Syrian refugees are being brought into the United States. A
first group of arrivals were placed in Louisiana earlier this week. The
president says we should simply trust him. But since there is almost nothing in
which he has earned our trust, that will not do.
Add to the decision the knowledge that five Syrians jihadists
were just apprehended in Honduras, with false Greek passports,, on
their way to America. Plus three were three more apprehended in St. Maarten, on their way to the US. Plus there
were eight more apprehended (turned themselves in?) in Laredo, TX, on their way into the US. All
just this week. We can enumerate those apprehended, but we don’t know how many
weren’t caught.
 |
| 5 Syrian men escorted by Honduran police Nov. 18 photo from Reuters |
I listened to a discussion about the Syrian refugee question
on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Wednesday evening. His guest was Professor John
Eastman, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University, Dean Emeritus. Hewitt refers
to him as one of The Smart Guys, but the other one wasn’t available that day.
The short conversation covers several of the important questions about the
refugees. So I’ll follow up on a couple of points after the transcript (starts
25 minutes in during hour 2):
HH: John, earlier today five Syrians were arrested in
Honduras carrying Syrian passports. They were on their way to the United
States. Earlier today, ISIS released a video of New York that had been made
since the French attacks, featuring new video of al-Alam showing pictures
of New York—maybe they were file photos, maybe they’re not—threatening
explosions. I think maybe the country’s position is going to change a little
bit on metadata collection. What do you think?
JE: Well, I think so. And also some very serious federalism
questions on whether the states just have to accept whatever the federal
government imposes on them in the way of immigration. I think we’ve got a real
eye-opening window about to open up here.
HH: Now, let’s talk about what Speaker Ryan said today. “We
have no religious test; we have a security test.” They are drafting a law that
will go to the Senate, and they expect to pass it before they leave on
Thanksgiving vacation, because they want this vetting that the president
promised via a tweet, but no one believes is going on. Do you believe it’s
going on?
JE: Well, I don’t believe it’s going on; I don’t believe
they’re capable of it going on. Let’s talk about the Syrian refugees for a
moment. The federal law allowing the president to vet and designate who can
receive refugee status requires that we engage in an investigation, a vetting,
to make sure we’re not bringing in terrorists and also people with communicable
diseases and other threats to our security and to our health and safety in this
country.
There is no ability for the president or any of his minions
in the executive branch to conduct that kind of vetting process with respect to
a regime that is in the middle of a perpetual state of war. And we do not have
the capability to check even if these are convicted felons from their own
country. You can’t exactly pick up the phone and ask al-Assad, “Hey, is this a
good guy or a bad guy that we’re about to admit into the United States?”
And that means the statutory requirements cannot be met. And
therefore by law the president can’t be designating these folks as refugees.
HH: That’s very interesting. I hadn’t heard that. And by the
way, if they caught five in Honduras, how many do you think they didn’t catch?
JE: Well, Honduras… I don’t know what you figure. One out of
a hundred we catch? One out of a thousand? Who knows?
Let me go back to the question on religion, though, because we
do have a religious test, and Speaker Ryan’s not quite right about this. It’s
not the kind of, we’re only going to allow certain religions and not other
religions—that’s not what the test is. But the requirement for asylum and the
requirement for refugee status is not just that you be fleeing a war torn
country; everybody, of course, would like to flee that. The requirement, the
statutory requirement that is binding on the president is that you have to be
seeking asylum or refugee status because of persecution or a well-grounded fear
of persecution based on your religion or ethnic heritage or what have you. And
if you don’t meet that criteria, then you are not eligible for asylum or
refugee status under the law.
HH: So asylum actually comes to the Yazidis and the Assyrian
Christians pretty easily, since the alternative is staying there and losing
their heads.
JE: That’s right. And it’s because of their religion that
they would lose their heads if they stay there. Not true for a lot of people
just fleeing because they don’t want to be in the war area. And so our law is
very clear. And the Supreme Court has routinely recognized that the plenary
power to describe, to define that stuff, that legal requirement, is vested in
Congress, and the president cannot ignore those statutory requirements….
HH: John, in light of the ISIS video threatening New York,
released today, in light of the five Syrians arrested in Honduras carrying
false Greek passports, listen to what the president said yesterday in the
Philippines:
(audio of Obama): These are the same folks oftentimes who
suggest that they’re so tough that, uh, just talking to Putin or staring down
ISIL or using some additional rhetoric somehow is gonna solve the problems out
there. But apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans coming in to the
United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion. Now first they
were more afraid about the press bein’ too tough on ‘em during debates. Now
they’re worried about three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to
me. They’ve been playing on fear in order to score political points, or to
advance, uh, their campaigns. Uh, and it’s irresponsible. And it’s contrary to who
we are. And it needs to stop, because the world is watching.
HH: So, John Eastman, the president is petulant, childish,
and dictatorial, telling people it needs to stop. I mean… I’ll just give you
the last minute and a half to respond to that.
JE: It’s astounding to me. We’ve got evidence across the
world of people coming in, masquerading as refugees in order to commit acts of
terror against our civilian population. The president’s first job is not to be
compassionate to anybody he feels he would like to be; his first job is to
protect the security of the American people, particularly on our homeland. And
if folks are masquerading as refugees, then we darn well better start
questioning refugees to make sure we’re not letting potential jihadist
terrorists into this country. And in fact, the federal statutes require that he
engage in that.
And so, this is not about wanting to be discompassionate to
widows and orphans. I mean, that’s just demagoguery by the president of the
United States. And we ought to quit tolerating this guy’s demagoguery. The
federal statute requires them to vet potential refugees, to make sure that we
are not letting in people who pose a threat to the United States—a health
threat, a physical threat, a jihadist threat. And we know particularly from the
Paris attacks that these folks can pose a jihadist threat. And we have no
ability currently in place to vet who these people are. And the kind of
wholesale importation of 10,000 from Syria, and 100,000 refugees total without
any vetting process in place is unbelievably foolish. And it’s kind of a
disregard of the most fundamental duties of the president of the United States.
Earlier in the program, Hewitt had a caller ask the
question: If they’re supposedly vetting already, then how many are being turned
away, and where are they ending up? I think the assumption behind that question
is that we can pretty well disregard the president’s claim that they are carefully
vetting; they’re not.
 |
| Syrian refugees arriving in Louisiana, 70% males of military age, not widows and 3-year-olds as the president claims, photo from here |
This shouldn’t be a partisan question. Anyone who loves
America and has enough awareness to see what just happened in Paris ought to be
wary about allowing Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS into the US. Add to that the law that must be followed (by a law-abiding
president) concerning granting refugee status.
There are ways to vet Syrian Christians. And it is evident
they are being persecuted because of their religion, and their lives are in
danger. So then the next hurdle is whether there is a health risk, which
probably could be managed with a relatively short quarantine prior to bringing
them here. There's still the question of using taxpayer dollars to relocate and support these individuals.
And there is still the question of whether transporting them
halfway around the world is the only, or even the best, option. It might be for
some of them. For most Syrians, bringing them here acts on an assumption that
they will never be able to live in their homeland again, that ISIS has permanently won that land. That's pretty defeatist.
Other options include finding safe zones for them in nearby
Middle Eastern countries, where they fit culturally and religiously. That
acknowledges the possibility that the enemy radicals can be vanquished, and
that the refugees have hope they can eventually move back home.
The president's accusation that anyone who disagrees with
his wholesale importation of unvetted Syrians means we are hypocritically un-Christian
is completely wrong.
What is more likely behavior for truly charitable people:
find (or found) organizations[i]
to assure people fleeing their war torn home country have shelter, food, clothing,
and healthcare? Or expect their government to confiscate their tax money at a
rate of about $16,000 (followed by per refugee to uproot them and transport them to our
country, with all its cultural differences?
Charitable people wouldn’t necessarily bring them here.
Maybe a few, select persons who qualify for refugee status and have a strong
desire to become Americans rather than return to their native home.
So why does the president—against the advice of his military
and security leaders—insist on spending big money and foisting large numbers of
foreigners on us, foreigners that would much rather be among majority Muslims
living in the Middle East than in overwhelmingly Christian America? And why do
people in his party almost exclusively ignore our safety and suddenly insist on
“charity” to these people—while they have been ignoring the elimination of
Christians in the area up until now? And why are they so “charitable” that they
insist we give up our safety for it?
I assume it is the same answer as always: this president has
a political agenda that has to do with transforming America away from freedom,
prosperity, and civilization. Blindness must explain why he has followers.
Today the House voted on a bill to call for a pause in the
importation of Syrian refugees. The vote was 289-137, which included around 50 Democrats who are
awake enough to see the danger. There’s still the challenge of getting through
the Senate and overcoming a veto.
I have an idealistic, unrealistic suggestion, to deal with
the gap between what the president says is a thorough vetting process and what
we assume is a mostly porous process. I suggest that the president stake his
life on his vetting process.
We want to be assured that no radical Islamists
will come in among any Syrian or Iraqi refugees. The president could be held
responsible if any radical Islamists make their way in. If it turns out that if
even a single radical jihadist is found in our country because of being
disguised as a refugee, the Obama, along with possibly some higher up minions, spends the rest of his life in prison. If
it happens that a radical jihadist who got here by way of being a refugee
participates in a terrorist attack in our country—regardless of size of the
attack or extent of the damage—the president is subject to immediate capital
punishment.
That would make more sense than having the president risk
our lives, safety, and security, and saying, “That’s a risk I’m willing to
take.” Let the risk and responsibility actually be his.
Or he could simply go along with Congress and all sensible
people and stop inviting them.
[i]
Here are two such organizations: LDS Charities, video of ongoing help here; The Nazarene Fund, a project of Mercury One (Glenn Beck’s
organization). If I understand correctly, both of these organizations put 100%
of your donations toward relief; they handle overhead with completely separated
funding sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment