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?

***

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech: A Presidential Address

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Aug. 16, 2016:

Yesterday in Youngstown, Ohio, Donald Trump delivered the best speech of his campaign to date. Newt Gingrich rightly called it the most important since Ronald Reagan left office.

In fact, in many ways, it was very Reaganesque. After all, long before he became president, Mr. Reagan warned that every generation faces an existential threat to freedom. Mr. Trump made clear that he recognizes the threat to freedom in our time, which he explicitly characterized as “Radical Islam” and its guiding, supremacist ideology, Sharia.

The GOP nominee also channeled President Reagan by espousing a comprehensive strategy highly reminiscent of the one the Gipper formally adopted in his National Security Decision Directive 75 and employed to defeat freedom’s last existential threat: Soviet communism. Mr. Trump recognizes that now, as then, we must bring decisively to bear all instruments of national power – economic, military, intelligence, information and ideological.

The last element, which was emphasized repeatedly in the Trump speech, reflects an essential understanding that has eluded past administrations of both parties and some of the candidate’s most vociferous critics, Democrats and Republicans alike: Jihadists who seek the destruction of our country, its Constitution, and people employ different tactics – including violence, migration, material support for terrorism, recruitment, indoctrination, conversions and stealthy subversion. But they are all motivated by the same ideology: Sharia. Donald Trump declared yesterday that if you embrace that supremacist doctrine, you must seek to supplant our Constitution and, therefore, you are not welcome here.

Specifically, the speech adopted a basic principle: As a foreign national and would-be immigrant to this country, you must share our values to gain admission. That filter has for too long been absent and has greatly contributed to the ominous demographic trends facing not just Europe, but this country, as well: growing numbers of transplanted and inherently hostile populations, most of whom have no interest in assimilating and, rather, insist that freedom-loving Americans accommodate their demands and, ultimately, submit to Sharia.

Finally, the Republican candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief spoke of a reality that can no longer safely be ignored: There are “networks” in America that support “radicalization.” In so doing, he recognized another hard lesson from Europe’s experience. Violent jihadists rely upon and exploit the infrastructure (including Islamist mosques, societies, cultural centers, front groups, influence operations, etc.) that has been systematically put into place in the West over the past fifty years by Islamic supremacists, notably those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We have no choice but to identify, designate and roll-up such operations.

Donald Trump’s remarks in Youngstown implicitly addressed another important issue about his candidacy. Particularly for those who have been uncertain about the GOP nominee’s propensity to make provocative comments, concerns played upon by critics’ assailing his judgment, this speech should be comforting. It not only displayed a discipline on the part of the Republican nominee to “stay on script.” It also spoke volumes about the quality of the people who are advising Candidate Trump and writing that script – and, presumably, who would be advising him should he win the White House. At no point since 9/11, and arguably for thirteen years before, has there been a better articulation of what’s at stake and what needs to be done to secure freedom, namely by seeking and achieving Victory over Jihad. We desperately need more such visionary and collaborative leadership.

Donald Trump set the stage yesterday in Youngstown for the sort of national debate – and choice – that is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Bring it on.

***

Levin: Trump is 100 percent right on ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants 

By: Phil Shiver | August 16, 2016 at Conservative Review

Donald Trump’s national security speech Monday generated a great deal of buzz, especially due to his call for “extreme vetting” of immigrants and the temporary suspension of immigration from countries affected by ISIS.

Trump set the tone that under his administration all incomers to the United States would either accept American values and assimilate, or simply not be allowed in. The Left went crazy. The New York Times editorial board dedicated an entire op-ed to attacking “Mr. Trump’s Foreign Policy Confusions.”

On his radio show Tuesday night Mark Levin fought back. “I want Donald Trump and his team to understand that they are 100 percent right about this issue of ideology and assimilation,” he said.

Listen to the Levin tear into The New York Times and explain why assimilation is so important:

Three Dozen Incidents Chronicle Europe’s Domestic Insurgency: The Week in Review

AP_migrant_europe_01_mm_150904_16x9_992.sized-770x415xb (1)PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, AUGUST 14, 2016:

Last week I reported here at PJ Media on the growing mountain of evidence showing that the European migration crisis is causing flashpoints across the continent. I noted two dozen incidents from the previous seven days revealing the scope of the problem.

Fast-forward a week later and now all indications are that Europe’s domestic insurgency fueled by the massive waves of migrants flooding into EU countries continues to escalate.

My August 3 report here at PJ Media looked at data from the Pew Research Center showing that military-age men represented the bulk of so-called refugees to Europe in 2015. It took nearly a week after my report for the establishment media to pick up on the ramifications of the recently released Pew data:

Europe’s migration crisis remains in the news as migrants and refugees continue to flood the continent:

And as this recounting of incidents from the past week shows, wishful thinking by the European political and media elites is not resolving the problem:

France: Corsica tense after clashes between North Africans and locals over burkini picsUK: Is missing Bradford schoolboy now a jihadist fighter?

Germany: Officials in Hamburg monitoring ‘sharia police’ patrolling city after wave of refugees

Holland: Iraqi man hacks fingers of neighbor off with machete after dispute

Scotland: How Pakistan inspired Glasgow shopkeeper killer after perceived insult to Mohammad

Scotland: Supporters shout “praise for the prophet Muhammad as Muslim ‘blasphemy’ killer is sentenced

Denmark: Iranian asylum seeker threatens bombing of refugee center where he was staying

Germany: After four Islamist attacks authorities racing to figure out how to help youth before they radicalize

UK: British man convicted of making offensive comments about Muslims on Facebook

France: Police warn jihadi terrorists could be hiding in Britain-bound refugees in Calais

Greece: Yazidis targeted for genocide by ISIS being persecuted in refugee camps

Sweden: Somali migrant who stabbed asylum worker to death sentenced to psychiatric care

Italy: Milan overrun by ‘invasion’ of thousands of immigrants

Germany: Police arrest Syrian refugee after tip he was planning ‘Islamist-inspired attack’

Belgium: Manhunt for jihadi teen who called for extermination of Christians

Switzerland: Rise in number of child victims of forced marriage

Hungary: 3000 extra police dispatched to help protect border

UK: Home Office guidelines say Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members qualify for asylum

France: Teen cleared of being ‘third man’ in Charlie Hebdo attack arrested for trying to join ISIS

Belgium: Algerian man who stabbed two Charleroi police officers wasn’t deported despite two deportation orders

Holland: Two Turkish men assaulted by Erdogan supporters in Amsterdam

UK: London schoolgirl turned ‘jihadi bride’ killed in Syrian airstrike

Austria: Authorities see rise in attacks by asylum seekers

Belgium: Liege neighborhood on lockdown after man of ‘Turkish origin’ roams streets with machete day after terror attack

Germany: Federal chief of domestic intelligence says Islamists use refugee camps for recruitment, 340+ cases so far

Italy: Tunisian national deported after planning bombing attack on Leaning Tower of Pisa

France: Terrifying moment Calais migrants ambush British van driver with metal bars

Germany: Video of migrants clashing with police in Berlin goes viral

UK: Prime Minister May allowed terror suspect wanted in two bombings in India and killing of schoolgirl to remain in country

Sweden: Summer inferno of sexual assaults, almost all coming from Afghanistan, Eritrean and Somali refugees

Belgium: Police arrest three new terror suspects during raids in Brussels

Germany: Intelligence warns of ISIS hit squads among refugees

UK: Election fraud in Muslim-majority areas of London becoming a problem aided by political correctness, report claims

Sweden: Eight immigrants convicted of murder in restaurant attack, tried to kill 25

Italy: Pro-migrant group calls off rally after weapons found on protesters

France: Malian expelled on suspected jihadist links, 81 such expulsions since 2012

UK: Imams using prisons to radicalize recruits

Needless to say, Europeans aren’t taking comfort in assurances by their politicians that the problem is being handled…

Read more

Germany’s Migrant Rape Crisis Spirals out of Control

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, August 9, 2016:

  • Germany’s migrant rape crisis has now spread to cities and towns in all 16 of Germany’s federal states. Germany now finds itself in a vicious circle: most of the perpetrators are never found, and the few who are frequently receive lenient sentences. Only one in 10 rapes in Germany is reported and just 8% of rape trials result in convictions, according to Minister of Justice Heiko Maas.
  • Up to 90% of the sex crimes committed in Germany in 2014 do not appear in the official statistics, according to André Schulz, the head of the Association of Criminal Police.
  • “There are strict instructions from the top not to report offenses committed by refugees. It is extraordinary that certain offenders are deliberately NOT being reported about and the information is being classified as confidential.” — High-ranking police official in Frankfurt, quoted in Bild.

Sexual violence in Germany has reached epidemic proportions since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed into the country more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Gatestone Institute first reported Germany’s migrant rape crisis in September 2015, when Merkel opened up the German border to tens of thousands of migrants stranded in Hungary. A follow-up report was published in March 2016, in the aftermath of mass attacks against German women by mobs of migrants in Cologne, Hamburg and other German cities.

Germany’s migrant rape crisis has now spread to cities and towns in all 16 of Germany’s federal states. Germany is effectively under siege; public spaces are becoming increasingly perilous. Police have warned about a potential breakdown of public order this summer, when young male migrants are likely to see women lightly dressed.

During the month of July 2016, hundreds of German women and children were sexually assaulted by migrants (see Appendix below). The youngest victim was nine; the oldest, 79. Attacks occurred at beaches, bike trails, cemeteries, discotheques, grocery stores, music festivals, parking garages, playgrounds, schools, shopping malls, taxis, public transportation (buses, trams, intercity express trains and subways), public parks, public squares, public swimming pools and public restrooms. Predators are lurking everywhere; safety nowhere.

Dozens of women and children have been assaulted by migrants at summer festivals and public swimming pools — staples of ordinary German life.

Sexual violence in Germany has reached epidemic proportions since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed into the country more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The government has been facing a rising voter backlash to the open-door migration policy, including public protests (left). In some areas, authorities have distributed cartoon guides, to “educate” migrants that sexual assault is not acceptable (right).

In July, at least 24 women were sexually assaulted at the Breminale music festival in Bremen. Women were also assaulted at outdoor festivals in Aschheim, Balve, Gerolzhofen, Grenzach-Wyhlen Heide, Loßburg, Lütjenburg, Meschede, Poing, Reutlingen, Sinsheim, Wolfhagenand Wolfratshausen.

In July, women and children were also sexually assaulted at public swimming pools inBabenhausen, Dachau, Delbrück, Hamm, Hilchenbach, Kirchheim, Lörrach, Marklohe,Mönchengladbach, Mörfelden-Walldorf, Oberursel, Remagen, Rinteln, Schwetzingen andStuttgart-Vaihingen.

Most of the crimes were downplayed by German authorities, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments. Almost invariably, the crimes are said to be isolated incidents (Einzelfälle), not part of a nationwide problem. Information about sexual assaults can usually be found only in local police reports. Rapes are sometimes treated as local interest stories and covered by local or regional newspapers. Only the most spectacular incidents of rape and sexual assault make it into the national press.

Read more

Racism, not Refugee Rape, Is Causing Agitation in Twin Falls, Claims Local TV Outlet

Screen-Shot-2016-08-07-at-11.48.47-PM-640x480

Breitbart, by  MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY, Aug. 7, 2016:

White racism, not a June 2 videotaped rape by refugees from strife-torn tribal cultures, is causing the growing civic protest in Twin Falls, Idaho, according to KMVT, the main local TV station.

The pitch was delivered with the help of Nancy Taylor, who is a local advocate for greater immigration.

I believe that there is a very small group in Twin Falls, very small and vocal, who, for lack of a better word, are racist … A little girl was assaulted, and just because people of color are involved, it becomes an issue. Unfortunately, children in this community are victims of crime every day, why isn’t that an outrage?

The racism-not-rape claim was the main theme of KMVT’s  report on the press conference by a local civic group known as “We the People Magic Valley.”

They held their press conference on Friday to highlight the civic costs of the inflow of foreign labor into the town, and to ask Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton “to come to Twin Falls and see how America is being changed by this new crisis.”

The uproar began June 2, when a five-year-old American-born girl was allegedly raped by two small refugee boys in Twin Falls, Idaho, while a third boy, also a Muslim refugee,video-taped the attack. The details of the alleged attack are gruesome:

As Breitbart News previously reported, ten-year-old and seven-year-old Muslims allegedly orally raped the the victim, and the ten-year-old suspect allegedly anally raped her as well. Another alleged perpetrator recorded the attack while coaching them throughout the rape. The rapists also defiled their victim by urinating on her clothes and in her mouth.

But the low-wage refugees are a profitable portion of the local labor force — and also are a growing slice of local consumers — so the local business and political establishment is eager to downplay the impact of refugee labor on Americans’ wages and neighborhoods. In Twin Falls, Mayor Shawn Bariger, who’s handling of the alleged sexual assault has been questioned by local activist groups, is also president of the Twin Falls Area Chamber of Commerce.

KMVT is owned by Gray Television, which owns or operates  77 television stations in 44 small markets.

KMVT ignored the message presented by the group at the press conference and focused on whether the group is “racist.”

That skew ensured that KMVT’s reporting on the press conference is “one of the most blatant examples of pro-refugee, anti-American bias I’ve seen to date in the media,” said Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch. She’s an expert on the lucrative refugee resettlement industry.

“When a news media outlet fails to report what an organization holding a press conference actually says at that event, you really have to question if they are an objective reporter of actual news, or if they are instead simply a propaganda outlet for the powerful refugee resettlement industry and its local business allies,” Corcoran says.

“Is the rule of law being applied fairly in this case of alleged sexual assault of a 5-year-old American-born girl by three young boys, all reportedly refugees?” she asks.

“Or, is this girl being denied her rights as a victim and are the alleged perpetrators being protected by the local legal and political system because they are refugees and therefore have superior rights to the girl?  Because to prosecute them to the full extent of the law would harm the existing relationship with resettled refugees that benefits the members of the local political and business establishment?” Corcoran concludes.

The message KMVT failed to report on was substantive and directly relevant to a critical public issue facing the entire country.

“This attack has gotten national attention for a reason. Because it deals with issues that are hot topics for Americans,” one member of the group said at the press conference.

“People are being treated unfairly in their own country and held to a different standard,”another member of the group said, adding:

Refugees have been flooding into Twin Falls as cheap labor, for the food industry, including the food-processing industry. Local employers are given financial incentives not to hire Americans, but to hire refugees instead. The federal government has also gotten involved by providing incentives for both the companies and city officials.

The attack that happened to this delicate, little, five-year-old girl is one of the unforeseen consequences that are changing the make-up of our country, causing wages to stagnate, and creating a situation that is bad for everyone. Worst of all, the changes that have been transforming America haven’t been debated or discussed in media. Political correctness, and self-interested politicians and businessmen have allowed this to happen without engaging citizens in these policies.

KMVT did not report at all on the message the group delivered. Instead, it went into the press conference with an agenda, clearly visible in the way it began its report:

Nancy Taylor works closely with refugees in the Magic Valley.

“I can’t tell you how many wonderful refugees that we have here,” Taylor said. “Absolutely amazing. And I’ve met a lot, and they are not what people think they are.”

Not everyone shares her opinion on the refugees, though.

“I believe that there is a very small group in Twin Falls, very small and vocal, who, for lack of a better word, are racist,” [Taylor] said. . .

“A little girl was assaulted, and just because people of color are involved, it becomes an issue,” Taylor said. “Unfortunately, children in this community are victims of crime every day, why isn’t that an outrage?”

The written version of the KMVT report failed to disclose Taylor is a “refugee advocate.”

In fact, Taylor is apparently part of a group known as Magic Valley Refugee Advocates which has a Facebook page that shares news releases from the College of Southern Idaho Refugee Program.

That program is the local affiliate of the politically powerful U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigration (USCRI), a leading voluntary agency [VOLAG] in the billion dollar refugee resettlement industry funded almost exclusively by the federal government.

As Breitbart News reported previously, USCRI is headed by Lavinia Limon, who has made her career helping migrants settle in the United States. She was appointed director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and has been a leader in the movement to create “new American communities” of migrant blocs within American neighborhoods.

Read more

Lee Stranahan explains the whole story in the context of the Refugee Resettlement program  racket:

 

Breitbart has been covering this incredible story from the beginning. See it all here:

Tag: Twin Falls Idaho sexual assault

EU Migrant Situation Creating Multiple Flashpoints Across the Continent Amidst Growing Domestic Terror Insurgency

AP_migrant_europe_01_mm_150904_16x9_992.sized-770x415xb

PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, AUGUST 7, 2016:

The passivity that European governments showed last year as hundreds of thousands of migrants flooded the continent appears to be bearing dire consequences as a long catalogue of incidents occurred over the past week.

Most notably, an American was stabbed to death on the streets of London and several more injured by a Somali man with a Norwegian passport who had been living in the UK since 2002.

And just within the past 36 hours in Belgium, an Algerian man, whom the Islamic State credited as one of its “soldiers,” attacked and wounded two female police officers with a machete earlier today in Charleroi, screaming “Allahu Akbar.” And an entire neighborhood has been evacuated today in Liege after a Turkish man was spotted roaming the streets with a machete.

Since January 2015, there have been 17 terrorist attacks across Europe, killing 258 people and injuring hundreds more. Less than a month ago in Nice, France, on July 14, a Tunisian man, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, ran over and killed 85 and injured 208 more during a Bastille Day celebration.

In April, the House Homeland Security Committee released its European Terror Threat Snapshot showing that there have been 35 attempted terror attacks by ISIS in Europe since 2014, with 22 of them in 2015 – an average of 2 per month.

Increasingly, economic migrants and asylum seekers from North Africa and the Middle East are figuring prominently in the news related to Europe’s domestic terror insurgency.

This sampling of media reports from just the past week in Europe gives evidence to the scope of the problem:

Germany:How Ansbach suicide bomber made his way from SyriaFrance:Paris police on alert for Afghan asylum seeker who may be planning terror attack

Italy:Tunisian held on terror charges after pledging allegiance to the Islamic State

Belgium:Priest stabbed after opening his home to asylum seeker whom he refused to give money to

Sweden:Eritrean migrant slits throat of 7-year-old daughter of host family

Austria:Syrian teen refugees murder janitor who befriended them, his body dumped in bathtub

Bulgaria:Trial begins for three Islamic State-linked Syrian refugees charged with terrorism

Italy:Justice Minister tells Parliament Islamic State may be behind migrant flows

UK:London to deploy 600 more police and 900 more throughout England and Wales after terror attacks

Denmark:ISIS tried to recruit refugees from Danish migration center

Germany:Authorities announce 60 asylum seekers being investigated for terror links

France:Algerian man suspected of terror links expelled

Belgium:At least 5 of Paris, Brussels terror suspects were on Belgian welfare rolls

Italy:100 migrants break through barrier from Italy to France

Poland:Parliamentarian claims Germany going to great lengths to cover up crimes of their refugees

Holland:No jail time for Iraqi refugee who killed 96-year-old woman

Belgium:Court releases convicted ISIS recruiter “Mother of Jihad” after serving 4 months of 15 year sentence

France:Interior Minister says 20 mosques shut down over radical ties since December

I reported here at PJ Media just a few days ago about a new Pew Research Center report showing that in Europe during 2015, asylum applications by ‘military-age’ men were extremely over-represented, with roughly half coming from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Read more

***

Sweden: Increasing Violence by Asylum Seekers against Swedes

One Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Sweden: June 2016

Gatestone Institute, by Ingrid Carlqvist, August 5, 2016:

  • The daily Svenska Dagbladet reported that 30,000 people whose asylum application had been rejected and were scheduled for deportation, had gone missing. The police say they lack the resources to track down these illegals.
  • Three Somali men in their 20s, who took turns raping a 14-year-old girl, received very lenient sentences — and all three avoided deportation.
  • On June 7, it was reported that British citizen Grace “Khadija” Dare had brought her 4-year-old son, Isa Dare, to live in Sweden, in order to benefit from free health care. In February, the boy was featured in an ISIS video, blowing up four prisoners in a car. The boy’s father, a jihadist with Swedish citizenship, was killed fighting for ISIS.
  • “If you disagree with the establishment, you are immediately called a racist or fascist, which we definitely are not. At times I felt that this was what it must have been like to live in the old Soviet Union.” — Karla, on why her family had left Sweden for Mallorca.

June 1: The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå), released a report which showed that 11,007 people have been sentenced to deportation after being convicted of crimes. However, the report makes no mention of how many of these individuals have actually been deported. The number of convictions that include deportation has decreased, despite an increasing crime rate among foreigners in Sweden. In the 1970s, about 500 a year were sentenced to deportation; in 2004, the number had risen to 1,074, but in 2014 only 644 received this verdict.

Not only are fewer people sentenced to deportation — but more and more, those who are to be deported refuse to leave the country. In October of last year, daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladetreported that 30,000 people whose asylum application had been rejected and were scheduled for deportation, had gone missing. The police say they lack the resources to track down these illegals. Patrik Engström, head of the border police at the Department of National Operations (NOA), told the paper: “We put these people on the wanted list, but we do not engage in an active search for them. We wait for tips and things like that.”

June 1: On the evening of May 31, a man was pushed in front of a speeding subway train in Stockholm. The victim was a 23-year-old Swedish student at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm. He received skull fractures and lacerations, lost half his foot, broke his ribs and collarbone and punctured one of his lungs. Whether he will ever fully recover remains unclear. The day after, a 34-year-old Algerian-Swedish citizen was apprehended for the crime. The attacker, who was already suspected of another violent subway crime, was identified and caught with the aid of the general public, who recognized him from photographs published. He is now being held in custody, pending trial.

June 2: A Swedish Jewish family told the Jerusalem Post they have fled Sweden and taken up residency in Mallorca. Dan, whose parents came to Sweden when thousands of Danish Jews were rescued during World War II, said:

“All my life I’d been grateful to be part of a civilized society. And, until about 2005, I felt blessed to live in a true social democracy, where people willingly paid high taxes for a fine welfare system and liberal values.

“Sure, the sunshine and lifestyle played some part in our decision [to move], but the real reason was Sweden’s changing demographics and politics. The radical, left-wing establishment became totally obsessed with multiculturalism and political correctness, which we did not need reminding had been part of Swedish ethos for centuries.”

His wife Karla added: “If you disagree with the establishment, you are immediately called a racist or fascist, which we definitely are not. At times I felt that this was what it must have been like to live in the old Soviet Union.”

June 2: Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg announced that from now on, it would employ security guards around the clock at Sahlgrenska’s three hospitals. The head of security, Peter Alverman, told Sveriges television:

“There are constant threats against our staff. But more than anything, we are doing this because of increasing gang crime in Gothenburg; it finds its way into our hospitals and causes concern among staff as well as among other patients.”

The guards will cost nine million kronor (over $1 million) a year — money that could of course have been invested in health care.

June 3: Member of Parliament Daniel Sestrajcic was indicted for disobeying a police officer. Sestrajcic is a member of the Left Party, formerly known as the Communists. The crime was committed in connection with a tent camp of protesting Palestinians being torn down in Malmö, in October 2015. Sestrajcic, who was among the protesters, was initially accused of trying to kick a police officer in the head, but due to lack of evidence, those charges were dropped. However, as he refused to obey police orders and leave the scene, the indictment for disobeying police orders still stands. Mr. Sestrajcic denies the charges.

June 5: Three men, sentenced by Falun District Court to four years in prison for aggravated rape in the town of Ludvika, were acquitted by the Svea Court of Appeals. The prosecutor had appealed the original verdict in the hope that the men would get a longer prison sentence, but the Court of Appeals said that which of the men had done what could not be proven. The three were therefore acquitted and the deportation order revoked.

June 6: On Sweden’s National Day, the Left Party decided to go out and congratulate — not the Swedish people — but the Muslims in Sweden who were starting the fasting month of Ramadan. Discussions ran hot on the party’s Facebook page. One person wrote: “I hope you do not end up in the same situation as the Green Party. I fled from Islamists in Iran, and you are wishing them a happy Ramadan? My condolences.”

June 6: The staff at an asylum house in Ludvika was forced to call the police after a group of Muslims seeking asylum had become dissatisfied with the meals served at the facility. They complained that the food was not “Ramadan compliant,” and the way they expressed their complaints apparently frightened the staff. The police report is unclear about exactly what transpired after that.

June 7: It was reported that Isa Dare, a 4-year-old boy who had been brought into Islamic State territory by his parents, had now been smuggled into Sweden. The reason was apparently to gain access to the free health care the Swedish government decided to offer all illegal aliens in 2012 — at the Swedish taxpayers’ expense. The boy’s 24-year-old mother, Grace “Khadija” Dare, was born in London. She was married to a Swedish citizen Abdul Ghameed Abbas, also known as “Abu Bakr”, who was killed in combat for ISIS in an air raid in November 2014.

In February, the boy became well-known when he was featured in an ISIS video, where he was shown activating a detonator and blowing up a car with four prisoners inside. Posing by the burnt-out car, the 4-year-old yelled: “Allahu Akbar!”

On June 7, it was reported that British citizen Grace “Khadija” Dare had brought her 4-year-old son, Isa Dare, to live in Sweden, in order to benefit from free health care. In February, the boy was featured in an ISIS video, blowing up four prisoners in a car (pictured above). The boy’s father, a jihadist with Swedish citizenship, was killed fighting for ISIS.

June 7: Ardeshir Bibakabadi fled Iran for Sweden because his sexual orientation was not accepted in his home country. Last year, he held lectures at ten schools in Gothenburg, and in an interview with the daily newspaper, Göteborgs-Posten, he explained how hatred against homosexuals flourishes in Swedish schools with Muslim students.

“It was always the same pattern, I felt as if my mere presence were provoking them. When I lectured in big auditoriums, the tensions became abundantly clear. ‘Damn, you are disgusting,’ one student at the Porthälla school yelled at me. Then he charged at me.”

June 8: Three Somali men in their 20s, who locked a 14-year-old girl in a room and took turns raping her, received very lenient sentences — and all three avoided deportation. Two of the men got two and a half years in prison. The third, who was also convicted of drug-related crimes and drunk driving, got three years. After serving their time, they will all be allowed to stay in Sweden, even though they are not Swedish citizens.

June 9: A 19-year-old illegal alien from Somalia, who bit a police officer in the arm while being arrested, was acquitted by the Umeå District Court. The court believed his version of events — that he had acted in a state of panic due to traumatic memories from his home country, and “bad experiences with the police in other countries.”

June 9: For years, the Swedish media has maintained that all who claim to be unaccompanied refugee children are indeed children — no matter how wrinkled and grizzled they are. The notion that many of them lie about their age, in order to get fast-tracked to asylum, has been dismissed as a racist myth. However, an investigative report by the public-service Sveriges Radio, showed that many are in fact adults, resulting in grown men being put in the same facilities as teenagers and children.

Irene Sandqvist, Unit Manager at the Social Services Department in Helsingborg, told the reporter that, in her estimation, at least 25% of the “refugee children” are adults:

“We have even had someone with gray hair, which makes it pretty obvious, I would say. Some are even older than the staff, and this might well put the younger children at risk.”

Read more