By Sen. Cotton and Rep. Pompeo We recently visited Norway and Sweden to understand more about the European migrant crisis. What we saw provides important lessons for the American immigration debate. More than 1.5 million people have relocated to Europe over the last two years. Many are refugees from Syria, Iraq and other war-torn lands. Many are simply economic migrants leaving poorer nations. This mass migration has strained European societies and upended European politics with populist insurgencies. Though economically and demographically similar, Norway and Sweden have adopted sharply different approaches to the policy and politics of immigration, and have reaped sharply differing outcomes. Starting in 2015, Norway adopted an immigration policy it has termed "strict but fair." The Norwegians agreed to accept 8,000 migrants from other European nations, though they weren't obligated to do so. Norway also established measures to stop uncontrolled migration. It imposed new border controls featuring a border fence, increased waiting periods for residency and deportation of ineligible migrants. It also reduced migrant benefits to match those offered by its neighbors. Norway even advertised in foreign nations, warning that migrants who do not face war or persecution will be deported. The result? Asylum applications in Norway fell 95% between the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016. Norway is far from hardhearted. It has welcomed refugees for decades and its foreign policy prioritizes conflict resolution and humanitarian relief. But Norwegians understand that an open-border policy would strain their resources, disrupt the integration of other recently arrived immigrants, and undercut the legitimate desire of Norwegians to preserve their nation's culture and character. Also significant: Norway's political system has effectively accommodated a broad spectrum of views on immigration. The Progress Party, the traditional home for immigration skeptics, has won the second- or third-largest share of seats in the Norwegian Parliament since the 1990s. Rather than shun Progress, as has happened to similar parties in many European countries, mainstream leaders welcomed it into the political debate and, eventually, into the governing coalition. As one government leader explained to us, "In Norway, we discuss every issue and concern. Nothing is out of bounds." Contrast this with Sweden's approach. Sweden threw open its doors in 2013, offering Syrian refugees permanent residency. Asylum applications from across the world-not just Syria-spiked. Sweden has since received more than 280,000 migrants, and counting. That is by far the most migrants per capita of any EU nation and akin to the U.S. adding the population of Michigan. These migrants are disproportionately poor, young, male, undereducated, conservatively Muslim and possess virtually no Swedish-language skills. This radical policy occurred with little debate because political correctness pervades Sweden. They even have a term for the phenomenon: åsiktskorridor, or "the opinion corridor." Any questions about the economic, fiscal and cultural impact of an immediate influx of migrants clearly lay outside the corridor; asking them could result in accusations of xenophobia or racism. But these questions are real and they reflect legitimate concerns for the Swedish people. Because conventional political parties didn't respond to public concern, a controversial immigration-restrictionist party, the Sweden Democrats, more than doubled its vote share in the 2014 elections and became the third-largest party in parliament. The left and the right refused to work with the Sweden Democrats, creating a hamstrung minority government. Faced with growing public dissatisfaction, the Swedish government finally relented and imposed border controls and other restrictions this summer. But not before committing more than 7% of its 2016 budget to migrant services, with costs set to steadily increase. No one knows where the new money will come from, where many of the recent migrants will live or work, or what the ultimate social impact will be. Sweden's failures have been repeated in Germany, France, Austria and elsewhere. Immigration was the key issue driving British votes to leave the European Union The parallels to the U.S. immigration debate are clear. For years, a bipartisan elite consensus has favored the mass immigration of unskilled and low-skilled workers into America coupled with the legalization of millions of illegal immigrants already here. Only one thing has stopped these elites from their desired immigration policy: Two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans consistently oppose any increase in immigration. Immigration is the central issue of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. He saw legitimate concerns about stagnant wages, low workforce-participation rates and lower levels of immigrant assimilation. He also understood that our own "opinion corridor" of political correctness largely ruled these topics out of bounds. When conventional leaders would not address their concerns, it's not surprising that Americans turned to a new voice. One need not support Mr. Trump to acknowledge these reasonable concerns of the 14 million Republicans who voted for him in the primaries and the tens of millions who will vote for him in November. These voters are not xenophobic or racist. They simply want the priority of America's immigration policy to be the economic and social interests of American citizens. Norwegian leaders responded to similar concerns and their country is safe and stable. Swedish leaders didn't and their country faces economic, social, and political upheaval. There is a lesson here for American elites.

By Mike Pompeo and Jim Jordan On Sept. 11, 2012, as fire engulfed the State Department's temporary mission facility in Benghazi, Libya, the survivors and a CIA security team who had come to their rescue made a desperate dash for a CIA annex located nearby. From there they would fend off a continued and determined jihadist attack. Despite heroic efforts that night, four Americans lost their lives. For the first time in more than 30 years, a U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, was assassinated. Another State Department employee, Sean Smith, was also killed. Two former Navy Seals who worked for the CIA, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, died defending their fellow Americans at the annex. For nearly two years, questions persisted about the policies and decisions surrounding this tragic event. To ensure that the American people had answers to these questions, in May 2014 the House of Representatives authorized the creation of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya. On Tuesday, the committee released the chairman's mark of our report on the attack. We are both members of the Benghazi committee and of committees that have previously investigated the events surrounding the attack. With the benefit of our past experience, and with the benefit of the facts brought to light by the committee, we felt it necessary to write separately to offer our own views to the American people. Our contribution to the committee's report draws five conclusions: First, the Obama administration misled the American public about the events in Benghazi. Second, security in Benghazi was inadequate given the risk to the facility, and Secretary Clinton had missed the last clear chance to protect her people. Third, when things went badly, America did not move heaven and earth to rescue our people. Fourth, the administration broke its promise to the American people to bring the terrorists responsible for the attack to justice. Finally, we make note of the disappointing fact that the administration did not cooperate with our committee's investigation from the very beginning. In fact, they obstructed our work from day one. It is our belief that many of these failures were the result of the administration's obsession with preserving a political narrative. It is clear the administration was deeply committed to its Libya strategy. National security was a major component of the president's re-election campaign, Secretary Clinton's legacy, and potentially for her own presidential campaign. The fact that Benghazi was a dangerous city and that security at the State Department's facility there was inadequate was an open secret. A diplomatic security agent formerly stationed there referred to it as a "suicide mission" and another said that "everybody back here in D.C. knows that people are going to die in Benghazi, and nobody cares and nobody is going to care until somebody does die." When the first wave of the assault in Benghazi started at 9:42 p.m. on Sept. 11, State Department officials in Washington and Tripoli knew almost immediately that it was a sophisticated and coordinated terrorist attack. Eyewitness accounts confirmed that fact for decision makers at the White House and the Pentagon. Despite this knowledge, no military assets reached Benghazi during the fight. They did not arrive in Benghazi for nearly 24 hours; no military man or machine (except two unarmed drones) were even launched before the fighting was over. What did launch before the fighting ended, however, was the political spin. At 10:08 p.m. in Libya, while Tyrone Woods was still fighting from the roof of the CIA annex, the State Department released a statement attempting to define Benghazi as a video-inspired protest gone bad. Shortly after that statement was released, Secretary Clinton told her daughter the truth in a private email. The next day she said in a private phone call with the Egyptian prime minister "we know" it was a planned attack, and not a video-inspired protest as her own public statement suggested. The false video narrative was further disseminated over the next few days by the White House, Ambassador Susan Rice and others -- long after they knew the truth. As a sad epitaph to this story, the administration's promise that "justice will be done" has gone unfulfilled for four years, despite there being no doubt that our nation can make good on that commitment. The only terrorist known to have been captured will not face the full measure of justice, since the administration has declined to pursue the death penalty. It is our hope that the efforts of the committee in uncovering the facts laid out in its report, and our effort to provide our own conclusions based on those facts, will help to bring some measure of finality to this tragic chapter of American history. The families of those killed, and the American people, deserve nothing less.