The US congress is having an extremely difficult time trying to temporarily limit the immigration of thousands of unvetted refugees into the US and to take away the passports of Americans who fought with terrorists. At the same time, we have open borders. Most Americans agree on the issue of security to one degree or another but we are not allowed to consider looking at the religion of immigrants. Should we be looking at that or at least discussing it?
Islamist terrorists stormed a luxury Radisson Blu hotel this morning in the former French colony of Mali armed with guns and grenades, shouting Allahu Akbar. The hostages were asked to recite a verse from the Koran and those who could were released. The jihadis have about 170 hostages. Three have been killed, one is a gunman. It’s possibly being perpetrated by an al Qaeda affiliate and it’s ongoing. It is being done in the name of Allah and non-Muslims are targeted.
They had a religious test and there is most definitely a global jihad around the world.
The United States leaders won’t even recognize it for what it is. How things have changed in the United States.
From 1924 to 1965 we didn’t allow much in the way of immigration though that all changed as a result of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act that let people in regardless of their potential to assimilate and let them in in much larger numbers.
The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia and limited immigration from southern and eastern Europe where the revolutionary anarchists and communists were immigrating from.
It provided for assimilation and it was aimed at keeping out communists and terrorists. The violent anarchists of the early 1900s followed the massive immigration from the late 1800s on.
That was then.
Eligible refugees and asylum seekers were and are to be under threat and persecution for reasons such as religion and unable to return to their home country. However, we’ve been taking people in who are in not in that position. The Boston bombers are a perfect example. The Tsarnaev family claimed religious persecution yet traveled back-and-forth from the US to their home country regularly and while they were in the US, they collected welfare and were eligible for citizenship.
If Americans don’t feel a religious test is acceptable because it’s “not who we are” then why were only 53 Christians and 2,098 Muslims given refugee status in the US. If the religious test is “shameful” as Barack Obama says, why do we leave out Christians who are escaping genocide?
As an aside, that’s a misleading figure being put out. The US takes in a quarter million Muslims each year and it has included Syrians.
The Middle East represents the fastest-growing bloc of immigrants admitted into the country on visas, according to a census data-based report authored by the Center for Immigration Studies. Student visas for Middle Eastern countries have similarly grown enormously, including 16-fold increase in Saudi students since 9/11. Arabic is now the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.
The reason we are taking Muslims and few Christians appears to be that the referrals come from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) aka The UN Refugee Agency.
The UNHCR works in full cooperation with The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an organization of the 57 Arab states. They say they are the collective voice of the Muslim world. The OIC is the largest international organization outside of the U.N.
The OIC is a very radical organization. For example, they have repeatedly attempted to inflict their Declaration of Human Rights on our country. The declaration aligns with Shari’ah Law. They particularly want to make it illegal to criticize Islam in the United States.
Since the President’s Cairo speech, the OIC has been pushing for meetings with the administration on the issue.
This declaration enabled the Muslim states to ignore the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan, in particular, criticized the UN Declaration because it did not follow Shari’ah Law. Shari’ah of course is diametrically opposed to our constitution and Bill of Rights.
OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu went to Washington, DC in 2011 to meet with Secretary Clinton and one of the items on the agenda was “Resolution 16/18, their declaration .”
Resolution 16/18 was billed by the Obama administration as an improvement over previous “defamation of religion” resolutions, but the effort immediately came under fire by religious liberties and free speech experts. The Obama administration backed down, but this threat to our Bill of Rights is always hanging out there and gives a window into how radical this group is.
The UNHRC are only taking refugees from camps and Christians avoid them because Muslims in those camps persecute them, including raping and killing them.
Christians are hiding out in urban areas and can be found through churches. If instead of only relying on a UN organization and relying also on churches, the US could easily find the Christians who are being slaughtered. No effort has been made to do that.
Last September George Carey, a former leader of the world’s Anglicans, urged the British government to prioritize Christians among the Syrian refugees “because they are a particularly vulnerable group.”
“Some will not like me saying this, but in recent years, there has been too much Muslim mass immigration to Europe,” he wrote. “This has resulted in ghettos of Muslim communities living parallel lives to mainstream society, following their own customs and even their own laws.”
“Isn’t it high-time instead for the oil-rich Gulf States to open their doors to the many Muslims who are fleeing conflict?” Carey asked. “Surely if they are concerned for fellow Muslims who prefer to live in Muslim-majority countries, then they have a moral responsibility to intervene.”
As Jeb Bush said yesterday, “There are no Christian terrorists wandering around the world trying” to kill. He added that doesn’t mean we should be disrespectful to Muslims.
The Muslim religion also has a political component, Sharia Law, which makes it unique among regions and which should make people ask if that should be considered when taking in refugees from the Middle East and Africa.
Religion is a factor in immigration law. In Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , US Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion: The term ‘refugee’ means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]”
Shouldn’t we be at least looking to take in Christians and others who are not Muslim?
Laws do not operate on Obama’s whims and preferences though that is what he has been doing for 7 years. They operate on common sense for compassionate reasons, not the reverse. The law is a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe. It is based on common sense not solely emotion. Laws are not malleable to whoever is in power.
Paul Ryan said “we will not have a religious test, only a security test. Is that the final dictum? Should it be? Does religion play no part?
When questioned, 19% of the Syrian refugees say the US is the greatest cause of instability in the Middle East and 22% say Israel. So why are they fleeing ISIS?
Ryan using the words we’ve heard so often: