Certain countries harbor criminals and are known to provide safety to those the rest of us consider less savory. Argentina became a safe haven to Nazis, and many countries in the Middle East harbor terrorists, which is no surprise being that some of these governments themselves are terrorist organizations. Now Obama has turned American into a safe haven for Muslim terrorists.
So intent on increasing Muslim immigration, the Obama Administration has eased restrictions on asylum seekers with terrorist ties. Apparently, if their terrorism is “minimal” it’s ok, and they will still be welcome in America.
“The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided ‘limited material support’ to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.”
In the same old, same old victimizing political correctness, those endorsing the change call the previous security measures unfair to deserving people seeking asylum. But if they aided and abetted terrorists, how can they be deserving?
Compare the situation to a regular murder case. In most states, there is a felony murder rule, which allows the police to arrest on murder charges all those involved in a premeditated commission of a felony which resulted in murder. For example, if five people came up with a plan to rob someone, but one of them kills the robbery victim, even if the other four protested this murder, all five can be arrested on murder charges. This includes everyone involved, even people who played minor roles in the robbery. By law, they are all murderers. And rightly so. Laws like this act as deterrents. Maybe you’ll think twice before partaking in felony crimes if the consequences could ruin the rest of your life.
Take away the punishment and take away the deterrent. The Obama Administration is basically saying, “if you’re kind of a terrorist, no problem.” A “little bit of terror” is not enough to turn you away. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was disappointed with the changes. “We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further,” he said.
This loosening of restrictions means that discretion will be used for each case, but can we trust someone’s opinion? Whether or not the applicant is a threat will be debatable, and while it is better to err on the side of caution, this change will allow for mistakes to be made and is leaving the United States vulnerable.
In the past, as the US government welcomed more and more Muslim refugees, the FBI would be forced to worked doubly hard in order to keep track of those who posed a threat. But our national security is changing in this regard as well. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his quest to make everything equal and eliminate discrimination, has deemed such activity wrongful. The Justice Department is broadening its definition of racial profiling “to prohibit federal agents from considering religion, national origin, gender and sexual orientation in their investigations,”according to a New York Times article.
Civil rights groups say that Muslims are being unfairly targeted. While details of this change are still lacking, it is unclear whether or not this will affect cases of national security. However, it may be open to interpretation, and we may see a future case taken to court based on “discrimination,” because after all, “discriminating” against a terrorist because he is Muslim is more important than protecting our nation and innocent lives which could be lost.
Political correctness. Again. Without question, unjust discrimination is wrong, but when the world is under the constant threat of Islamic terrorism which is based on religion, whether Eric Holder likes it or not, religion is a factor.
Read more at Cherson and Molschky