D-day approaching for Trump on refugee resettlement

Most Somali refugees start out here, at the United Nations Daadab refugee camp on the Kenya-Somalia border. Between 5,000 and 11,000 per year are sent to the United States, along with thousands of others from Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oct. 1 brings new year and big decision on number of Muslims to import

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sept. 11, 2017:

When President Trump took office in January, he inherited his predecessor’s hand when it came to refugee resettlement, as President Obama had put the United States on the hook for 110,000 displaced persons gathered in United Nations camps – every one of them destined for an American city.

In his executive orders, Trump tried to pause refugee resettlement for 120 days along with his 90-day travel ban from six mostly Muslim countries, all of which were shot down by the courts.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump’s executive order and won’t release a decision until sometime next year.

But that decision should have little to no impact on Trump’s control over refugee numbers in the new fiscal year starting Oct. 1. He can set the cap at zero if he wants or end the most potentially destructive resettlements, which are from Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Burma and Afghanistan.

In short, Trump never “owned” the refugee program. He inherited it from Obama and when he tried to alter it, he encountered a ferocious backlash from the courts, the media, the federal bureaucracy and the private contractors that resettle refugees with money almost exclusively collected from the U.S. taxpayer.

That all ends on Oct. 1. Now, in the weeks leading up to that date, Trump, in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, must send a presidential-determination letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee informing Congress of the annual cap on refugees. This cap or “ceiling” is the maximum number of refugees the Trump administration wants to allow into the U.S. in fiscal 2018.

Trump will no longer be able to blame Obama or the courts. He will officially own the refugee program. If he sets the cap at zero, he will be in full compliance with federal law, according to experts on the Refugee Act of 1980.

WND asked several well-known conservatives familiar with the refugee program how they would advise Trump on this issue if they were in his administration.

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, said Trump should make good on his promise.

“Follow through on his campaign promises, and stop the refugee influx entirely until such time, even if it never comes, when we can distinguish jihad terrorists from peaceful refugees,” Spencer said.

Trump famously said during his campaign he would suspend the program entirely “until we can figure out what the hell is going on” with regard to rising Islamic terrorism across the globe.

Ann Corcoran, who has followed refugee resettlement for more than a decade, said Trump has plenty of reason to do just that and still come across as a great humanitarian by focusing on needy Americans.

“The public should be outraged to learn that in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which have left tens of thousands of Americans homeless, that we are poised to take in thousands of impoverished refugees when we now have our own refugees, struggling people who have lost their homes, lost everything, with their lives shattered, living in tents, shelters and RVs,” Corcoran said. “To bring in more from other countries in a time like this would be the ultimate insanity.”

The U.S. has resettled more than 800,000 refugees since fiscal 2004. According to the State Department’s refugee database, America has admitted roughly 160,000 Iraqi refugees since 2007 and more than 140,000 Somalis over the past two decades, 24 years after that country’s civil war started.

More than 1 percent of Somalia’s total population has been transferred to Western democracies in Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States over the past 30 years.

There has never been a compelling case made to the American people as to why they should continue this transfer of population from the Third World to America other than the fact that some nations such as Somali are embroiled in never-ending tribal wars.

The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement spends more than $2 billion annually to resettle foreign refugees into American cities, but that doesn’t include welfare benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing and educating refugee children. All told, the program has been estimated at up to $10 billion per year.

Daniel Horowitz, author of the book “Stolen Sovereignty,” says Trump’s job is actually quite simple.

“Obama used [his authority under the Refugee Act] to the detriment of the country to bring in over 100,000 refugees in his last year in office; Trump can use it to protect our security by setting the cap at zero,” Horowitz writes Monday in the Conservative Review.

The Refugee Act was sold to the public in 1980 as a way of granting Congress and the states more input, but “it left the door open for a president who doesn’t respect his nation’s concerns to unilaterally bring in as many refugees as he desires,” Horowitz adds. “This has been a source of much consternation for conservatives, because over the past two decades, this has allowed the presidents to flood the country with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia, Iraq, and other places that do not fit the description of religious or ethnic persecution.”

But now the shoe is on the other foot, he says.

“The president most certainly may bring in as few as he wants. There is no mandatory minimum. Now that he is no longer working off Obama’s FY 2017 determination, he can chart his own course, without Congress and without the meddling courts.”

Well-heeled resettlement agencies such as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the International Rescue Committee and their equivalents in the Lutheran, Catholic and Episcopal churches certainly will file lawsuits against any Trump plan that drastically reduces or eliminates the number of refugees flowing into U.S. cities, but Horowitz says they won’t have a legal leg to stand on.

That’s because Trump won’t be using any executive order to try to undo something already set in motion by Obama. He will be able to chart his own course.

Horowitz writes:

Moreover, as Christians and Jews in the Middle East are becoming extinct, much of the resettlement program has become a fundamental transformation of America by bringing in thousands of non-assimilating Muslims. The cost to Americans in terms of welfare, security, and culture is staggering [D1] — and it all enriches self-promoting and parasitic refugee contractors.

We’ve brought in close to one million refugees since FY 2004. According to the State Department’s refugee database, America has admitted roughly 160,000 Iraqi refugees since FY 2007. We have admitted over 143,000 Somalis over the past two decades, 24 years after the civil war commenced. Why should we actively bring in more?

According to a Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society conference call last Thursday, current funding levels are enough to support an influx of 75,000 new refugees per year.

Here are some other nuggets gleaned from the call by Corcoran:

  • Seventy-five thousand is their minimum target number for FY2018 in order to not “undermine [their] infrastructure” (code for keeping the federal money coming so they can pay salaries and rent, but of course they never admitted that to listeners on the call). Less than 50,000 would mean “long lasting erosion” of the program.
  • Everything is very confused this year they say. No Presidential Determination (PD) letter yet.
  • They say the Report to Congress (in advance of the PD) has come in June or July in some previous years. It usually is mid-September because until the last couple of years,
  • Congress didn’t care what the president sent up. Other than a few diligent staffers, it is likely no members actually ever looked at the report.
  • They admit they have a stable of lawyers ready and waiting for all possibilities from this White House.
  • They even suggested there is a possibility that Trump would make no presidential determination on refugees. One of their people remarked that Bush delayed his PD immediately after 9/11, but that was understandable they admitted (implying the Trump situation is not).
  • A caller asked if there was any way Congress could ‘punish’ the President if he simply doesn’t make a ‘determination’ or initiate a consultation in the coming three weeks. No, there isn’t, said one of the HIAS experts. But, their stable of lawyers is looking at all the legal angles.
  • Until Trump was elected, they, the refugee contractors, were in “expansion mode” opening new offices in new towns. Bringing in more refugee communities now is impossible.
  • There was a lot of discussion about what refugee advocates could do. Top of the list was to tell their congressmen and senators that they want to “welcome” more refugees. Interestingly, Hetfield admitted the president sets the number not Congress, but important to try to get Congress to pressure the president.
  • They asked listeners to set up meetings with their Washington reps in their own districts. But, surprisingly, could not give a caller the names of specific reps to target.
  • Some other action ideas included getting rabbis to sign their letter in support of more refugees. They have 48 states represented but no one from North and South Dakota.
  • They want people to show up to demonstrate on the steps of the Supreme Court when it hears the so-called ‘travel ban’ case on Oct. 10. A caller asked how the timing of the case and the decision announcement (could be May or June) would affect refugee admissions, and the experts on the call could not say.
  • They want people to plan demonstrations and to use social media to get the pro-more-refugees message out. And, they want donations.

U.S. state lays down law: No more refugees!

The U.N.’s massive Dadaab camp in Kenya sends a steady stream of Somali refugees to the United States. More than 200 Somalis have entered the U.S. as refugees since President Trump’s first full day in office on Jan. 21.

Claims U.S. giving ‘preferential’ status to U.N.-backed migrants

WND, by Leo Hohmann, July 24, 2017:

Of all the recent state lawsuits filed against the federal government’s refugee resettlement program, which annually distributes tens of thousands of Third World migrants to more than 300 U.S. cities and towns, the one filed by Tennessee might be the most significant.

Tennessee doesn’t just ask the feds to do a better job of “vetting” refugees or to “consult” more closely with state officials, like the failed lawsuits filed by Alabama and Texas. Tennessee attacks the program at its core, challenging the federal government’s self-proclaimed right to secretly plant foreign nationals of its own choosing – and the choosing of the United Nations – into U.S. cities and towns. Tennessee contends this is a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment and an unconstitutional infringement on state sovereignty.

The 10th Amendment says the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, with all other powers reserved for the states.

Tennessee filed its lawsuit in March, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case in June claiming the state was seeking to stop the influx of refugees as part of a discriminatory policy that treats refugees as inferior to other immigrants.

But the state claims just the opposite. In its 33-page answer, filed July 14, Tennessee claims the only reason it felt compelled to sue the feds was because the feds were demanding that states grant refugees special rights and special favor not available to other immigrants.

An unfunded mandate?

In effect, says the state of Tennessee, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program amounts to an unfunded mandate – as the feds dump refugees on states without providing federal funding for the costs associated with refugee resettlement. Those costs include education, health care and housing, not to mention additional police protection, says the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based nonprofit that provides legal aid in cases that uphold America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the sanctity of life and U.S. sovereignty.

“Elected officials have little say over the process [of refugee resettlement],” writes Ann Corcoran, who has been tracking refugee resettlement for over a decade.

If successful, Corcoran said, Tennessee’s suit would cut the legs out from under the program by attacking its funding. She said other states, like South Dakota and Texas, which have been trying to get control of their budgets with regard to refugees, should be joining Tennessee in this suit.

‘Preferential treatment’ for refugees

The suit’s language, crafted by Thomas More Law Center, is clear:

“Attempting to escape the fact that the refugee resettlement program is funded by the States, defendants erroneously lump refugees in with other lawfully present aliens and then assert that all of them are the responsibility of a State’s Medicaid program. This argument ignores the fact that the federal government has conferred preferentialtreatment on refugees, which leaves them situated more favorably than immigrants admitted through regular means.”

Generally, “[s]elf-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes,” states the U.S. code 8 U.S.C. Section 1601(1), and thus other categories of lawful immigrants to the United States are required to make certain showings as to their financial self-sufficiency as a condition to immigrating.

In fact, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 (a)(4)(A) states: “Any alien who … is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”

The lawsuit continues:

(“[A]liens within the Nation’s borders [should] not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.”) In contrast, the Refugee Resettlement Act imposes no such self-sufficiency requirement and mandates that refugees be deemed eligible for enrollment in Medicaid immediately upon arrival and for a period of up to seven years thereafter.

45 C.F.R. § 400.94(c) (“A State must provide medical assistance under the Medicaid and SCHIP programs to all refugees eligible under its State plans.”); See 8 U.S.C. § 1612(a)(2)(A)(i) (establishing seven-year limit).

As such, it is improper to say that refugees are simply another part of the lawfully present immigrant population for which states would otherwise be responsible. To the contrary, refugee populations are an economically disadvantaged population who are admitted to the country without regard to their economic status and who are allowed to immediately access welfare benefits.

If the refugee resettlement program was terminated along with refugees’ favored status under federal welfare laws, it would mean refugees would not be eligible for admission without regard to their economic condition, and they would not be eligible for Medicaid until they had lived in the United States for five years, just like most other types of immigrants, according to the suit.

The government’s “special treatment of refugees may very well serve a legitimate federal goal, but it is just that: a federal goal,” the Tennessee brief states.

The federal government cannot constitutionally force “state governments to absorb the financial burden of implementing a federal … program” while the federal government takes “credit for ‘solving’ problems.”

The state’s argument, concludes that the feds “merely seek to have the federal government absorb the costs that it is currently passing on to states like Tennessee.”

Tennessee’s refugee resettlement program is operated by Catholic Charities, which is one of nine federal contractors the U.S. government pays more than $2,000 for every refugee they resettle in U.S. cities and towns. The resettlements are carried out devoid of any required input from elected city representatives, who answer to local taxpayers.

Since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, more than 3 million refugees have been permanently resettled in the U.S. from dozens of Third World countries. More than 90 percent of refugees entering the U.S. are hand-selected by the United Nations.

Trump throws wrench in U.N. plan to ‘replace’ U.S. population

Most Somali refugees start out here, at the United Nations Daadab refugee camp on the Kenya-Somalia border. Between 5.000 and 11,000 Somalis per year are sent to the United States and distributed to dozens of cities, along with thousands of other U.N.-selected ‘refugees’ from Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

WND, by, Liam Clancy, July 23, 2017:

WASHINGTON – In the last year of his presidency, Barack Obama and his administration worked tirelessly with the United Nations to expand the definition of “refugee” to include economic migrants and drastically increase the numbers being resettled in the United States.

And he found a willing partner in the Republican-controlled Congress, which funded not only more refugees but provisions for record numbers of unaccompanied minor children, so-called UACs, showing up at the border from Central America.

In the fall of 2016 Obama hosted the U.N. Leaders’ Summit on Refugees in New York, where he and other world leaders used rhetoric strikingly similar to the concept of “replacement migration,” a U.N. plot to replace the population of a given country with migrants and “refugees” from the developing world.

WND recently reported on the scheme, revealed in a U.N. document prepared in the year 2000 entitled “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?

The report details the plunging birthrates across Western Europe, Russia, Japan and the United States and identifies a solution: mass migration from the Third World into these “aging and declining” nations.

The 17-year-old document makes the case for mass immigration as necessary to replace the aging populations of developed countries. Without the migration of populations from the developing world, it reasons, economies will suffer because of labor shortages and falling tax revenues.

“Therefore, among the demographic variables, only international migration could be instrumental in addressing population decline and population aging in the short to medium term,” the report concludes.

Obama’s stated goals before the Leaders’ Summit last fall were to increase financing for global humanitarian appeals, as well as double the number of resettlement slots and use “alternative legal pathways,” such as student and family-based visas, for refugees to enter the United States.

A report by the influential Brookings Institute included reasons to support Obama’s plan to increase resettlement, stating: “For receiving countries, migration has already become the most important source of demographic growth and renewal for wealthy societies.” This is the goal of “replacement migration.”

“The so-called benefits of replacing a country’s population with Third World migrants is bogus and imaginary,” said Leo Hohmann, author of a 2017 investigative book, “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.”

Hohmann said that while the costs of refugee resettlement are understated, often ignoring refugees’ heavy use of public assistance programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, refugee advocates also like to overstate the economic impact of refugees in the work place.

“For example, even after five years in America, 60 percent of refugees use food stamps, compared to 15 percent for native-born Americans,” Hohmann said, citing statistics provided by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Yet, when Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services and the other resettlement agencies show up in a city to inform leaders of their intention to send refugees, they talk about how the new arrivals will open businesses and boost the local economy, Hohmann said.

“It’s a bunch of lies and half truths,” he said. “They’re never told the rest of the story.”

Minnesota, for instance, earlier this month approved an additional $600,000 to treat a measles and tuberculosis outbreaks mostly within its Somali and Hmong refugee communities, and that was on top of the $1.5 million the state had already allocated for these outbreaks this year.

Another hidden cost, which is almost never talked about, is that of educating the refugees’ children, most of whom require expensive tutors and translators, Hohmann said, pointing to migrant-heavy school districts like Wichita, Kansas, where students speak more than 50 languages.

None of these costs are subtracted from the supposed economic benefits of importing refugees to come up with a net economic impact, Hohmann said.

The official pledge given by the United States at the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees included the following statement:

“The United States admitted 85,000 refugees in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 – 15,000 more than in FY 2015 – and pledged to increase its refugee admissions to 110,000 in FY 2017. The United States also increased alternative pathways of admission into the United States, providing special immigrant visas to more than 11,000 people at risk from Iraq and Afghanistan in FY 2016 – an increase of over 4,000 from FY 2015.”

A day before the Leaders’ Summit, the U.N. convened at the U.N. Summit for Refugees and Migrants 2016, and statements from top U.N. officials at the event revealed that “replacement migration” continues to be a top priority for their global agenda.

“Replacing populations in the West with those from the Third World is also seen by the globalists as a great way to redistribute the world’s wealth,” Hohmann said. “We ship many of our manufacturing jobs to the Third World and they ship us their poor masses who can take advantage of our generous welfare programs while working in the factories that have not yet been outsourced. That’s a double whammy used against the American middle class, impoverishing Americans while improving the financial lot of those in poor countries.”

Expanding the definition of ‘refugee’

H.E. Peter Thomson, president of the U.N. General Assembly, made remarks at the 2016 summit that the U.N.’s commitment toward migrants is not restricted to refugees, but toward economic migrants as well, declaring that those migrants “in search of opportunity and a better life for their children” deserve the same rights as those “fleeing armed conflict and the brutal effects of war.”

The U.N. included the economic rights of migrants in a major document for the first time with its Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.

Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson echoed that sentiment at the summit, saying that “Development programs are crucial and a key priority. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognized the contribution migration makes to economic progress. We must harness that positive energy.”

The summit also produced the New York Declaration, a document signed by all U.N. member states that makes alarming promises to protect not only legitimate refugees fleeing war zones, but migrants as a whole – even those who would not qualify as “refugees” under the Geneva Accords.

For example, the New York Declaration includes a promise to “Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status,” as well as a statement to “Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.”

The International Organization for Migration is a radically pro-migrant U.N. group, and has declared emphatically that migration is both “necessary” and “inevitable.” The group was formally added into the U.N. system at the conclusion of the 2016 summit.

The New York Declaration reveals a plan for the future, including a commitment to “Start negotiations leading to an international conference and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in 2018… migration, like other areas of international relations, will be guided by a set of common principles and approaches.”

With the election of President Donald Trump, the United States has lowered refugee admissions from Obama’s 2017 goal of 110,000 to just over 50,000, a move that drew intense criticism from pro-migrant groups – and possible push-back from the U.S. State Department.

This is not surprising, given that the State Department under Obama was extremely pro-migrant as evidenced by its actions at the two U.N. migration summits, and the department remains staffed predominantly with Obama holdovers.

“There is still many, many holdovers from the Obama administration the State Department,” Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, told WND.

Mehlman said Trump has left many top positions in the State Department unfilled, and this is stifling the president’s agenda. “If you want to have your agenda carried out, you need people in place to carry it out.”

However, with the recent Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s “travel ban,” it appears Trump has stopped the refugee flow to the United States, at least temporarily. His refugee cap to 50,000 was reached on July 12, and with the travel ban in effect, refugees cannot be admitted until the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, unless they can prove they have a “bona fide” family tie in America.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a final ruling on Trump’s travel ban in October.

“The latest travel ban ruling says he can limit the number of refugees entering the United States, but what will happen remains to be seen,” Mehlman explained.

President Trump Reverses Obama’s Anti-Christian Refugee Policy

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, July 19, 2017:

After declaring that Christians have “been horribly treated” by the refugee program under former President Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has reversed the Obama administration’s disgraceful discrimination against Christian refugees.

According to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. State Department refugee data, during the period from January 21, 2017 – President Trump’s first full day in office – through June 30, “9,598 Christian refugees arrived in the U.S., compared with 7,250 Muslim refugees. Christians made up 50% of all refugee arrivals in this period, compared with 38% who are Muslim.”

From April through June 2017, Iraq was “the only Muslim-majority nation among the top six origin countries.” The number of Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. from January 21, 2017 through June 30, 2017 was 1779. Comparing the number of refugee admissions from Syria for the entire month of January with the entire month of February 2017, the number dropped by nearly half. By June 2017, the number of refugees admitted from Syria was about 26 percent of the already low number of 673 admitted in February.

By contrast, Pew Research Center reported that in fiscal year 2016 – Barack Obama’s last full fiscal year as president – “the U.S. admitted the highest number of Muslim refugees of any year since data on self-reported religious affiliations first became publicly available in 2002.” Overall, the number of Muslims admitted as refugees exceeded the number of Christians who were admitted.

Of the 12,486 refugees from Syria admitted to the United States during that same fiscal year by the Obama administration, about 99 percent were Muslim and less than 1 percent were Christian. Estimates of the Christians’ proportion of the total population of Syria have ranged from 5 to 10 percent since the onset of the Syrian civil war. Muslims made up 87% of Syria’s total population.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry declared in March of last year that the Islamic State had been committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis and other minorities in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the Obama administration decided that Christians and other refugees belonging to minority religious faiths did not deserve any priority for admission to the U.S.  In fact, the Obama administration discriminated against Christians. It admitted proportionately less Christians relative to the total number of refugees from Syria than even the lower end of Christians’ estimated proportion of the total population of Syria. Incredibly, since the beginning of the Syrian conflict, approximately 96% of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States by the Obama administration were Sunni Muslims even though ISIS and al Qaeda jihadists are themselves Sunni Muslims. The ideology of Wahhabism fueling the jihadists’ reign of terror, exported by Saudi Arabia, is of Sunni Muslim origin.

Obama followed a deliberate anti-Christian refugee policy, while condescendingly lecturing Christians to remember the misdeeds he says were committed in the name of Christ many years ago. During a National Prayer Breakfast in 2015, for example, Obama said: “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Obama’s walk through his version of Christian history somehow balances out in his mind the genocide committed by jihadists against Christians on his own watch.

Obama not only insulted Christians who have been facing persecution and death on a mass scale at the hands of Islamist terrorists. He twisted history in trying to invoke his moral relativism. He conveniently left out that the Crusades were a response to Muslim invasions that had resulted in the capture of two-thirds of the old Christian world and that Christian churches took a leadership role in the fights against slavery and segregation.

Thus, it was no surprise that Obama sharply criticized the suggestion that persecuted Christians be given preference for admission as refugees. He said that “when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted… that’s shameful.”  Obama added: “That’s not American, it’s not who we are.”

Obama’s refugee policy was both “shameful” and “not American.” It discriminated against Christians and other non-Muslim minority religious groups who needed refugee status protection the most, while vastly favoring the one group of refugees from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries who needed protection the least– Sunni Muslims. The policy ignored the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined the crime of genocide as including “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a religious group.” (Emphasis added)  Obama’s refugee policy also ignored the fact that “refugee” is defined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as including “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” because of that person’s “religion.”

Christians and other religious minorities seeking refuge from genocide and persecution in Syria and other Muslim-majority countries are clearly the most at risk today if they are forced to remain in those countries. Any just refugee policy for the United States must be based on the principle that those most at risk receive the highest priority in admission decisions. President Trump has tried valiantly to correct the misdeeds of the Obama administration by following that principle, which explains at least in part his administration’s reversal of the number of Christian versus Muslim admissions. When refugee admissions to the United States resume after President Trump’s temporary suspension order expires, President Trump should continue to undo the Obama administration’s inexcusable discrimination against Christian victims of Muslim jihadist persecution.

Europe’s Mass Migration: The Leaders vs. the Public

Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, July 9, 2017:

  • “[T]he more generous you are, the more word gets around about this — which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa. Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.” — Bill Gates.
  • The annual survey of EU citizens, recently carried out by Project 28, found a unanimity on the issue of migration almost unequalled across an entire continent. The survey found that 76% of the public across the EU believe that the EU’s handling of the migration crisis of recent years has been “poor”. There is not one country in the EU in which the majority of the public differs from that consensus.
  • At the same time as the public has known that what the politicians are doing is unsustainable, there has been a vast effort to control what the European publics have been allowed to say. German Chancellor Angela Merkel went so far as to urge Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to limit posts on social media that were critical of her policies.

Is Bill Gates a Nazi, racist, “Islamophobe” or fascist? As PG Wodehouse’s most famous butler would have said, “The eventuality would appear to be a remote one”. So far nobody in any position of influence has made such claims about the world’s largest philanthropist. Possibly — just possibly — something is changing in Europe.

In an interview published July 2 in the German paper Welt Am Sonntag, the co-founder of Microsoft addressed the ongoing European migration crisis. What he said was surprising:

“On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees. But the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this — which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa. Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.”

These words would be uncontroversial to the average citizen of Europe. The annual survey of EU citizens recently carried out by Project 28 found a unanimity on the issue of migration almost unequalled across an entire continent. The survey found, for instance, that 76% of the public across the EU believe that the EU’s handling of the migration crisis of recent years has been “poor”. There is not one country in the EU in which the majority of the public differs from this consensus. In countries such as Italy and Greece, which have been on the frontline of the crisis of recent years, that figure rockets up. In these countries, nine out of ten citizens think that the EU has handled the migrant crisis poorly.

How could they think otherwise? The German government’s 2015 announcement that normal asylum and border procedures were no longer in operation exacerbated an already disastrous situation. The populations of Germany and Sweden increased by 2% in one year alone because of that influx of migrants. These are monumental changes to happen at such a speed to any society.

Philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates recently said in an interview: “…you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees. But the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this — which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa. Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.” (Photo by World Economic Forum/Wikimedia Commons)

At the same time as the public has known that what the politicians are doing is unsustainable, there has been a vast effort to control what the European publics have been allowed to say. Chancellor Merkel went so far as to urge Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to limit posts on social media that were critical of her policies. This was just one example of a much wider trend. Across the continent, any private or public figure who dared to warn that importing so many people in such a disorganised manner was the origin of a catastrophe found themselves impugned with the darkest imaginable motives.

Even after the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris, and the discovery that members of the terror-cell had slipped in and out of Europe using the migrant routes, European leaders dismissed public concerns about the migration crisis. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker berated the public and the few politicians who opposed Merkel after the Paris attacks:

“I would invite those in Europe who try to change the migration agenda we have adopted – I would like to remind them to be serious about this and not to give in to these base reactions that I do not like.”

It is understandable that some humanitarian impulse might prevail during a period in which thousands of people were crossing the Mediterranean and many were drowning. Back then in 2015, at the height of the crisis, Bill Gates himself urged America to take in migrants at the levels that Germany was taking them in. Since then, however, Gates has noticed what most people who live in Europe have noticed — which is that while opening your country’s borders may have a short-term moral appeal, it causes a whole variety of long-term societal concerns.

It is these concerns — which the European public can see all around them, as well as on their newspapers’ front-pages — which lead the majority of the public across Europe to want the flow of migrants to be reduced. In his recent German newspaper interview, Bill Gates also expressed this sentiment — and starkly — saying, “Europe must make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes.”

All this is, of course, true. It is not possible for Europe to become the home for everyone and anyone in Africa, the Middle East or Far East who manages to cross a fairly narrow stretch of water. The people of Europe have known this for a long time. Some people — heavily criticised by the mainstream media and the political class — have even expressed this. But perhaps now that a measured and surely non-Nazi philanthropist such as Bill Gates has noticed it, something will change. It is probably too much to hope for that the Western European political class might actually listen to his advice. But might they at least rein in their disdain for the reasonable concerns of the general public?

Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.

***

Also see:

U.S. refugee program stained by dozens of terror attacks

Syrian refugee camps like this one are operated in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. More than 15,000 Syrians have found their way to the U.S. since that country’s civil war broke out in 2012.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, July 5, 2017:

At least 61 people who came to the United States as “refugees” engaged in terrorist activities between 2002 and 2016, according to a new report authored by the Heritage Foundation.

The report comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of much of President Trump’s travel ban, and it also suggests that it’s impossible to vet Muslim refugees who may have no connections to known terrorist organizations but get radicalized after they arrive in the United States.

The Heritage Foundation identified scores of refugees, including many who came prior to 2002, as having taken part in activities ranging from lying to investigators about terror plots, to actually taking part in them. The report, aimed at reforming the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or USRAP, calls for stricter limits and restrictions on refugees.

Under the current system, set by the Refugee Act of 1980, the president sets the annual cap on numbers of refugees allowed into the U.S. and Congress provides the funding. The State Department then contracts with nine private resettlement agencies, paying them millions of dollars per year to seed U.S. cities with Third Worlders. Since 1980 more than 3 million refugees have come to the United States, and more than 1 million of them have come from Muslim-dominated countries such as Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Sudan. Countries such as Burma and Australia have been more recently unloading their unwanted Muslim minorities on the U.S. and other Western countries.

“The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program should not be used as pretext to advocate for a global right to migrate nor is it a solution to conflict,” the study concludes. “Instead, the U.S. refugee admission program should be reformed to better advance U.S. interests.”

Just a few of the refugees and asylum seekers who have been allowed into the U.S. and later committed acts of terror included the following:

  • Somali refugee Dahir Ahmed Adan, who stabbed and wounded 10 shoppers at the Crossroads Mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, on Sept. 17, 2016.
  • Afghan refugee Ahmad Rahimi, who wounded 29 in a pipe bomb attack on the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan on Sept. 17, 2016
  • Somali refugee Abdul Ali Artan, who wounded 11 fellow students in a car and knife attack at Ohio State University on Nov. 28 last year.
  • Uzbek refugee Fazliddin Kurbanov, resettled in Boise, Idaho, was convicted in 2015 of plotting to recruit and train American Muslims to blow up American military installations.
  • Six members of Minnesota’s Somali refugee community were arrested and convicted of trying to trying to leave the country to join ISIS in Syria.
  • A college student and Somali refugee, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. He is serving a 30-year prison sentence.

Most Somali refugees start out here, at the United Nations Daadab refugee camp on the Kenya-Somalia border. Between 5.000 and 11,000 per year are sent to the United States.

The report’s total of 61 terror-stained refugees presumably also does not include the more than 40 Somali refugees who have simply vanished from the U.S. and the FBI confirms they have successfully traveled to the Middle East to participate in jihadist operations with ISIS, al-Shabab and other terrorist organizations.

The report suggests that the more refugees allowed into a country, the more jihadists who will sneak in among their ranks.

Although that would seem obvious, it is a conclusion that the U.S. State Department and refugee supporters in Congress have tried their best to whitewash over the last two years as the refugee program has come under increased scrutiny.

Will U.S. learn from Europe’s mistakes?

Germany is a good example of what can happen. It is now home to 24,000 jihadists, according to German intel agencies. The U.K. government has admitted it has 23,000 foreign-born radicals now living within its borders.

Germany’s intel agency admitted Tuesday that hundreds of jihadists have entered Germany amid the ranks of refugees just last year. Germany absorbed more than 1 million refugees over a two-year span in 2015-16. Scores of ultra-conservative Salafist Muslims have entered Germany as well. These Salafists are not considered “dangerous” by the government but could be expected to support or incite violence by the jihadists. Salafist Islam purports to go back to Islam’s roots in the days of Muhammad and his immediate successors, such as the violent caliph Umar.

A top E.U. bureaucrat, Frans Timmermans, also admitted on Tuesday that most of the “refugees” who are flooding into Europe are not true refugees.

Rather, the vast majority are “economic migrants” seeking to better their lot in a wealthy welfare state and are not fleeing war or persecution, Timmermans said. He did, however, suggest that Western nations should take more refugees from United Nations refugee camps even as they deport the migrants who arrive by makeshift boats or storm across borders without an invitation.

Despite the assertions of the United Nations 2030 Agenda and New Urban Agenda, which have sought to expand the rights of migrants, “There is no universal right to migrate, resettlement is not the solution to mass displacement, and U.S. policymakers have a responsibility to ensure that the United States takes in only as many refugees as it can safely vet and assimilate,” the Heritage report states. “The United States operates the program not because it is obligated to resettle refugees, but because the U.S. is a humane country and USRAP serves its national interests.”

The report, authored by Heritage Foundation policy analyst David Inserra, could lend weight to the Trump administration’s effort to curtail the number of refugees who come to the U.S. every year, Fox reported.

Beware the ‘generation 1.5’

The report warns that no amount of vetting can account for the “1.5 generation” – those who come to the U.S. with peaceful intentions and then become radicalized after arriving in American cities, often while attending an American mosque.

An example of this “1.5 generation” would be Omar Mateen, son of an Afghan migrant, who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016.

Sayed Farook, the son of Pakistani migrants, attacked a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, in 2015 and killed 14.

As WND has previously reported, 85 percent of the imams heading up American mosques are foreign born, and many of them preach hatred of the United States.

The Heritage study confirms the thesis put forth in the blockbuster 2017 book, “Stealth Invasion,” that lack of assimilation is compounding the problems of mass migration to the U.S. and other Western democracies, even when such migration is done through legal channels such as refugee resettlement.

“Given the threat that we found in the 1.5 generation, more needs to be done in the U.S. assimilation process,” John Cooper, spokesman for the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News. “We can’t vet an 8-year-old to see if he will become a terrorist when he turns 18 or 28. Instead, we as a country need to rethink the way we assimilate refugees, and immigrants as a whole for that matter.

“In the past few decades, the United States has drifted from its strong assimilation ethos, and the terrorism in Europe paints a disturbing picture of where non-assimilation leads,” he added.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration cut the annual ceiling on refugee resettlement to 50,000 – a number that will be reached within the next few days. So, if the refugees continue to flow in at current levels, the U.S. will end up accepting between 60,000 and 65,000 refugees for fiscal 2017, which ends Sept. 30.

The Obama administration averaged about 70,000 refugees per year but steadily increased that number to 85,000 in fiscal 2016. Obama had wanted 110,000 to come in fiscal 2017.

“A review is especially critical following the Obama administration’s rapid, and largely unprecedented, expansion of the program in the final year of his administration,” Cooper said. “Any administration has a responsibility to ensure all existing refugee and immigration programs, including the USRAP, best serve U.S. interests.”

A U.S. State Department official told Fox News the administration will soon provide guidance regarding those already scheduled for travel before last week’s Supreme Court decision lifting an injunction against Trump’s executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries that export terror.

“To be as cost-effective as possible – which saves the most lives – the U.S. should focus the majority of its refugee efforts on helping front-line states care for the refugees they shelter,” the report states.

The report suggests that the U.S. can do more to urge Middle Eastern countries – most notably the oil-wealthy Gulf States – to resettle Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

Also see:

How Trump can pull us back from the abyss of terrorism

Jagoush | Getty Images

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, June 5, 2017:

“We stand with our European allies, but we will not walk in their footsteps and repeat their mistakes.” That is the message the president must convey to the American people in light of the growing Islamic insurgency in the West.

Like the story of the frog in gradually boiling water, we become acclimated to the most potent and dangerous absurdities foisted upon us by the political elite. No other generation of western leaders would have allowed the Islamic insurgency to fester within their own countries for this long and still remain willfully blind to the existential threat within their midst. Yet here we are, in the aftermath of the third major terror attack in England, and none of the western leaders are willing to confront the truth. President Trump has come the closest to telling the truth, but unless he shows leadership beyond Twitter and hires staff and appoints cabinet members who share his values, the discernable policy outcomes of this administration will remain materially the same.

It’s time we recognize that the problem confronting Europe – one that is also rapidly growing in America – is not terrorism. It’s not Islamic terrorism, either. Terrorism is a tactic and the violent outcome of the problem. The source of the problem is a subversive culture of Islamic supremacism that rejects western civilization and is endemic to many (but not all) Muslims, not just a few. It is from this root that the deadly tactic of Islamic terror is cultivated. But if we tolerate the intolerant supremacist mindset and continue our suicidal immigration policies, we are merely chasing our tail combatting the ubiquitous and unstoppable terrorism that flows from cultivating this culture on our soil.

The problem we face in the West is not ISIS. That group has only been around for a few years and does not have a military capable of striking the West. What it does have, like other terror groups or freelance jihadis, is the ability to inspire Muslims with supremacist proclivities living in the West to attack their home countries. But why are they so easily inspired, and why are so many of them admitted into western countries to begin with?

This problem didn’t begin with ISIS; it’s been festering for several decades. At its core, this is an immigration problem, and second, it’s a problem of the Muslim Brotherhood/Saudi Arabia/Turkey funding of Islamic insurrection on western soil. In fact, according to the U.K. Telegraph, one of the London Bridge terrorists was radicalized by watching videos of Imam Ahmad Musa Jibril, who lives not in Raqqa but in…Dearborn, Michigan!

According to British intelligence, the U.K. is now home to 23,000 jihadis. This is no longer an issue of a few foreign terrorist organizations penetrating our shores in order to commit 9/11-style isolated attacks. This is a long-term homegrown problem in which western countries have imported the Middle East and all its problems. It will only metastasize over time.

Lest you think this problem is limited to Europe, remember that former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that there were 2,000-plus “violent extremist investigations” under way and that about 300 of them were refugees! One can only imagine the true depth of the problem, which we would understand better if we had an FBI that wasn’t willfully blind to this reality. The Minneapolis Somali community alone has become an enclave of supremacist ideology. Last year, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lugar warned that there is “a terror-recruiting problem in Minnesota” among the Somali youth and that it does not stem from overseas but “may be their best friend right here in town.” Similarly, a federal judge warned earlier this month, “This community needs to understand there is a jihadist cell in this community. Its tentacles spread out.”

The president must lay this case before the American people in a series of prime-time speeches and demand action from Congress while promising to do everything he can administratively. He must follow up on his campaign promises not to focus on nation-building overseas, but on the homeland security problems right on our shores. We could drop a nuclear bomb on Raqqa tomorrow or continue our involvement in the endless Islamic sectarian civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, but it won’t make us any safer if we continue to import the values of those countries to our shores and then allow the Saudis, Erdogan, and the Muslim Brotherhood to fan the flames of Islamic supremacism on our shores. Those are the “boots on the ground” we should be discussing.

To that end, Trump should lay out the following initiatives:

    • Immigration pause: Stop calling it a “travel ban,” which connotes restrictions on Americans. Call it what it is – a partial pause in immigration. Trump must make the case that we are importing record numbers of immigrants and students from the Middle East – as many as 160,000 a year. He needs to make the case that assimilation can only be successful if we focus on Americanizing those already here first.
    • Kick the courts out of immigration: What about the courts? Trump must call upon Congress to exercise Article III, Sec. II powers over the courts to strip them of any ill-gotten power to unilaterally violate our national sovereignty. He must also explain how the courts have no ability to set the refugee cap, even by their own admission. To further push back against the courts, Trump should demand that Congress cut off all funding for refugee resettlement (and use the savings for the wall as well). Despite calling it a “dumb idea” on the campaign trail, Trump has agreed to bring in up to 1,250 refugees from Australia, refugees whom even the liberal Aussies rejected! He must find consistency on this issue.
    • Implement visa tracking: Since 1996, Congress has passed numerous laws calling for an exit-entry visa tracking system, yet failed to provide funding for it. DHS just reported that only one percent of visa overstays are caught. In 2014, ABC News reported that DHS has lost track of 58,000 foreign students who have overstayed their visas, of which 6,000 presented a “heightened concern.” This is a clear and present danger in this era, and it would be indefensible for Democrats to block a legislative remedy.
    • Cut off aid to the PLO: Where did vehicular and stabbing jihad begin? With the Palestinians, of course. In Israel, PLO terrorists are rewarded by Mahmoud Abbas for doing exactly what was done in London over the weekend. Yet we’re subsidizing them with our taxpayer funding, and Trump himself is treating Abbas as a legitimate state leader instead of a terrorist. It’s not too late to become consistent on this issue and demand that Congress pass the Taylor Force Act, named after a Texan killed in Israel by a Palestinian stabber, in order to cut off aid to Abbas.
    • Cut off Saudi/Turkey/and Muslim Brotherhood influence: Trump should designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, the subject of an executive order sitting on his desk that he has thus far declined to sign. He should also push Rep. Dave Brat’s bill prohibiting foreign governments from funding religion in this country when they lack freedom of religion in their countries. This poisonous subversion on our soil is more dangerous than any ISIS cell in Syria.
    • National right to carry: The hallmark of all these attacks in Europe is that the terrorists are the only ones with weapons. They are able to mow down innocent people with impunity. Trump must make the case that America will be different and we will defend ourselves. There is no better time to push for the already popular idea of having concealed-carry reciprocity between the states.
    • Deport hostile non-citizen immigrants: Non-citizens have free speech rights in the sense that they cannot be imprisoned for hateful (but non-treasonous) speech. But they can and must be deported. Any non-citizen attempting to incite hatred or violence against America should live somewhere they feel comfortable. Under current law, “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.” [212(a)(3)(D)(iv).] Congress must apply this to Islamic supremacists. Any non-citizen imam who is preaching hatred doesn’t need to be here. Moreover, even those who are citizens must be warned that when their hatred reaches the level of incitement during a time of war, we have always treated such behavior as treason. This certainly requires complete due process, but we can’t disregard the fact that wars have consequences. If we are in a state of war that is getting our soldiers killed in Yemen and Somalia, we are in a state of war that should prevent people on our shores from preaching support for our enemies. This, rather than the entire Russia investigation issue, should be the main focus in the search for a new FBI director.

Finally, what we need from the president is leadership. Sending out a few tweets is not enough. He needs to be consistent, relentless, and specific and see his policies all the way through. He must get his entire administration on the same page and fire those who are unwilling to go along with his agenda. His united team should then demand of congressional Republicans very specific legislation along the lines of the aforementioned principles. Then the president must sell them to the American people in a series of televised addresses. He could go over the heads of the media by broadcasting a Facebook Live from the Oval Office and giving high-profile addresses across the country. He should ask Speaker Ryan for another invitation to speak before Congress. His last speech before Congress won him universal accolades, even from the media

Stay principled, stay consistent, and stay on message. That is leadership. We will never get such leadership from McConnell and Ryan. That is why Trump was elected. Now is his moment to shine.

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.

***

Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch:

You will be hearing more from me going forward on the specific legislation needed to scrap or reform the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program.  But, I tell you that the Republican ‘leadership’ in Congress will not lead on this and will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to lift a finger to reform/re-write the Refugee Act of 1980.

In my view, there is only one thing the President can do to move Congress on the issue and that is to put a complete halt to the USRAP. He must set the refugee admissions level at zero! And, leave it there until reform measures are passed by Congress!

And, here is the truth:  if he makes no move along those lines, or the additional lines addressed by Horowitz, he will be blamed for a Manchester in America (not Ryan, not McConnell, not the refugee contractors, not the ‘deep state’ blocking his moves, not the media or the Leftwing).

The blame will be on DJT exclusively.

If he visibly fights now and makes it clear who exactly is working to undermine our safety and our cultural identity, should (God forbid) a terrorist attack happen, the citizens of America will know he was trying to protect us.  Right now, I’m not so sure he is!