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.

Letter to Sec. of State Tillerson is plea to keep Refugee Program at State Department

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran, July 18, 2017:

Some of you asked me what I think of the idea floated by the Trump team to move the US Refugee Admissions Program from the State Department to the Dept. of Homeland Security.  This letter helped me decide!

If these are the supporters for keeping it at the DOS, then I vigorously support moving it!

The letter reported  by the Washington Post here yesterday was spearheaded by none other than Eric Schwartz (the Soros protege who is now heading Refugees Internationalsee here).  It is also signed by eight of the nine federal refugee contractors*** who have over the years established a cozy relationship with the bureaucrats at State. They are counted among the 58 “foreign policy experts.”

In fact there are 40 ‘experts’ and then 18 non-profit open borders activist groups.

Experts include Anne Richard (see our extensive archive here) and Ellen Sauerbrey (don’t miss this 2007 post!).  Both are former Asst. Secretaries of State for Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM). Sauerbrey, from Maryland, ran the refugee program for several years under George W. Bush.

Here is the WaPo on the letter (hat tip: Joanne):

A group of prominent foreign policy experts on Monday called on Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to keep the office responsible for managing refu­gee inflows a part of the State Department instead of moving it to the Department of Homeland Security.

Last month, a leaked memo showed the administration contemplating a relocation of the Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration. Such a change, says a letter signed by 58 former diplomats and national security advisers, would adversely shift the bureau’s focus from humanitarian and policy concerns to solely security issues.

“We are convinced that the elimination of PRM’s assistance functions would have profound and negative implications for the Secretary of State’s capacity to influence policy issues of key concern to the United States,” the letter states. “It would also be ironic, as this is one of the bureaus at State that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support over many years.”

The signatories include former officials who served in Republican and Democratic administrations, as well executives from numerous religious and humanitarian organizations that work with newly arrived refugees.

[….]

Eric Schwartz, the president of Refugees International who helped organize the letter sent to Tillerson, said DHS plays an important role in security screening. But he said it does not focus on foreign policy considerations, such as support for host countries where refugees are awaiting admissions and encouraging other nations to take in more displaced people.  [Why is it our job to nag other countries?—ed]

See the letter by clicking here.

Your homework assignment for today is to write to Trump and tell him you like the idea of breaking up the cozy cabal at the DOS by moving the US Refugee Admissions Program to the Dept.of Homeland Security!

***Federal contractors/middlemen/lobbyists/community organizers paid by you to place refugees in your towns and cities.  Because their income is largely dependent on taxpayer dollars based on the number of refugees admitted to the US, the only way for real reform of how the US admits refugees is to remove the contractors from the process.

Eight of the nine signed the letter to pressure Tillerson.

Noticeably absent as a signatory is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. I’ve noticed that lately they aren’t signing on to these overtly political letters. Maybe parishioners are getting to their priests! Keep it up!

A Replacement of Population is Taking Place in Europe

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, June 14, 2017:

  • People-smugglers bring the migrants to the NGOs’ ships, which then reach Italian seaports. Another legal enquiry has been opened about the mafia’s economic interests in managing the migrants after their arrival.
  • One cannot compare the migrants to the Jews fleeing Nazism. Pope Francis, for example, recently compared the migrants’ centers to Nazi “concentration camps”. Where are the gas chambers, medical “experiments,” crematoria, slave labor, forced marches and firing squads? These comparisons are spread by the media for a precise reason: shutting down the debate.
  • By 2065, it is expected that 14.4 million migrants will arrive. Added to the more than five million immigrants currently in Italy, 37% of the population is expected to be foreigners: more than one out of every three inhabitants.

First, it was the Hungarian route. Then it was the Balkan route. Now Italy is the epicenter of this demographic earthquake, and it has become Europe’s soft underbelly as hundreds of thousands of migrants arrive.

With nearly 10,000 arrivals in one recent three-day period, the number of migrants in 2017 exceeded 60,000 — 48% more than the same period last year, when they were 40,000. Over Easter weekend a record 8,000 migrants were rescued in the Mediterranean and brought to Italy. And that is just the tip of the iceberg: during the summer, the number of arrivals from Libya will only increase.

A wooden boat carrying migrants waits to be escorted to the Topaz Responder vessel, as members of the Migrant Offshore Aid Station make a rescue at sea on November 21, 2016 in Pozzollo, Italy. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

A replacement of population is under way in Italy. But if you open the mainstream newspapers, you barely find these figures. No television station has dedicated any time to what is happening. No criticism is allowed. The invasion is considered a done deal.

In 2016, 176,554 migrants landed in Italy — an eight-fold increase since 2014. In 2015, there were 103,792. In 2014, there were 66,066. In 2013, there were just 22,118. In the last four years, 427,000 migrants reached Italy. In only the first five months of this year, 2017, Italy received 10% of the total number of migrants of the last four years.

There are days when the Italian navy and coast guard rescue 1,700 migrants in 24 hours. The country is exhausted. There are Italian villages where one-tenth of the population is already made up of new migrants. We are talking about small towns of 220 residents and 40 migrants.

One of the major aspects of this demographic revolution is that it is taking place in a country which is dramatically aging. According with a new report from the Italian Office of Statistics, Italy’s population will fall to 53.7 million in half a century — a loss of seven million people. Italy, which has one of the world’s lowest fertility rates, will lose between 600,000 to 800,000 citizens every year. Immigrants will number more than 14 million, about one-fourth of the total population. But in the most pessimistic scenario, the Italian population could drop to 46 million, a loss of 14 million people.

In 2050, a third of Italy’s population will be made up of foreigners, according to a UN report, “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Decline and Aging Populations“, which designs a cultural melting-pot that could explode in cultural and social tensions. The level of arrivals will fall from 300,000 to 270,000 individuals per year by 2065; during the same period, it is expected that 14.4 million people will arrive. Added to the more than five million immigrants currently in Italy, 37% of the population is expected to be foreigners: more than one out of every three inhabitants.

In addition, the humanitarian-aid system has been hit by new scandals. “The investigative hypothesis to be verified is that subjects linked to ISIS act as logistical support to migration flows”, was a warning just delivered in front of the Schengen Committee, to the Italian anti-mafia and counterterrorism prosecutor, Franco Roberti. There are now judges investigating the connection between the migrants’ smugglers in North Africa and the Italian NGOs rescuing them in the Mediterranean. People-smugglers bring the migrants to the NGOs’ ships, which then reach Italian seaports. Another legal enquiry has been opened about the mafia’s economic interests in managing the migrants after their arrival.

Only 2.65 percent of those migrants who arrived in Italy were granted asylum as genuine refugees, according to the United Nations. The other people are apparently not fleeing wars and genocide. Yet, despite all this evidence, one cannot compare the migrants to the Jews fleeing Nazism. Pope Francis, for example, recently compared the migrants’ centers to Nazi “concentration camps“. One wonders where are the gas chambers, medical “experiments,” crematoria, slave labor, forced marches and firing squads. Italian newspapers are now running articles about the “Mediterranean Holocaust“, comparing the migrants dead by trying to reach the southern of Italy to the Jews gassed in Auschwitz. Another journalist, Gad Lerner, to support the migrants, described their condition with the same word coined by the Nazis against the Jews: untermensch, inferior human beings. These comparisons are spread by the media for a precise reason: shutting down the debate.

To understand how shameful these comparisons are, we have to take a look at the cost of every migrant to Italy’s treasury. Immigrants, once registered, receive a monthly income of 900 euros per month (30 euros per day for personal expenses). Another 900 euros go to the Italians who house them. And 600 euros are needed to cover insurance costs. Overall, every immigrant costs to Italy 2,400 euros a month. A policeman earns half of that sum. And a naval volunteer who saves the migrants receives a stipend of 900 euros a month. Were the Nazis so kind with their Jewish untermenschen?

The cost of migrants on Italy’s public finances is already immense and it will destroy the possibility of any economic growth. “The overall impact on the Italian budget for migrant spending is currently quantified at 2.6 billion [euros] for 2015, expected to be 3.3 billion for 2016 and 4.2 for 2017, in a constant scenario”, explains the Ministry of the Economy. If one wants to put this in proportion, these numbers give a clearer idea of how much Italy is spending in this crisis: in 2017, the government is spending 1.9 billion euros for pensions, but 4.2 billion euros for migrants, and 4.5 billion euros for the national housing plan against 4.2 billion euros for migrants.

The Italian cultural establishment is now totally focused on supporting this mass migration. The Italian film nominated at the Academy Awards last year is Fire at Sea, in which the main character is a doctor treating the migrants upon their arrival. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi carried with him 27 DVDs of the film to a session of the European Council. Italy’s commercial television channels produced many television programs about the migrants, such as “Lampedusa“, from the name of the Italian island. 100,000 Italians even took the streets of Milan for a “rally of solidarity” with the migrants. What “solidarity” can there be if half a million people have been rescued by the Italian government and the whole country seems determined to open its doors to all of North Africa?

Winston Churchill was convinced that the Mediterranean was the “soft underbelly” of Hitler’s Europe. It has now become the soft underbelly of Europe’s transformation into Eurabia.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

***

Stunning news: Trump State Department opens the flood gates, refugee admissions will explode in coming weeks

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran on May 27, 2017:

Betraying the voters who elected Donald Trump, the Department of State slipped the news to the contractors on Thursday who then slipped the news to the New York Times just as you were packing up for the beach or getting ready for a family barbecue using the federal government’s favorite holiday weekend trick to bury the news.

Forget everything I said in my post yesterday about Trump’s “average” admissions. If they do as they are now saying they will, Donald Trump will be responsible for one of six highest resettlement years since 9/11.***

Manchester here we come!

Here is the headline (Hat tip: Julia). Emphasis mine:

U.S. Quietly Lifts Limit on Number of Refugees Allowed In

WASHINGTON — Despite repeated efforts by President Trump to curtail refugee resettlements, the State Department this week quietly lifted the department’s restriction on the number of refugees allowed to enter the United States.

The result could be a near doubling of refugees entering the country, from about 830 people a week in the first three weeks of this month to well over 1,500 people per week by next month, according to refugee advocates. Tens of thousands of refugees are waiting to come to the United States.

The State Department’s decision was conveyed in an email on Thursday to the private agencies in countries around the world that help refugees manage the nearly two-year application process needed to enter the United States.

In her email, Jennifer L. Smith, a department official, wrote that the refugee groups could begin bringing people to the United States “unconstrained by the weekly quotas that were in place.”

[….]

Refugee groups now predict that entries into the United States could increase so rapidly that the total number of refugees admitted by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, could exceed 70,000.

[….]

Refugee advocates were delighted by the State Department’s decision.

“This is long overdue, but we’re very happy,” said Mark Hetfield, president and chief executive of HIAS, an immigrant aid society.

Continue reading here as the contractors say they are worried for next year.  Oh, sure they are.

Bottomline is that it appears that the REPUBLICAN Congress (never forget they want to keep big business donors happy by providing a steady supply of cheap labor) appropriated gobs of money for refugee resettlement! 

And, the Trump Administration (remember Trump campaigned with talk of a moratorium on refugee resettlement) appears to have no fight left in them on this issue (other issues too!).

***Here are the refugee admissions since 9/11 (those in red exceed Trump’s projected 70,000). Bush had only 2 years in excess of 70,000 and Obama had 3 of his 8 years higher than 70,000.

2001: 87,259 (this year’s number would have been proposed by Clinton in the fall of 2000)

2002: 45,896

2003: 39,554

2004: 79,158

2005: 69,006

2006: 41,223

2007: 48,282

2008: 60,191

2009: 74,654

2010: 73,311

2011: 56,424

2012: 58,238

2013: 69,926

2014: 69,987

2015: 69,993

2016: 84,994

Also see:

GABRIEL: Why President Trump’s Executive Order Is Vital to Protecting America

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Brigitte Gabriel, February 7, 2017:

President Trump’s executive order regarding seven terror-infested countries could not be more critical to ensuring the safety of all Americans. Those who oppose this executive order do so at their own peril and that of their fellow citizens.

First of all, there is no “Muslim ban,” contrary to what the fake news media would have you believe.

There is a ban against travel to the U.S. from seven of the highest risk countries for terrorist activity. It isn’t President Trump’s fault all seven of those countries happen to be almost entirely Islamic. If the Vatican presented the same risk for terrorism as Somalia, they too would have been listed in the executive order. Fortunately, we seem to have the Catholic suicide bomber threat under control.

For too long, Americans have been held captive by the chains of political correctness. While the election of President Trump signaled the beginning of our nation’s awakening, many would prefer we go back to sleep.

After September 11th, 2001, Americans couldn’t understand the psychology of someone who would fly a plane into a building, in exchange for what they believed would be 72 virgins in paradise. They couldn’t understand because they were assigning their own civilized ideals to Islamic radicals, whose beliefs were from a different realm.

More than a decade later, we are still battling this same enemy, which has metastasized tremendously. Not only are we struggling to eliminate Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, we are welcoming this enemy onto our shores with open arms.

Refugee resettlement from terror-ridden countries is one of the most dangerous endeavors our nation could implement.

Contrary to what some lawmakers and the fake news media have repeated, it is an incontrovertible fact that refugees have committed alarming crimes, and terrorist attacks against our nation.

To outline just a sample of these attacks:

  • Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan went on a jihadi stabbing rampage at Ohio State.
  • In 2016, an Iraqi refugee Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan was accused of planning to bomb a local mall in Texas.
  • In September 2016, a Somali-Kenyan immigrant named Dahir Adan went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
  • Somali refugee Mohamed Osman Mohamed was arrested for planning to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon back in 2010.
  • In 2012, Abdullatif Ali Aldosary, an Iraqi refugee, bombed a Social Security Office in Arizona.
  • Two Iraqi refugees were convicted for having aided Al-Qaeda in Iraq in killing American servicemen. These so-called “refugees,” lied on their applications, and as proof that the screening process is ineffective, were allowed entry without issue.
  • Both Boston Bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, were asylum-seekers fleeing Russia and living in Kyrgyzstan before entering the United States.

For some, the facts simply don’t matter. They are going to push their radical, anti-American, open borders propaganda no matter what.

But the average American needs to hear the truth!

Not only are we allowing large numbers of un-vetted Islamic refugees from terror haven nations, we are doing so courtesy of the U.S. tax payer. Americans are literally financing their own endangerment!

So why the continued opposition to a safer America?

While big businesses like Starbucks pathetically virtue signal by pledging to hire 10,000 refugees, what they don’t tell you is that for each refugee hired, they receive a $2,400 tax credit. You do the math.

But don’t make Starbucks feel like the Lone Ranger.  Religious institutions have also benefited financially to an enormous extent from refugee resettlement.

Catholic Charities, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, World Relief Corporation, Church World Service, and Domestic and Foreign Missionary Service of the Episcopal Church of the USA all have contracts with the federal government to resettle refugees, with a significant number of them Islamic. These religious institutions often use collection plates on Sunday that their members believe is going to help poor Christians, or the Church itself, then turn around to use them for refugee resettlement.

Within four months, these institutions have no responsibility to even know where the refugee is. It’s a beautiful thing for them. They get rich, and can still fly the false flag of moral superiority.

We cannot stay on this suicidal path any longer. Either we do what is necessary to protect our borders and our way of life, or we suffer the consequences Europe is now enduring.

One of the Islamic radicals who participated in the slaughter of innocent Parisians in November 2015 did so by gaining entry using a Syrian passport, gaining entry as a “refugee.

Is this the future we want for ourselves? For our children?

That is why we must stand behind President Trump’s executive order, not out of “Islamophobia,” as the usual anti-American fringe proclaims, but out of safety, and common sense.

To stand in solidarity with President Trump’s executive order to protect the nation, go to actforamerica.org/petition.

The time has come to end political correctness, before it ends us.

Brigitte Gabriel is a terrorism analyst and a two times New York Times best-selling author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped”.  She is the Founder of ACT for America, the nation’s largest grassroots organization devoted to promoting national security and defeating terrorism.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson eviscerates former US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ lobbyist

hqdefault-1Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran on January 28, 2017

There is so much I could start with today, but this has to be it!  If you want to start your day with a smile, watch this! Hat tip: Rosemary

Obviously Carlson has done his homework on the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program, especially as it relates to the taxpayer-funding the nine major refugee contractors receive to do their “Christian” charity. A national news outlet is finally reporting on the fact that money (your money) runs the US refugee program!

Kevin Appleby laughably claims that ISIS and other Islamists are going to hate us even more now!

Yes, maybe because President Donald Trump has slowed their migration (Hijra!) to America!

To learn more about the extremely controversial EO signed by Trump last night, go here.

(This is troubling, as I am getting ready to post, youtube appears to be taking down the video! Try this link if the clip is not playing http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Fox+News+Tucker+Carlson+and+Kevin+Appleby&view=detail&mid=0181C4D59070EBBFA3550181C4D59070EBBFA355&FORM=VIRE )

We have written about Kevin Appleby many times over the years during his time as a lobbyist for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Click here to read those posts.

One thing that has always troubled me is the 2013 trip by the USCCB to Central America and subsequent report, penned by Appleby, which predicted the huge wave of invading ‘children’ that swamped our border beginning in earnest within months of the trip.

Maybe the Trump team could investigate what happened on that trip—did the Bishops encourage the migration of the ‘children?’

Who benefited financially from that huge influx of ‘Unaccompanied alien children?’ The USCCB and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (two of the nine major refugee contractors) which have been paid for years to take care of the ‘children’ as their ‘Christian charitable’ work, for refugees and for the illegal alien children.

To learn more about what President Trump’s executive order on refugees contains, click here. Update: See the exact language here.

***

Some push back on twitter:

***