Weaponized Immigration

gh_1Front Page Magazine, by Michael Cutler, Sept. 22, 2016:

The United States is at war with international terrorists, who, as the 9/11 Commission noted, must first enter the United States in order to attack it.

Consider the preface of the official government report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United Statesthat begins with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Furthermore, although much has been made of the lack of integrity with respect to the U.S./Mexican border, the9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel observed that most terrorists had entered the United States through international airports and then committed visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud to embed themselves in the country.

Page 54 of the report contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot,” which makes these issues crystal clear:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

On Saturday September 17, 2016 terror attacks put international terrorism and immigration on the front page of newspapers across the United States and onto the “A Block” of television news programs.

On the morning of that last Saturday of summer, a bomb hidden in a garbage can detonated along the route of the “Seaside Semper Five,” a five-kilometer run and charity event along the South Jersey Shore waterfront to raise money for members of the United States Marine Corps and their families.  Fortunately, because the crowds were much greater than expected, the event was late in starting and so no one was injured.

On that Saturday evening, a bomb, constructed in part of a pressure-cooker, exploded in a dumpster in the Chelsea section of Manhattan where it had apparently been planted.  Shortly after the explosion rocked that trendy neighborhood of Manhattan a second bomb of similar construction was discovered just blocks away.

Both of these bombings and that third, unexploded bomb have been attributed to Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized United States citizen who legally immigrated to the United States from his native Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, on that same Saturday evening, in Minnesota, allegedly Dahir Adan, an immigrant from Kenya, went on a violent rampage in the Crossroads Center shopping mall in St. Cloud, stabbing 9 innocent people.  His rampage ended when a police officer, Jason Falconer, confronted him.  Adan lunged at Officer Falconer who fired in self-defense, undoubtedly preventing a far worse attack.

According to an article published on September 19, 2016 in a local newspaper, the Star Tribune, during the attack Adan was wearing a security guard uniform and asked at least one of the victims if he was a Muslim.  Additionally, Adan was reported to have referred to Allah during the attack.

News reports assert he was 22 years old and beginning his third year at St. Cloud State University and was a member of the tight-knit Somalian immigrant community.

Information about the identity of this apparent terrorist was not provided by law enforcement authorities, but by his father who claimed that his son came to the United States some 15 years ago.

Aliens who enter the United States surreptitiously without inspection could be said to have entered the United States through America’s “back door.”  Most terrorists, however, enter the United States through America’s front doors located at the 325 ports of entry that are operated by CBP (Customs and Border Protection).

Both Ahmad Khan Rahami and Dahir Adan were admitted into the United States through America’s “front door.”

Given the severity of the threats America and Americans face and the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission it is incomprehensible that the failures of the lawful entry system and the systems by which applications for lawful status are adjudicated would face extreme scrutiny with the goal of insuring that these systems have real integrity.  Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Politicians from both political parties have repeatedly called for providing lawful status for unknown millions of illegal aliens whose true identities, backgrounds and possible affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations are unknown and unknowable.  There would be no way to interview millions of such aliens and certainly no way to conduct any field investigations.  This would create an open invitation to massive levels of fraud.

Should any doubt remain about the abject lack of integrity in the adjudications process, consider that on September 19, 2016 Fox News reported, “Watchdog: Feds wrongly granted citizenship to hundreds facing deportation” that focused on the findings of the Office of Inspector General for the DHS concerning how hundreds of aliens facing removal deportation had, instead, been granted United States citizenship.  These aliens were originally from countries identified as being “Special Interest Countries”- that is to say that these countries are associated with terrorism.

The report noted that of those who were able to game the naturalization process, some went on to acquire jobs, including in law enforcement where U.S. citizenship is a pre-requisite.

Not long ago I wrote an article about a naturalized Somali immigrant who had “made it” to the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists List.” The title of my piece was, “The Immigration Factor –Naturalized U.S. Citizen Added to FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.”

The FBI is greatly concerned about this individual who is charged with providing material support and resources to al Qaeda and al Shabaab, a Somali-based terrorist organization.  Additionally, he had worked as a cab driver in Washington, DC and has an intimate knowledge of DC’s infrastructure and government buildings.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to admit Syrian refugees who, according to FBI Director, James Comey, cannot be vetted.  Hillary Clinton wants to increase the number of such refugees admitted into the United States by more than 500%.

Clinton wants to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with lawful status which would require that USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to adjudicate all of these applications.

USCIS is the division of the DHS that is charged with adjudicating all of those applications for various immigration benefits including granting political asylum and conferring United States citizenship upon aliens.  This is the very same inept and and incompetent agency that naturalized hundreds of deportable aliens.

Repeatedly Hillary and her open borders / anarchist accomplices have invoked the issue of “compassion” to justify admitting huge numbers of refugees who cannot be vetted and providing illegal aliens who entered the United States covertly with lawful status, even though there would be no way to verify their identities, backgrounds, affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations or even determine when they actually entered the United States.

Terrorists have come to see in our compassion vulnerabilities they can exploit and use against us.

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.” included this paragraph:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

It is time for our government to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws and disarm the terrorists who would kill our citizens and destroy our nation by depriving them the opportunities to enter the United States and embed themselves throughout our country.

***

JIMMY CARTER: ORIGINATOR OF THE ORWELLIAN TERM ‘UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT’

Also see:

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: August 2016

1885

Tanveer Ahmed (right), a Sunni Muslim, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for the murdering Asad Shah (left), who belonged to the Ahmadi branch of Islam. Ahmed confessed to killing Shah in Glasgow because he claimed Shah had “disrespected the Prophet Mohammed.”

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, September 19, 2016:

  • “To use the term ‘honor killing’ when describing the murder of a family member — overwhelmingly females — due to the perpetrators’ belief that they have brought ‘shame’ on a family normalizes murder for cultural reasons and sets it apart from other killings when there should be no distinction.” — Jane Collins, MEP, UK Independence Party.
  • Voter fraud has been deliberately overlooked in Muslim communities because of “political correctness,” according to Sir Eric Pickles, author of a government report on voter fraud.
  • “Not only should we raise the flag, but everybody in the Muslim community should have to pledge loyalty to Britain in schools. There is no conflict between being a Muslim and a Briton.” — Khalil Yousuf, spokesman for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.
  • Only a tiny proportion — between five and ten percent — of the people whose asylum applications are denied are actually deported, according to a British asylum judge, quoted in the Daily Mail.
  • Police in Telford — dubbed the child sex capital of Britain — were accused of covering up allegations that hundreds of children in the town were sexually exploited by Pakistani sex gangs.

August 1. Nearly 900 Syrians in Britain were arrested in 2015 for crimes including rape and child abuse, police statistics revealed. The British government has pledged to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees in the UK by the end of 2020. “The government seems not to have vetted those it has invited into the country,” said MEP Ray Finch. The disclosure came after Northumbria Police and the BBC were accused of covering up allegations that a gang of Syrians sexually assaulted two teenage girls in a park in Newcastle.

August 1. Male refugees settling in Britain must receive formal training on how to treat women, a senior Labour MP said. Thangam Debbonaire, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees, called for a “refugee integration strategy” so that men “understand what is expected of them.” She said it could help prevent sexual harassment and issues “including genital mutilation.”

August 2. Jane Collins, MEP for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), launched a petition calling for the BBC to stop using the term “honor killing.” The petition says the term “cultural murder” should be used instead. It states:

“To use the term ‘honor killing’ when describing the murder of a family member — overwhelmingly females — due to the perpetrators’ belief that they have brought ‘shame’ on a family normalizes murder for cultural reasons and sets it apart from other killings when there should be no distinction.

“Murder is murder, whether it be for cultural excuses or others. The term ‘honor killing’ is a euphemism for a brutal murder based on cultural beliefs which have no place in Britain or anywhere else in the world.”

August 3. Zakaria Bulhan, a 19-year-old Norwegian man of Somali descent, stabbed to death an American woman in London’s Russell Square. He also wounded five others. Police dismissed terror as a possible motive for the attack, which they blamed on mental health problems. But HeatStreet, a news and opinion website, revealed that Bulhan had uploaded books advocating violent jihad on social media sites.

August 4. A public swimming pool in Luton announced gender-segregated sessions for “cultural reasons.” The move will give men exclusive access to the larger 50-meter pool, while women will have to use the smaller 20-meter pool. The gender-segregated sessions are named ‘Alhamdulillahswimming,’ an Arabic phrase which means “Praise be to Allah.” UKIP MEP Jane Collins said the decision to have segregated times for swimming was “a step backwards for community relations and gender equality.” She added:

“The leisure center said this is for cultural reasons and I think we all know that means for the Muslim community. This kind of behavior, pandering to one group, harms community relations and creates tension. Under English law we have equality between men and women. This is not the same in cultures that believe in Sharia Law.”

August 5. Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood may be allowed to seek asylum in Britain, according to new guidance from the Home Office. The document states that high profile or politically active members

“may be able to show that they are at risk of persecution, including of being held in detention, where they may be at risk of ill-treatment, trial also without due process and disproportionate punishment…. In such cases, a grant of asylum will be appropriate.”

The new guidance contradicts previous government policy. In December 2015, then Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain would “refuse visas to members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood who are on record as having made extremist comments.”

August 5. Stephen Bennett, a 39-year-old father of seven from Manchester, was sentenced to 180 hours of community service for posting “grossly offensive” anti-Muslim comments on Facebook. One of the offending comments: “Don’t come over to this country and treat it like your own. Britain first.” He was arrested under the Malicious Communications Act. The judge said Bennett, whose mother-in-law and sister-in-law are Muslims, was guilty of “running the risk of stirring up racial hatred.” He described it as “conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country.”

August 6. British MPs face a six-year alcohol ban when the Palace of Westminster, which has dozens of bars and restaurants, undergoes a multi-billion-pound refurbishment beginning in 2020. They will move to an office building operating under Islamic Sharia law. Their new home, Richmond House, is one of three government buildings which switched ownership from British taxpayers to Middle Eastern investors in 2014 to finance a £200 million Islamic bond scheme — as part of an effort to make the UK a global hub for Islamic finance. Critics say the scheme effectively imposes Sharia law onto government premises.

August 8. Lisa Duffy, a candidate to succeed Nigel Farage as leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), called for a ban on Muslim women wearing a veil in public buildings, shopping centers and on buses and trains. She also demanded that Islamic faith schools be closed to combat radicalization, as well as a “complete and comprehensive ban” on Sharia courts in the UK. She said the veil is “a symbol of aggressive separatism that can only foster extremism” and claimed that it is often “forced on women by men who view them as their property.”

August 8. Stanley Johnson, a former Conservative MEP and Chairman of the European Parliament’s Intergroup Group on Animal Welfare, called for all halal meat offered for sale in the UK to be clearly labeled as such. He wrote:

“The halal market is worth £2.6 billion in Britain alone, and the export market is also growing particularly in the Middle East. Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such.”

August 9. Tanveer Ahmed, a 32-year-old taxi driver from Bradford, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for the “barbaric, premeditated” murder of a shopkeeper in Glasgow. Ahmed admitted to repeatedly stabbing Asad Shah to death outside his shop in March 2016 in a sectarian attack motivated by hatred of Shah’s religious views.

Ahmed, a Sunni Muslim, confessed to attacking Shah, who belonged to the Ahmadi branch of Islam, which believes Mohammed was not the final Muslim prophet. As he was led from the dock, Ahmed raised a clenched fist and shouted in Arabic: “Praise for the Prophet Mohammed, there is only one Prophet.” His cry was repeated by supporters in the public gallery.

Read more

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

A Bloody Day of Muslim Refugee Terror

klk

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Sept. 20, 2016:

The wave of Muslim refugee terror began with a bomb targeting a U.S. Marine charity run in New Jersey. By evening a pressure cooker full of shrapnel has exploded outside a Manhattan building for the blind. An hour later, a rampaging Muslim terrorist began stabbing people inside a Macy’s, asking them if they were Muslim and shouting the name of “Allah,” the genocidal Islamic deity of mass murder.

And that was one Saturday, two Muslim refugees and a wave of national terror 1,200 miles apart.

What did Elizabeth, New Jersey and St. Cloud, Minnesota have in common?

New Jersey has the second largest Muslim population in the country. This isn’t the first time it was used as a staging ground for Muslim terror.

11 of the 19 September 11 hijackers hung out in Paterson (known colloquially as Paterstine). Head toward Jersey City and you can see where Muslim enemies of this country stood on rooftops and cheered the attacks on September 11. It’s also where the World Trade Center bombing mastermind and the Blind Sheikh who provided religious guidance for a proposed wave of Islamic terror operated.

Go south and in Elizabeth you can pass the First American Fried Chicken joint where the Rahami clan made life miserable for their American neighbors before one of their spawn began his bombing spree.

New Jersey is a map of Muslim terror plots because of its huge Muslim population.

Ahmad Khan Rahami came to America as the son of an Afghan refugee. He stabbed a man two years ago. His family was a local nuisance who cried “Islamophobia” at the least provocation. His brother was a Jihadi sympathizer and may have fled the country after assaulting a police officer. By the time Ahmad was done, he had wounded a police officer and 29 other people. If his plot had succeeded, he might have pulled off the largest Muslim terror atrocity in the country since September 11.

Sadly, Syrian Muslim “refugees” continued to be dumped in Elizabeth, NJ to seed the next wave of Muslim terror. The International Rescue Committee, one of the two largest migrant agencies plaguing the Garden State, is based in Elizabeth, 8 minutes away from the Rahimi chicken place.

Last year Erol Kekic, the head of the group, insisted that the issue would “blow over.” Instead of blowing over, it’s blowing up.

Minnesota has suffered from the presence of the largest Somali migrant population in the country. And so a state which used to be known for its Swedish and German immigrants instead became a recruiting ground for ISIS and Al-Shabab. Al-Shabab, which is aligned with Al Qaeda, attacked the Westgate mall in Kenya a few years ago. The Somali killers quizzed their victims to distinguish Muslims from non-Muslims.

Dahir Adan, the Somali Muslim migrant who invaded America from a refugee camp in Kenya, attempted to duplicate that attack, asking those he stabbed at the Crossroads Mall if they were Muslims.

Dozens of Somali migrants in America have joined Al-Shabab and ISIS. The only difference between Dahir Adan and them is that instead of getting on a plane back to his native Somalia to join the local Jihadists, he carried out his Jihad against the nighttime shoppers in a Macy’s.

The Crossroads attack was the tragic price paid by innocent people for Muslim refugee resettlement.

Muslim Somali migration dramatically increased under Obama, rising from 2,500 in 2008 to around 8,000 and 9,000 in the last few years. Somali settlers represent almost 1 percent of the population of Minnesota. Most of the “refugees” dumped in St. Cloud were Somalis migrants and Lutheran Social Services has taken the lead in inflicting Somalis on the unfortunate natives of St. Cloud.

From the very beginning of their arrival, the Somali colonists were a problem for the people of St. Cloud. They displaced American workers and clashed with the native population. In this decade, St. Cloud has become 10% Somali. The Crossroads attack was the inevitable result of that demographic growth.

What happened in New Jersey and Minnesota is the same thing that has been happening in Europe. Islamic terrorism is caused by Muslim migration. As the Muslim population grows, so does its terror.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton had declared that the Somali occupation of the state is here to stay. “Minnesota is not like it was 30, 50 years ago,” he sneered. “Anybody who cannot accept your right to be here should find another state.”

Now Dayton has condemned the “religious bigotry” that motivated the Crossroads attack and declared that, “There is no place in Minnesota for intolerance of all Americans’ constitutional right to worship according to their beliefs.”

But the preferred mode of worship of Dahir Adan came from the religious book that he listed as his favorite, the Koran. “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” (Koran 9:5), “Strike upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip,” (Koran 8:12) and “Fight them until there is no unbelief and the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Koran 8:39). Islamic worship is murdering those who exercise religious freedom. That’s what Dahir Adan was doing at the mall when he asked his victims if they were Muslims.

You can have religious freedom or Islam. You can have the Constitution or the Koran. But you can’t have both.

“I ask everyone in the St. Cloud area and throughout Minnesota to rise above this atrocity and act to make religious and racial tolerance one of the ways in which Minnesotans again lead our country,” Governor Dayton has said. If he and other Minnesotans really want religious tolerance, then the only possible way to achieve it is by ending the disastrous settlement of Somali Muslims in Minnesota.

The anniversary of September 11 has come and gone. And we have learned nothing from the experience. The cesspools of Muslim terror in New Jersey have only grown. And no amount of moments of silence will clean them up. The latest terror plot in New York City originates from the same swamp.

Meanwhile peaceful states like Minnesota have become terror hubs through refugee resettlement.

Refugee resettlement is becoming our biggest terror threat. Obama wants to hike next year’s refugee admissions to 110,000. That’s a 57% increase since 2015. The summer’s statistics showed that more Muslims were being admitted as refugees than Christians.

This weekend’s wave of terror is the result of our refugee policy. And that policy is getting worse.

Ahmad Khan Rahami and Dahir Adan were the products of our refugee policy of yesteryear. Today’s refugee policy will have far deadlier consequences and produce far more terror attacks.

Saturday was a bloody day of Muslim terror, but as the red tide of Muslim migration washes up on our shores, every day in our future will be a day of Muslim terror.

Only ending Muslim migration can stop that.

 

Robert Spencer Moment: If You Don’t Want to Assimilate, Don’t Come

13932701_1121390071239991_7903100999988247328_n

By Jamie Glazov:

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents the Robert Spencer Moment with Robert Spencer, the Director of JihadWatch.org and the author of the new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS.

Robert discusses If You Don’t Want to Assimilate, Don’t Come, revealing how non-Muslims in the West are being made to conform to Islamic sensibilities – and starting to fight back.

Also see:

Germany’s Immigration-Skeptic Party Beats Merkel’s Ruling Party in State Election

019014732_30300In the district that Merkel herself hails from, the Alternative for Deutschland party reduced Merkel’s party to a third-place showing.

CounterJihad, Sept. 5, 2016:

Germany has a Federal system of government, in which a number of states exist and govern areas of the country, while an overarching Federal government handles foreign affairs and other powers.  The next general election for Germany’s Federal government is just over a year away, and between now and then there will be votes in the several states.

In one such vote this weekend, Germany’s current ruling party was reduced to third place.  It happened in the state that Prime Minister Angela Merkel has served for 25 years.

What does this new, successful, insurgent party want?  The Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) wants a Germany that remains German.

In May 2016, the AfD adopted an explicitly anti-Islam policy, and its programme (in German) has a section explaining why it believes “Islam does not belong to Germany”.

There is no room for Muslim practices and beliefs that go against “the free, democratic social foundation, our laws and the Judaeo-Christian and humanistic bases of our culture”, it says.

So the AfD would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure.

“Moderate” Muslims who accept integration are “valued members of society”, the programme says. But it argues that multiculturalism does not work.

Naturally the international press is understanding this German nationalism as a sort of echo of Nazi politics.  The BBC report cited above mentions that AfD members often clash with the press, calling them “‘Luegenpresse’ (‘lying press’), which has echoes of the Nazi era.”  This is one of those occasions when Nazi analogies turn out to be unreasonably weak.  Accusations that the press has been unfair in its coverage of them are universal among insurgent political parties of any ideological stripe, and are often warranted.  As invaluable as a free press is to a free society, it has the same human tendencies to curry favor with the powerful and dismiss those seen as ‘on the fringe’ as anyone else.

Meanwhile, the concerns over mass immigration have a rational element to them, reports none other than Al Jazeera:

“I am voting AfD. The main reason is the question over asylum-seekers,” a pensioner and former teacher who declined to be named told AFP news agency.

“A million refugees have come here. There is money for them, but no money to bring pensions in the east to the same levels as those of the west,” he said, referring to the lower retirement payments that residents of former Communist states receive compared with those in the west.

If it is already the case that Germany is suffering from an official inequality in its welfare system that it is unable to rectify, it makes no sense to swell welfare rolls.  Likewise, the AfD plan to insist that Muslims who come to Germany must endorse its version of the Constitution — “the Basic Law” — as binding regardless of religious views is merely to ask of immigrants what is asked of everyone else.  It would be impossible to manage a stable society with a large and growing element that rejected the basic law of the land where it conflicted with their religious values.

Hungary’s Prime Minister, who has very similar values, has called for a referendum on the question of whether it is appropriate for a European country to value its ethnic and religious heritage.

“We don’t want to change the character of our country,” Orban said. “We want to remain Hungarian, to keep our religious and ethnic composition. That view isn’t popular in Europe nowadays, at least among politicians.”

A clear referendum result would help to convey that message to Brussels, he said. “They want to force rules on member states that are in conflict with their interests, including Hungary’s. We are preparing for a conflict,” he added.

Hungary’s “basic law” actually contains a provision mandating that the government always view Hungary as chiefly the home for Hungarians.  The question that Merkel’s influence in Europe is bringing to the fore is whether such a constitution is permitted any longer in the new Europe.  Orban and the AfD argue not only that it is, but that it ought to be.  Voters seem to be coming around to their view.

Also see:

Islamists Smiling at a Financially Distressed Europe

Capture-11

How can Europe even educate the vast influx?

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 29, 2016:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door immigration stance has cost Germans dearly – especially in regards to the sexual assault crisis, and the financial burden on German taxpayers. One assessment places a figure on the projected extra cost of educating refugee children in Germany at 67 billion Euros – signaling impending financial hardship. Breitbart provides some context for the number:

Around 40 per cent of the million+ people who arrived in Germany last year are believed to be 20 or younger, meaning the country could need up to 25,000 new teachers while migrant children are denied places because schools are already full.

Dieter Dohmen, president of the Research Institute for the Economics of Education and Social Affairs, said the report showed the challenge facing German authorities.

“We have done some new calculations which put the full cost of refugees coming to Germany at €67 billion through their whole education pathway,” he said.

“If we look at the numbers so far some 200,000 have to go to kindergarten while another 300,000 will have to go to school. Then there is vocational education and training and higher education.

“If you look at someone who is three, they have to go to childcare, primary, secondary and higher education so this is a figure for the next 20 years.”

The Australian also adds:

The as yet unpublished study anticipates that up to 1.5 million refugees aged 20 and under will enter Germany’s education and training system by 2020. It includes the cost of higher education in a country where university tuition is provided free of charge. The bill for 2016 is put at euros 15 billion.

This study apparently only deals with educating and training kids or young adults that are twenty years old and younger.  Factoring in other refugee costs like government assistance for adult refugees who are unemployed raises that 67 billion Euros figure significantly. One can easily see that leftist immigration policies mixed with a European welfare system makes for a disaster, which gives Islamists and jihadists further reason to exploit this ‘migration’ crisis as much as possible.

Islamists are using this latest migration of Muslim refugees to further their long-term strategy known as “civilization jihad” – seeking to slowly change society from within so that it accords with the norms of Islam. By changing the demographics in favor of Islam they can take a major European country like Germany, with a Muslim population approaching five million people, and use it to Islamize the European Union.

With Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the helm of Turkish political power, the Islamists have a key player pushing this Islamization of Europe. It’s time for leaders like Merkel to realize that the continuation of the same policies will cause the Germany of tomorrow not only to be bankrupt, but also Islamic.

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration

immigration-ideological-test-islamists-can-be-denied-admission-b

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug. 20, 2016:

Imagine an American government official, interviewing an alien seeking admission to our country from, say, Syria:

U.S. official: “Will you support the United States Constitution?”

Syrian alien: “Well, sure, except that I believe the government should be overseen by a caliph, who must be Muslim and male, and who must rule in accordance with Islamic law, which no man-made law may contradict. None of this ‘We the People’ stuff; Allah is the sovereign. Non-Muslims should not be required to convert to Islam, of course, but they must submit to the authority of Islamic law — which requires them to live in the second-class status of dhimmitude and to pay a poll tax for that privilege.”

“I also believe women must be subservient to men, and that men are permitted to beat their wives if they are disobedient — especially if they refuse sex, in which they must engage on demand. There is no such thing as marital rape, and proving non-marital rape requires testimony from four male witnesses. Outside the home, a woman should cover herself in drab from head to toe. A woman’s testimony in court should be worth only half of a man’s, and her inheritance rights similarly discounted. Men should be able to marry up to four women — women, however, are limited to marrying one man.”

“Oh, and Muslims who renounce Islam should be put to death . . . as should homosexuals . . . and blasphemers . . . and adulterers — at least the ones we don’t let off with a mere scourging. The penalty for theft should be amputation of the right hand (for highway robbery, the left foot is also amputated); and for drinking alcohol, the offender is to be scourged with 40 stripes.”

“There are a few other odds and ends — you know, jihad and whatnot. But other than that, will I support the Constitution? Sure thing.”

U.S. official: “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That would be destroying the Constitution.”

Syrian alien: “Yeah, maybe so. But it’s my religion.”

U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

This conversation is impossible to imagine because . . . it would be honest. In the decades-long onslaught of radical Islam against the United States, honesty went out with the benighted notions that we should “know thine enemy” and, God forbid, train our national-security agents in that enemy’s ideology, methods, and objectives.

In our alternative universe, you are not supposed to remember that there is an American constitutional framework of liberty, popular sovereignty, and equality before the law.

You are not supposed to realize that aliens are expected to exhibit fidelity to this constitutional framework as a precondition to joining our society.

You are not supposed to know that there is an Islamic law, sharia, that has far more to do with governance, economics, warfare, civil rights, domestic relations, criminal prosecution, and fashion than it does with spiritual life.

And you are absolutely not supposed to grasp that sharia is antithetical to the Constitution, to the very foundational American principle that the people may make law for themselves, live as they see fit, and chart their own destiny.

You are not supposed to connect the dots and ask, “Well, how is it conceivable that any sharia-adherent alien could faithfully pledge allegiance to our Constitution?”

So, instead, we shrug our shoulders, mumble something about “freedom of religion,” and bury our heads back in the sand — as if the structure of government and the decision of which limb to smite for which larceny had anything to do with religion in a free society that rejects the establishment of any state religion and separates spiritual from political life.

Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and legal corpus that anti-American radicals seek to impose. Yes, their motivation for doing so is their interpretation of their religion — the fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islam. But that does not make sharia itself a matter of “religion” in the Western sense, even if vast numbers of Arab Muslims — for whom there is no cognizable separation of mosque and state — say otherwise. If Karl Marx had said, “The workers must control the means of production because God says so,” that would not have transmogrified the tyranny of Communism into the “freedom of religion.”

Two things flow from this.

The first involves immigration. As we’ve previously demonstrated, there is no constitutional prohibition against considering religion in deciding which aliens to allow into the United States — immigration is a privilege, not a right; and our Constitution is security for Americans, not a weapon for aliens to use against Americans.

Nevertheless, even if there were a constitutional bar against “religious tests,” sharia is not religion. There are no constitutional constraints against excluding aliens on grounds of anti-American political ideology. Excluding anti-Americans from America is common sense and was regarded as such for much of our history. In a time of radical Islamic threat to our national security, Donald Trump is right to propose that aliens from sharia-supremacist areas be carefully vetted for adherence to anti-constitutional principles.

Leftists — those notorious disciples of the Framers — claim this is unconstitutional. When shown it is not, they claim that it is against our “tradition” — being, you know, big fans of American tradition. When shown that this is not the case either, when shown that our history supports ideological exclusion of anti-Americans, leftists are down to claiming, “It is not who we are” — by which they always mean it is not who they are, and who they would force the rest of us to be.

A short lesson in how we got to be who “we” are. In the last decades of the Cold War, it became progressive dogma that the Soviet Union was forever, that it was an empire we could do business with, arrive at a modus vivendi with. The real evil, the Left decided, were the anti-Communists — it was their provocations against the Soviets, not the Soviets themselves, that could trigger Armageddon. Therefore, they reckoned, we needed to do away with all this overheated nonsense about how Communists seek the violent overthrow of the United States. That, to the Left, was just a bunch of ideological mumbo-jumbo that nobody ever really took seriously (even if Bill Ayers hadn’t gotten the memo).

One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to violent action, should not bar radicals from entering our country. Thus, the “principle” that America must not vet would-be immigrants for anti-Americanism is not derived from the U.S. Constitution, from our traditions, or from who “we” supposedly are. It stems from the Left’s conviction that Communist ideology was not a real threat to America.

Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See, however you come out on the question of whether Communists really posed a violent threat to our national security, there cannot be such a question with respect to radical Islam. The front line of that movement is the mass murderers, not the professors. With radical Islam, the threat of violence is not an abstract academic proposition. It is our reality.

What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have safe haven. Our legitimate worries are not limited to the trained jihadist who infiltrates today; they include the sharia supremacist who will get his hooks into young Muslims and turn them into the trained jihadists of tomorrow.

The second thing to consider is Islam. As Robert R. Reilly unfolded in his essential book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, there is an Islamic tradition of rational inquiry, deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, that has been overwhelmed for nearly a millennium by the fundamentalist tradition. The rationalists may be out-muscled, but they are not dormant. They are Muslims who embrace Western culture, reject the imposition of antiquated sharia as a system of law and governance, and challenge the premises and the aggression of the fundamentalists. They are Muslims who, I can attest, help us infiltrate terror cells and prevent attacks. They are Muslims who fight in our armed forces, work in our intelligence services, serve in our police departments, and thrive in our economy.

We do not have to exaggerate their numbers to recognize that these Muslims exist and that they are our allies — that they are part of us. To appreciate their value and their contributions to our society, we do not need to pretend that they typify Islam as it is lived in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or the no-go zones of Paris.

If we want to win the crucial ideological component of radical Islam’s war against us, we should be empowering these pro-Western Muslims rather than inviting the sharia-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood into our policy-making councils. Like protecting our nation, empowering pro-Western Muslims requires an immigration system that welcomes those who will support our Constitution, and turns away those who would sweep it aside.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Also see:

Refugee Resettlement Industry’s Propaganda Campaign Accelerates with DC Rally

Twitter/@Rally4Refugees

Twitter/@Rally4Refugees

Breitbart, by Michael Patrick Leahy, Aug. 16, 2016:

The politically powerful refugee resettlement industry is accelerating its propaganda campaign to significantly increase the number of Muslim refugees allowed into the United States with a rally in Washington, D.C., on August 28.

“You have got to hand it to them (to the likes of George Soros and big progressive funders like the Tides Foundation), they know how to promote a propaganda campaign,” Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch says of the August 28 event.

The financial backers of the rally include most of the big political players in the lucrative refugee resettlement industry, where government funded “voluntary agencies” [VOLAGs] receive more than $1 billion from taxpayers annually to resettle on average 70,000 refugees each year in the United States.

Among those rally sponsors on the VOLAG federal gravy train are the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (whose local affiliate is currently embroiled in the Twin Falls, Idaho refugee rape controversy), Church World Service, the International Rescue Committee, World Relief, HIAS (formerly known as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), the Episcopal Church, and the Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc.

Other well known far-left groups sponsoring the event include the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the George Soros-funded National Immigration Forum, Sojourners, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

According to its website, “In the midst of the greatest refugee crisis since WWII, advocates from across the country will gather at DCRally4Refugees, August 28, 2016 at the outdoor Sylvan Theater at the Washington Monument on the National Mall in Washington, DC, . . . (rain or shine)”:

The rally will raise awareness about the magnitude of the global refugee crisis, encourage advocacy and U.S. action to alleviate suffering through relief efforts and support, and stand in solidarity with refugees and displaced people worldwide. Anyone is encouraged to join the #SeaOfOrange, buy a T-shirt, attend the historic rally and use #DCRally4Refugees to show support.

Steps from the U.S. Capitol, DCRally4Refugees will call on the U.S. to provide more refugee resettlement and increased support to countries and organizations already involved, support proven relief efforts overseas, and offer resources for those who wish to help, raising a collective voice against intolerance.

The organizers claim that “DCRally4Refugees was inspired by Americans who traveled to Greece and volunteered directly with refugees fleeing war and violence in Syria and other countries”:

After bearing witness to the suffering of millions and hearing the voices of fear and intolerance at home, they felt compelled to do everything possible to raise awareness, stand up against the voices of intolerance, and show the world that America cares about the greatest refugee crises since World War II.

As Refugee Resettlement Watch’s Corcoran notes, “They are promoting their rally as a ‘collective voice against intolerance,’” but the rally is really intended to influence Congress to increase the number of refugees resettled in the United States from the 70,000 that arrived in FY 2015 to more than 200,000 in FY 2017.

“[I]n  September Barack Hussein Obama will be leading a major effort at the United Nations to open our gates even wider for hundreds of thousands of third world migrants to be placed in your towns,” Corcoran points out.

Robert Carey, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (and until recently an executive with one of the largest VOLAGs, the International Rescue Committee) said on an August 9 press call the Obama administration wants to double the refugee resettlement budget in FY 2017 and resettle more than 200,000 “humanitarian arrivals” in the United States in the fiscal year that begins on October 1:

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests include $2.2 billion for ORR programs and that represents the cost of maintaining services for additional refugees and other entrance and unaccompanied children primarily from Central America. The President’s budget request would support a total of 213,000 humanitarian arrivals including 100,000 refugees in 2017. Once a refugee arrives in the US they are eligible to access the same benefits as American citizens who are here legally including temporary aide to newly families [sic], Medicaid, SSI, and SNAP.

As Breitbart News reported, Carey is only the most recent director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to participate in the revolving door between the federal funder of the VOLAGs who resettle refugees and the VOLAGs who benefit from that taxpayer largesse.

Lavinia Limon, the current head of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, andEskinder Negash, that organization’s vice president for Global Development, both servedpreviously as director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in Democratic administrations.

As a recent poll found, most Americans oppose increasing the number of Syrian refugees resettled in the United States.

Historically, as Gallup reports, “Americans have a general reluctance to accept refugees into the U.S., even in response to situations that are clearly oppressive.” In light of the recent increase in Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States and around the world, that reluctance among most Americans has now developed into an attitude of outright resistance.

Despite that widespread opposition to refugee resettlement, the VOLAGs are seeking to keep the federal refugee resettlement gravy train rolling in their direction, at an even greater level, through the use of propaganda and community organizing events, as Ann Corcoran points out:

September is also the month when the Administration (Obama and Sec. of State Kerry) will make their final determination for the US Refugee Admissions Program and submit their plan for fiscal year 2017. They said last year that they were shooting for 100,000 refugees for FY17, but we expect the number to be much higher.

The buck stops with Speaker Paul Ryan!

And, frankly there is only one person who is now in the catbird seat to stop them this fall!—Speaker Paul Ryan. (I know your hearts are sinking, but that is the cold hard truth.) Only Congress can stop them by not granting the money needed to place hundreds of thousands of needy people, some from countries that hate us, in over 350 American towns.

Now here they go attempting to soften up Congress by rallying in Washington for refugees on August 28th!

George Soros has his fingerprints all over efforts to promote refugee resettlement through a number of organizations he funds. As Breitbart reported recently, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation “spends millions promoting Somalian migrants”:

Documents show that George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has spent 1.8 million dollars to improve the image of Somalians in Europe and to combat Islamophobia.

Newly leaked documents from the Open Society foundation by site DC Leaks show the organized web of funding that George Soros and Open Society have become infamous for. One particular report shows funding for an initiative to promote the image of Somalians in Europe who, according to the report are in the top ten most discriminated people on the continent. According to the foundations the real problem is the image of Somalians in the media and not the problems that have led to the creation of that image.

“Political and media coverage of Somalis was largely negative, focusing on piracy, terrorism, FGM, and abuse of the welfare system,” the report states. Somali men have garnered this image due to discrimination, according to the report. While piracy along the horn of Africa is well known, there have been many cases of Somalians being involved in sexual assaults on minors, and people trafficking.

Those leaked documents also reveal “a number of startling revelations about the work of the NGO when it comes to combating what they refer to as ‘xenophobic parties’ in countries around Europe”:

According to at least one document, the foundations has been calling for the censorship of language in the European parliament they term as hateful and have been actively working with various socialist members of the European parliament to train them on how to combat “xenophobic populism.”

That same strategy now appears to be deployed in the United States, where it will be on full display in the August 28 DCRally4Refugees.

***

Also see:

Listen to Brigitte Gabriel explain the dire situation and what you can do to help:

Just how radical has Hillary become on illegal immigration?

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, Aug. 19, 2016:

Many of us who follow politics every day are like frogs in slow boiling water who don’t realize the gradual yet inexorable change in political temperature. Many commentators are trying to suggest that a group of conservatives have departed from our traditions and have moved far to the right on immigration. The reality is just the opposite. The entire political landscape has shifted so far to the left that most contemporary Republicans are to the left of where prominent Democrats used to be on the issue of immigration just one generation ago — and that is when the problem was trivial compared to the enormity of the security, economic, and cultural issues we face today. To get a sense of how radical Hillary Clinton’s views have become over the years — and how tepid the GOP reaction to it has been — watch the following clip from none other than Hillary’s husband during the 1995 State of the Union Address:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

Can we run the Bill Clinton of 1995 for the GOP nomination, please?

When do we ever hear even Republican politicians speak with this much clarity on immigration, let alone any issue? Clinton referenced the “Jordan Commission,” which was headed by a liberal Democrat and pushed an all-out war against illegal immigration. Oh, and it called for reductions in legal immigration. That was at a time when our immigration level was a fraction of what it is today. I think most of us would pine to go back to the “1995 problems.” It was that effort that led to the series of immigration laws passed by the GOP Congress in 1996 (back when eve moderate Republicans actually stood and fought for real big ideas). Unfortunately, all of those laws were ignored. Nonetheless, when it came to deportations, the Clinton administration still repatriated four times the number of illegal aliens that Obama has deported.

How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty vote for a woman who openly mocks our laws on the books?

As I’ve noted before, Sen. Harry Reid (D, Nev. (F, 2%) had made similar comments about mass migration and illegal immigration and promoted enforcement legislation, the likes of which we don’t see today from Republicans.

Fast-forward just 20 years and the wife of the former president who spoke so clearly about the unfairness and dangers of illegal immigration (in a pre-9/11 world) has openly tapped an illegal alien as a campaign operative. As the Washington Free Beacon reports, the illegal alien employed by Hillary to register Latino voters is tied to George Soros’s operation to campaign against America sovereignty.

Let’s put aside for a moment the extreme nature of holding such a political view — that America must have complete open borders. How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty vote for a woman who openly mocks our laws on the books? Even if one believes in open borders and desires to change our existing laws, they have no right to flaunt illegal aliens in broad daylight and tap them for campaign positions.

We have a very polarized nation and we disagree on politics. But there is no disagreement on the rule of law. Sure, there is a concept of unjust laws or faux laws “passed” by federal courts that, as our Founders explicitly said, have no force of law behind them when they step beyond their constitutionally enumerated powers. However, nobody disagrees that immigration laws are the bedrock of sovereignty for any nation-state, and in this country, that power lies exclusively with the United States Congress. One may disagree with those laws as a matter of policy, but has no right to question their legality. For Hillary to run for an office predicated upon the faithful execution of the laws and then openly violate the most bedrock laws of a sovereign nation — openly hiring illegal immigrants and calling for the right to vote against the sovereign citizen — is beneath contempt.

Watching Democrats openly flaunt illegal behavior and dismantle the most inviolable laws of a nation state is yet another demonstration of how this is no longer a liberal party. It is a party of de-civilization.

***

Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney, Aug. 18, 2016:

DANIEL HOROWITZ, senior editor at Conservative Review, author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America”:

Podcast : Play in new window | Download

  • Supplanting Western civilization through Muslim immigration
  • Support system in the West enabling radicalization
  • The latest on criminal justice reform

Also see:

What’s Trump’s Policy on Visas for Muslims?

Trump and PenceMEF, by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
August 17, 2016

The discussion began last December, when Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” This proclamation aroused so much opposition that Trump changed his position – several times, in fact. Where do things stand now on this supremely contentious issue and what can we expect were he elected president?

Trump’s position began to evolve on July 14, when he called for the “extreme vetting” of immigrants: “if a person can’t prove that they’re from an area, and if a person can’t prove what they have to be able to prove, they’re not coming into this country.” Nothing about Muslims here, just about accurate identification.

In a joint interview with the Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence on July 17, Pence was asked to explain the discrepancy between his earlier denunciation of Trump’s ban on Muslims and his new-found support for it. But before Pence could answer, Trump jumped in: “So you call it territories. Okay, we’re gonna do territories. We’re gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they are.” He elaborated about prohibiting nationals from what he called “terror states and terror nations” from entering the United States.

Accepting the Republican nomination on July 21, Trump offered a more articulate and authoritative statement of this new position: “We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place. We don’t want them in our country.”

On July 24, Trump specified two of those “terror nations”: “I’m talking territory instead of Muslim. …We have nations and we’ll come out … over the next few weeks with a number of the places. And it’s very complex. We have problems in Germany and we have problems with France. So it’s not just the countries with …” (it appears he was going to say “a Muslim majority” but was interrupted and did not finish the sentence).

Those few weeks later, on Aug. 15, Trump did not provide more places. Quite contrarily, he called for “a new screening test” to exclude all those with “hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Shariah law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country. Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas.” He again called for the temporary suspension of immigration, but this time “from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.”

This medley of inconsistencies and contradictions points to several conclusions.

Obviously, Trump is no policy wonk but an amateur working out his thoughts under the glare of the biggest klieg lights. Put differently, he does respond to sustained criticism, even fundamentally changing one of his signature policies. Indeed, Trump has gone further and in May signaled his complete flexibility: “Look, anything I say right now – I’m not the president – everything is a suggestion.” Thus did he put Americans on notice that he reserves the right to switch views on any topic at any time.

Second, his change from banning Muslims to citizens from countries “compromised by terrorism” took him from a coherent, if ugly, policy to one that is self-evidently infeasible. If Germans and French are unwelcome on account of their jihadis, who might enter the United States? The border will be slammed shut to all save for the nationals of such fortunate countries as Iceland and Costa Rica. Israel, “our greatest ally,” must be near the top of Trump’s no-entry list.

The most recent change both makes sense and is laudable; indeed, it very satisfyingly tracks my advice of eight months ago suggesting that Trump “ban Islamists, not Muslims.” He’s no longer rejecting all Muslims but discerning friend from foe, a crucial distinction that can indeed be achieved given sufficient resources, time, and intelligence.

This sequence points to Trump being able to learn – slowly and erratically, to be sure – from his mistakes. It also indicates that, were he elected president, he would have a mandate to adopt virtually any policies he wishes on the grounds that “everything is a suggestion.”

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

***

CJR: Do have a look at the article linked above to see a detailed explanation of what “extreme vetting” looks like: 

I especially like the following suggestion regarding the framing of questions. It acknowledges the different meanings that potential jihadists apply to our Western terminology as explained in my recent post, Weaponized rhetoric of jihad.

Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of “Is Islam a religion of peace?”, “Do you condemn terrorism?” “How do you respond to the murder of innocents,” depend too much on one’s definition of words like peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person’s outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: “May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?”

Also see:

The Case for Extreme Immigrant Vetting

download (3)

It’s a practice as American as apple pie—and for good reason.

Politico, by GEORGE J. BORJAS, August 17, 2016

In his major foreign policy speech earlier this week, Donald Trump explained how he would expand the “ideological” vetting of immigrants who want to come to the United States. “The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today,” he said. “I call it extreme vetting.” In particular, Trump proposed, “We must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles—or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”

As with practically all of Trump’s policy statements, the over-the-top commentary came swiftly. Over at the Washington Post an opinionator opined (and I’m only slightly paraphrasing) that Trump’s ideas were crazier than crazy. I knew it wouldn’t take long before somebody called them un-American, and MSNBC nicely obliged; a commentator commented that “this is the single most un-American thing I have ever heard in my life.”

If all those pundits had bothered to do just a couple of minutes of googling before reacting, they would have discovered that immigrant vetting, and even extreme immigrant vetting, has a very long tradition in American history. Since before the founding even, U.S. policies about whom the country chooses to welcome and reject have changed in response to changing conditions. As early as 1645, the Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited the entry of poor or indigent persons. By the early 20th century, the country was filtering out people who had “undesirable” traits, such as epileptics, alcoholics and polygamists. Today, the naturalization oath demands that immigrants renounce allegiance to any foreign state. Even our Favorite Founding Father du jour, Alexander Hamilton (himself an immigrant), thought it was important to scrutinize whoever came to the United States. He wrote:

To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country … would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty. … The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass. … In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.

In other words, immigration vetting is as American as apple pie.

In the colonial era, governments were particularly concerned with the entry of “public charges” who could impart substantial costs on the indigenous population. In 1691, the Province of New York must have hired a professional economist to design a bonding system that would discourage the entry of people who would be a drag on public resources:

All Persons that shall come to inhabit within this Province … and hath not a visible Estate, or hath not a manual occupation, shall, before he be admitted an Inhabitant, give sufficient surety, That he shall not be a burden or Charge to the respective places, he shall come to Inhabit. Which Security shall continue for two years.

And in 1740, Delaware enacted legislation to “Prevent Poor and Impotent Persons being Imported.” Many of these colonial-era restrictions remained in place until 1875, when the Supreme Court invalidated state-imposed head taxes on immigrants to fund the financial burden of caring for poor entrants, and made immigration the sole purview of the federal government. But that wasn’t the end of immigrant filters. Congress responded by creating the vetting system that—although modified many times—remains in place today. In 1875, Congress prohibited the entry of prostitutes and convicts. In 1882, Congress suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers, and added idiots, lunatics and persons likely to become public charges to the list for good measure.

One of my favorite examples of the extreme vetting is the 1917 Immigration Act, which, in addition to effectively barring immigration from Asia, listed the many traits that would make potential immigrants inadmissible. The following quote is very long, but it shows the excruciating detail with which Americans have historically resorted to extreme vetting:

All idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons; persons who have had one or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority; persons with chronic alcoholism; paupers; professional beggars; vagrants; persons afflicted with tuberculosis in any form or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living; persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; polygamists, or persons who practice polygamy or believe in or advocate the practice of polygamy; anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or of all forms of law, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property; persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining and teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers … of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government.

In other words, even a century ago we had put in place ideological filters against anarchists, persons who advocate the destruction of property, and persons who believe in overthrowing the government of the United States.

Of course, some of these filters, such as those restricting the entry of epileptics or Asians, have long since been rolled back—and for good reason. But many of them—especially those pertaining to criminals, and people who are likely to work against U.S. interests—remain in current law, with additions that reflect the changing security landscape. Hijacking and drug trafficking, for example, became major concerns only in the past few decades, and the law changed accordingly to ensure that it became more difficult for hijackers and drug traffickers to enter the country.

Here is the application filled out by green card applicants today (Form I-485). Among the many questions are:

Have you EVER, in or outside the United States:

a. Knowingly committed any crime of moral turpitude or a drug-related offense for which you have not been arrested?

Have you EVER:

a. Within the past 10 years been a prostitute or procured anyone for prostitution, or intend to engage in such activities in the future?

b. Engaged in any unlawful commercialized vice, including, but not limited to, illegal gambling

c. Knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted or aided any alien to try to enter the U.S. illegally?

d. Illicitly trafficked in any controlled substance, or knowingly assisted, abetted, or colluded in the illicit trafficking of any controlled substance?

Have you EVER engaged in, conspired to engage in, or do you intend to engage in, or have you ever solicited membership or funds for, or have you through any means ever assisted or provided any type of material support to any person or organization that has ever engaged or conspired to engage in sabotage, kidnapping, political assassination, hijacking, or any other form of terrorist activity?

Do you intend to engage in the United States in:

a. Espionage?

b. Any activity a purpose of which is opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unlawful means?

Have you EVER been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party?

Did you, during the period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, in association with either the Nazi Government of Germany or any organization or government associated or allied with the Nazi Government of Germany, ever order, incite, assist, or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion?

And, finally, here’s part of the oath that immigrants who wish to become citizens of the United States must recite at the naturalization ceremony:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; … that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law.

In view of this almost 400-year track record, is it really that big a stretch to add questions, as Trump proposes, that would expand the filtering to reflect political conditions and national security concerns today? In particular, is it really that big a departure from what we have done in the past if we also asked green card applicants: “Do you believe that religious law should supplant the Constitution of the United States?” Or if we asked: “Do you believe that the law should treat people differentially based on their gender, their race, or their sexual orientation?” And would it really be that unreasonable if we had second thoughts about admitting persons who answered those questions in the affirmative? Are there really that many Americans who would disagree with the notion that a reasonable immigration policy should, in Trump’s words, keep out “those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred”?

Of course, it is sensible to wonder whether such filters are effective. I doubt that the 9/11 terrorists admitted in their applications for foreign student visas that they planned to use their flight training to fly planes into the World Trade Center. But the fact that such filtering is far from perfect does not imply that we should not have any filters whatsoever. If nothing else, the perjury in the visa application gives the government an easy way for detaining and deporting dangerous immigrants living in our midst, even after they become American citizens. The falsification or concealment of relevant facts during the application process provides grounds for the removal of a green card, for the revoking of naturalization, and for eventual deportation.

The many filters that have been used throughout American history to determine who will and will not get an entry visa have an obvious purpose. Yes, some of them, in the hindsight of history, seemed to have had no constructive purpose. But for the most part, they helped to strengthen the social and political fabric of our country and they helped to define the common set of values that distinguishes us as Americans. Or to quote Alexander Hamilton again: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits.”

So, regardless of what you think about the Trump candidacy, the next time you hear that Trump’s proposal for immigrant vetting is un-American, the correct response is that it is American to its core. And the next time you hear that Trump’s proposal is crazier than crazy, the correct response is that—given the mess the world is in—it is the notion that we should not vet immigrants more carefully that is certifiably insane.

George J. Borjas is a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. This article from has been adapted from an essay previously published on his blog.

***

‘The War Is Here’: Trump & Gorka Warn of Worsening ISIS Threat

gorkatrump

Fox News Insider, Aug. 18, 2016:

Donald Trump joined Sean Hannity tonight for an exclusive town hall conversation about the threats of ISIS and radical Islam.

Counterterrorism expert and author Dr. Sebastian Gorka joined Trump and Hannity onstage at the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee, declaring that President Obama, Hillary Clinton and those who think like them simply don’t understand the dire threat we’re facing.

“The war is real and the war is here,” Gorka said. “This is a threat that is real and is escalating every day.”

He pointed out that not only has ISIS turned Iraq and Syria into a “hellhole,” there is now an ISIS-related attack abroad every 84 hours.

Gorka said that Trump’s proposals will “absolutely” keep Americans safer than those of Obama or Clinton.

“If you don’t have borders, you don’t have security,” Gorka said. “If Hillary Clinton becomes the commander-in-chief and continues the policies of this administration, American lives will be endangered.”

***

Trump Meets Victims of Radical Islamic Terror at ‘Hannity’ Town Hall

During a “Hannity” town hall event tonight, Donald Trump spoke to several victims of radical Islamic terror.

Karen McWatters, who lost a leg in the Boston Marathon bombing, said that we need leaders who will speak openly and honestly about the threats facing our country.

Trump said that unlike President Obama and Hillary Clinton, he actually wants to do something to protect Americans from radical Islamists, and that’s why he’s advocating “extreme vetting” of any immigrants coming into the U.S.

Kris Paronto, one of the heroes of Benghazi, and Dorothy Woods, whose husband Ty Woods was killed in the 2012 terror attack, agreed that there’s no doubt that we’re at war with radical Islam in the U.S. and abroad.

“I believe in the vetting process,” Paronto said. “Not all Muslims are bad, but the Muslim community in America – they are Americans because they’re here – they need to start speaking out publicly and condemning.”

***

Trump on ‘Extreme Vetting’: Orlando Shooter’s Dad Should Be ‘Thrown Out’

The Orlando shooter’s father should be “thrown out” of the United States, Donald Trump said in a Hannity town hall event that aired last night.

Trump, who earlier this week laid out his plan for “extreme vetting” of those who want to emigrate from Middle Eastern nations, was asked about how he would handle Seddique Mateen.

“I’d throw him out,” said Trump, mentioning Mateen’s attendance at a Hillary Clinton rally in Florida earlier this month.

“He’s got a big smile on his face throughout the whole thing. He obviously liked what he heard from her,” said Trump.

Hannity noted that Mateen, whose son murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub, had expressed “radical” views in the past and support for the Taliban.

Trump said Muslims living in the United States need to help authorities in identifying possible terrorists before they strike.

“If they’re not gonna help us, they’re to blame also,” he said.

Trump argued that in San Bernardino there were warning signs about the couple that carried out the attack on an office building last year. But he said that neighbors did not call policebecause they didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling the couple.

Watch the whole thing:

Sweden: The Silence of the Jews

Part IV of a Series: The Islamization of Sweden

Gatestone Institute, by Ingrid Carlqvist, August 16, 2016:

  • “It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism is not just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it is routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It is our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.” — Mehdi Hasan,The New Statesman.
  • “There isn’t much of a desire to do anything about it [the problem of antisemitism]. It should also be said that the so-called interfaith outreach work… achieves almost nothing. A couple of old bearded men get together and agree on some dietary thing they’ve got in common, but it doesn’t solve the fact that anti-Semitism mainly comes from Muslim communities these days. … that that’s taught in many mosques and many Muslim schools…” — Douglas Murray, British commentator.
  • The question that arises is, are the elites of Sweden in general suffering from a case of Stockholm syndrome? Are we encouraging our adversaries to Islamize Sweden, which in the long run, might result in the abolition of freedom of religion, forcing Jews and Christians to live as dhimmis [subjugated citizens] in humiliation?
  • If by allowing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to settle here — people much more hateful of Jews than the average German during the Nazi era — are we not in fact paving the way for another Holocaust?

One of the most visible effects of Muslim mass immigration into Sweden is that anti-Semitism is very much on the rise in the country. Swedish Jews are being harassed and threatened, mainly in the Muslim-dense city of Malmö, where in January 2009, the friction deepened during a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration. Demonstrators were attacked by pro-Palestinian counter demonstrators, who threw eggs and bottles at the supporters of Israel. The mayor of Malmö at the time, Ilmar Reepalu, failed to take a clear stance against the violence, and was accused of preferring the approval of the city’s large Muslim population to protecting Jews. He remarked, among other things, that “of course the conflict in Gaza has spilled over into Malmö.”

In January 2009, an Arab mob in Malmö pelted a peaceful Jewish demonstration with bottles, eggs and smoke bombs. The police pushed the Jews, who had a permit for their gathering, into an alley.

The situation in Malmö has twice been deemed so alarming that U.S. President Barack Obama sent Special Representatives to the city: Hanna Rosenthal visited in 2012, and Ira Forman came in 2015. “We are keeping an eye on Malmö,” Forman told the media.

The harassment of Malmö’s Jews was, for a long time, a mystery to the general public; Were neo-Nazis really walking the streets of Sweden’s third largest city? Many believed that to be the case, until the local daily paper Skånska Dagbladet published a series of articles, in which the Jewish community finally pointed out the elephant in the room: Malmö’s growing Muslim population.

Fredrik Sieradzki of Malmö’s Jewish community explained that when he grew up, Jews could still wear a kippa (skullcap) without anyone bothering them: “Nobody dares do that now,” he said.

Malmö Rabbi Shneur Kesselman, one of very few Orthodox Jews in Sweden who wears a traditional Hassidic black hat and frock-coat, has, in the last few years, filed more than 50 complaints with the police about various kinds of harassment. On May 31, 2016, an 18-year-old Muslim by the name of Amir Ali Mohammed was finally convicted of shouting “Jewish bastard” at Kesselman. The media, however, chose not to publish any information about Mohammed’s name or religion.

In June 2016, a report with a special focus on Sweden was published, entitled “Different Antisemitisms: On three distinct forms of antisemitism in contemporary Europe.” Its authors, Swedish researchers Lars Dencik and Karl Marosi, based the report on two studies, conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA).

The report states that the Swedish anti-Semitism, leading mostly to verbal attacks on Jews, comes from Muslims. The ADL study, encompassing eight European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and Britain), showed that Sweden has the least anti-Semitic population. Only 4% of Swedes are classified as anti-Semites, compared to 41% of Hungarians. Sweden, in fact, came in number 100 out of 102 countries studied, followed only by Laos and the Philippines.

The FRA study asked Jews in various countries what group of people had attacked or threatened them: Far-right extremists, far-left extremists, Christian extremists or Muslim extremists. In Sweden, out of 81 Jews asked, 51 stated they had been attacked by Muslims, 25 by far-left extremists, 5 by far-right extremists, and none by Christian extremists.

There can be little doubt, therefore, that ethnic Swedes do not have a problem with Jews, and that the rampant anti-Semitism in Sweden is apparently due to Muslims from the Middle East, who now make up 10% of the population.

The British current events analyst and commentator, Douglas Murray, said in a recent interview, that Muslims in Europe have big problems with anti-Semitism. He referred to an article in the New Statesman, in which Muslim Mehdi Hasan wrote:

“It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism is not just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it is routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It is our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.”

Murray points out that anti-Semitism is a widespread sentiment among Muslims, even among those who have lived for decades in Europe. When asked what the West can do about the problem, Murray said:

“We may not be able to [do anything]. I wouldn’t have thought France would be able to, I cannot see any particular long-term future for Jews in France. … There will be some countries, when Muslim anti-Semitism grows, say it is not the Jews who should leave, but the people who would make the Jews leave. There are some countries where that may happen, but other countries where it will fail.

“There isn’t much of a desire to do anything about it. … it should also be said that the so-called interfaith outreach work, which the Jewish community places a lot of hope in, achieves almost nothing… A couple of old bearded men get together and agree on some dietary thing they’ve got in common, but it doesn’t solve the fact that anti-Semitism mainly comes from Muslim communities these days; it doesn’t solve the problem, the fact that that’s taught in many mosques and many Muslim schools, and it doesn’t address the fact that now, if you go to, if Israel does anything anywhere in the world, anywhere in its region, there will immediately be a protest of very angry young Muslims in the center of London and other British cities. You can have an old rabbi and an old mullah, you know, sitting around having tea, agreeing on dietary stuff, but that doesn’t solve why the hatred is being taught. And that’s something the rabbi and the Jewish leadership in this country, among other places, just don’t want to admit to. Perhaps it’s too bad to confront?”

The question that arises is, are the elites of Sweden in general suffering from a case of Stockholm syndrome? Are we encouraging our adversaries to Islamize Sweden, which in the long run, might result in the abolition of freedom of religion, forcing Jews and Christians to live as dhimmis [subjugated citizens] in humiliation?

Read  more

Ingrid Carlqvist is a journalist and author based in Sweden, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of Gatestone Institute.

Is Trump’s “Extreme Vetting” That Far Off Existing US Policies

ct-donald-trump-extreme-vetting-immigrants-20160817Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden, Aug. 16, 2016:

While the MSM has gone out of its way to question every plausible unintended consequence(s) of Donald Trump’s new “extreme” vetting for immigrants, perhaps it is worth looking at some of the current questions the US Immigration Services asks and compare those to Trump’s proposals. They may not be that far off.

To recap, Trump proposed an ideological test of “Islamic sympathizers” to be admitted, focusing on issues including religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights.

And while some have questioned the validity of a test, and whether a presumed terrorist would even be honest in said test, the experts and political pundits should take a look at what the US currently asks individuals.

  • Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
  • Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
  • Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
  • Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
  • Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
  • Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
  • Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in torture?
  • Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
  • Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?

Evidently, if any of the US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) answered these questions honestly, they would not be admitted to the US. But, perhaps the best question still being asked to all immigrants is as follows:

  • Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

If the US government currently engages in these and other questionings, is it that far off to ask  if you are anti gay rights, anti Semitic or pro sharia law?

***