are not leaving because of some kind of religion or something, their 

homes are bombed. There is no place for them to go or to eat. They 

are starving. So if the bombing didn’t take place, we wouldn’t have 

had some of this situation. 

I mean one of the questions I had, you know, I was going to ask 

Mr. Alzayat, what role did the Russia bombing of Aleppo have in 

forcing migration of hundreds of thousands of people to Turkey? 

Did it play a role in that? 

Mr. ALZAYAT. It played a direct role. I was the outreach coordinator for Ambassador Robert Ford with the Syrian communities, 

really, activists, NGOs, and opposition members as well and our allies in Europe, particularly who were working on this. And as soon 

as the Russians started bombing, they were bombing—they were 

not bombing the terrorists. They were not bombing ISIL. They 

were not bombing al-Qaeda. They were bombing civilians who were 

opposed to Bashar al-Assad and what we term the Free Syria Army 

groups with all of their imperfections. 

And there was a direct correlation, so that when they were bombing Aleppo, they were bombing the areas around Homs in northern 

Syria and other areas. You saw massive movement. Hundreds of 

thousands of people pushing into Turkey. At the time, Turkey had 

almost close to 2 million people by then. And so they released the 

valves to let people go into Europe and that is the European migration crisis. 

In a sense, it was weaponized against Europe. That is what happened. 

48

Mr. HANSON. If I could make a concluding remark. I think the 

sins of mankind are what Representative Meeks enunciated. Every 

country has had that history, Western or non-Western. 

What is unique about the West it has a tradition of self-critique, 

self-examination to rectify. The FBI destroyed the Klan in the 

1960s, and so even Klanwatch and Southern Poverty Law Center 

now have branched out into other areas of hatred because the 

country healed itself. It had a debate. It found the right chords. 

And that process of self-introspection is why people from the 

Muslim world and the non-West come to the West. And so it is the 

height of irony that people are coming to the West for freedom and 

for diversity and self-critique and then when they arrive the host 

has lost the confidence of its own traditions to say to them, you 

came here for a reason. It wasn’t just economic opportunity, you 

wanted respect as an individual, so all we require of you is that 

you adopt the customs and the traditions that are not perfect, but 

we don’t have to be perfect to be good. And we have a unique tradition of self-critique and change. That is all, I think, we are trying 

to suggest is that Europe’s problem is that for some reason we 

don’t have time to get into it, it has not been able to tell its immigrant population that you have to assimilate. Not change your food, 

your religion, your fashion, your cultural pride and traditions, but 

to accept a body of tolerance for everybody who believes, or looks, 

or acts in a different way. And I know that minority of immigrants 

may be small, but the pool is large enough that a very small minority can be very volatile. In a country like Europe, it doesn’t have 

our experience with assimilation and immigration. 

Mr. SIMCOX. I will only take 2 minutes. I would just make the 

point, reiterate the point really that what applies to the U.S., 

doesn’t necessarily apply to Europe. You have had—the melting pot 

in the U.S. has never worked in Europe in the same way. And so 

I would just encourage us not to view these two situations as entirely analogous. 

Of course, the situation in Syria, there is no doubt it is horrendous, horrendous what has happened in Syria. And there has to be 

a response from the international community. It is an irresponsible 

response, I believe, to say that Europe should be the home of millions of people, that it didn’t have the chance to vet and somehow 

if Europe doesn’t do that, it is not living up to its international 

commitment through somehow being unreasonable. This is a very, 

very difficult situation for Europe. Integration has been failing in 

Europe for some time. So adding millions more people into the mix 

is—obviously, the humanitarian impulse is there, but we can’t wish 

away the problems that that sort of thing can create. So I would 

just encourage us all to be at least aware of that and not necessarily think of this as being just like the U.S. experience. 

Ms. VRBETIC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree that the 

terror acts are committed by a small group of people, but what we 

are really talking about is what is the fact. And the fact on European societies and European politics has been tremendous. And 

this is what we worry about. How Europe is changing politically 

and the divisions within Europe and this is not good for Europe. 

Russia is certainly going to exploit us. 

49

And also, I wanted to say what I started talking, I think Dr. 

Hanson took it over, and this is really that the European societies 

need to have more confidence and make demands on the minorities, clear demands for integration, not for assimilation, but for integration and for respect of the liberal traditions and I think that 

would be also a big contribution to where it is having more cohesive societies in Europe and toward eliminating some of the problems we are talking about here. 

Mr. ALZAYAT. Clearly, this is a difficult issue. These societies are 

dealing with really frustrating dynamics. We are all humans and 

we hate change and we also don’t like insecurity and Europeans 

have had to deal with that. 

The question is what is the best way to deal with it? And my argument is really based on our own experience here in the United 

States. Integration cannot be forced. When you try to force it, you 

get some of that toxicity. People have to want to be French, to want 

to be German, and most of them do. That is what I am trying to 

point out. Actually, most of them do. Ninety-four percent said they 

felt connected to the country. Seventy-five percent are intermingling with other religions. So I don’t know about that whole 

statement that they are not doing that. They are. These are the 

facts. 

And how we approach the subject is extremely important because 

half of the Muslim population in Europe is under the age of 30. 

Forcing them will not work. It will not work. Engaging them, investing and educating them and removing institutional, discriminatory barriers that society, particularly, the educational system, encouraging them to be public servants, civil servants, diplomats, police officers, soldiers of their new country, is one of the best ways. 

Or let them do whatever they want. They don’t have to be held to 

any higher standard, but it is that freedom to express their religiosity, as long as all of them support the tenets and the principles 

of the Western European order, freedom, respect of the individual, 

absolutely. It is what every human being irrespective of their religion deserves. 

And so I thank you for the opportunity today. You know, we are 

not going to resolve this today, but anything that will help people 

abroad and make us safe here, we are game for it, so thank you 

for inviting us. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I thank all of you and I will reserve the 

final statement for the chairman, but I did appreciate the lively 

discussions we had. Mr. Meeks and I are very close friends, so don’t 

think that because he gets excited and I may get excited at times 

that we are anything but very good friends and respect each other’s 

opinion. 

With that said, I think that as I say, the issues that are at the 

heart of this discussion has something to do also with how you 

value Western civilization and whether or not you believe that the 

influx coming in from the Middle East that is going into Europe 

today will in some way diminish Western civilization’s influence on 

humanity. And I have to say that I think, I believe, that that is 

what is happening. No matter what you can say about vetting and 

what may be the goals, etcetera, that in the end what we will see 

50

is a diminishing of the influence on humankind of what we call 

Western civilization. 

I think that to a degree that you have got nationalism at play 

in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in Europe, it is that these people 

and like the Pole, for example, who are instrumental in defeating 

the Muslim advance into Europe and stopped them at Vienna, that 

is something they are very proud of there. And I can see where 

that is part of their framework, they say. We will defend Western 

civilization. And that is their nationalism, it is an expression of 

their nationals. And it is probably true with the Hungarians. And 

it is probably true with these other countries that we are talking 

about. Whether or not this influx from, in a very trying situation, 

where people desperately are trying to escape a war zone, whether 

or not that is something that is more important to take care of 

them than in other people’s view than to preserve Western civilization only if that does not in some way threaten it. But I believe 

a lot of people do believe it is a threat and do believe that there 

will be major impact on their way of life. And I think that that is 

not an irrational thing, although I think you have made a really 

good case today. Seriously, you have done a really good job of presenting thoughtful challenges to what I just said which is fine. 

That is fine. 

And I will say that I do not think nationalism is a bad thing, but 

it can be a bad thing. Obviously, Adolph Hitler was a bad guy, but 

to the degree of nationalism is used as it is in the United States 

to say we are Americans and we believe in this, we believe in freedom, that is different. It is a different thing. 

And if we have people who, it is not racial, but people who come 

in that have another faith from what Western civilization has done 

for the United States which has been predominantly a Christian, 

Western-oriented population from early on. Yes, we stole it from 

the Indians. I admit it. Okay. There is no doubt about that. But 

by and large, the people who came to the United States were Christians, who came here seeking freedom, but they all weren’t required, for example, where there were a lot of Catholics around, 

they didn’t outlaw the eating the meat on Friday. 

When I was younger, I remember that the Catholics didn’t eat 

meat on Friday. Now I understand that has been changed now, but 

I remember that very well. At no time did Catholics advocate that 

in their town that they not sell or eat meat on Friday. There is 

something there that indicates that when you are taking a poll and 

again, I wish I had a poll here to show you, that indicates that 

those people who adamantly believe in Islam are willing to say that 

other people should not have that right to make their choices, I 

think that is why you saw these beheadings, what happened in the 

Middle East. 

In terms of the number of people who are suffering there, a lot 

of it, you are right. It has nothing to do with Islam. It has everything to do with power grabs by power mongers. 

I will have to say this about Assad. I think he is no better or 

worse than the other dictators there, whether they call themselves 

kings or royal families or just the power brokers or whatever title 

they have given themselves, when someone challenges them, they 

slaughter the opposition. And that is one thing that I think is not 

51

acceptable. But it also may mean that we should not necessarily be 

jumping into that whole can of worms and thinking that we are 

going to start giving the orders and telling people how to solve the 

problem because I think it is going to be a long time before that 

problem is solved. 

And with that said, I am sorry for going on. I just want to thank 

all of you. I think there’s been—we didn’t come to any conclusion, 

but I think this has been very provocative today. So thank you and 

this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(53)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

54

f


29966n.eps
55

f


29966m.eps
56

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS


29966e-1.eps
57


29966e-2.eps
58


29966e-3.eps
59


29966e-4.eps
60


29966e-5.eps
61


29966e-6.eps
62


29966e-7.eps
63


29966e-8.eps
64

f


29966e-9.eps
65

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS


29966f-1.eps
66

f


29966f-2.eps
67

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

NOTE: The preceding document has not been printed here in full but may be found 

at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108229

f


29966h.eps
68

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MARTA VRBETIC, PH.D., GLOBAL FELLOW, 

GLOBAL EUROPE PROGRAM, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR

SCHOLARS


29966g-1.eps
69


29966g-2.eps
70


29966g-3.eps
71


29966g-4.eps
72


29966g-5.eps
73


29966g-6.eps
74

Æ


29966g-7.eps