Archive for November 19, 2015

Obama: Federal law is un-American!

November 19, 2015

Obama: Federal law is un-American! Power LineJonn Hinderaker, November 18, 2015

On Monday, President Obama denounced Republicans, including Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, who suggested that the U.S. should admit Christian refugees fleeing persecution in Syria, but not Muslims from the same country. Obama called such a “religious test” “shameful” and “not American.” Today he doubled down, asserting that Republicans who object to resettling tens or hundreds of thousands of Islamic refugees from Syria in the U.S. are helping ISIS.

President Obama apparently is unaware of the controlling federal law, or maybe he just doesn’t care what the law says. It wouldn’t be the first time. Andy McCarthy tries to set Obama straight:

In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:

When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful…. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission

must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. 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] …[.]

The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.

There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. …

In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery). To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. …

And it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American,” let alone “shameful.” How can somethingAmerican law requires be “not American”?

There are strong practical as well as legal reasons for distinguishing between Islamic applicants for asylum and similar applications by Christians or others. We know that ISIS is trying to infiltrate terrorists into groups of migrants leaving Syria; there is some evidence that they have succeeded. As McCarthy says, no one has a right to emigrate to the U.S. The government’s first duty is to protect the American people, not to extend favors to foreigners. Moreover, Obama’s “compassion” argument falls flat. A recent Center for Immigration Studies report found that, for the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we could instead care for 12 refugees overseas. That is a much more cost-effective approach, and one that will not impose needless dislocation either on us, or on the refugees.

JOE adds: I have to say that by far the most disconcerting thing about Barack Obama as a man is–and this is a matter of objective observation, not of interpretation–that the only thing that really gets him emotionally fired up is his own conservative countrymen. The South China Sea, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea–nothing seems to faze this guy quite like Americans who read Burke.

The real war

November 19, 2015

The real war, Washington Times

Friday night’s attack in Paris was another reminder that we are in a real war.

It is vital that we understand what the real war is and who the real enemy is.

The real war is not geographic and it is not defined by ISIS. The real war is worldwide and the real enemy is Islamic supremacy in all its forms. The center of gravity is not Syria. The center of gravity is the internet.

We are confronted by a virus that is closer to epidemiology than to traditional state-to-state warfare. We will have to eradicate this virulent religious intolerance and violence here at home and across the planet. This is an extraordinarily difficult challenge.

Our elites have been hiding from the real war and the real challenge because it frightens them. They keep trying to redefine the problem so it can be solved without rethinking what we are doing.

Month after month the problem grows harder, the danger grows bigger, and more radicals are recruited. The elites wring their hands and hide. Each major attack leads to anguish, statements of sympathy and expressions of condemnation, but prompts no change in strategy and no effective action. These elites could be called the ostrich generation. They bury their heads in the sand and hide from reality.

Now let’s put last weekend’s tragedy in the context of the real war. Paris was, of course, only a skirmish in the larger war.

In the last two weeks, a Russian airliner was bombed in Egypt a terrorist stabbed four people in California after planning to behead someone and praising Allah and carrying the Islamic State flag, scores were killed by car bombs in Lebanon, people continued to be killed in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan … and eight terrorists carried out very visible, ruthless attacks in Paris.

Paris was so vivid, so symbolic, and so well televised that it became the center of attention.

Suddenly French President Francois Hollande announced that these coordinated attacks by eight terrorists were an “act of war.” He promised to fight with “all the necessary means, and all terrains, inside and outside, in coordination with our allies.” Mr. Hollande promised a “pitiless” effort.

There are three key questions about Mr. Hollande’s sudden militancy.

First, why wasn’t the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish grocery store back in January an act of war?

Second, does this declaration of war by the French president mean that victory is their goal and they have thought about how painful and expensive the Russian experience in Chechnya, the Israeli experience in the Palestinian territories, the Pakistani experience in the northwest frontier and the Egyptian experience of trying to police the Sinai have been?

Third, are they as prepared to wage war at home against the internal enemy as they are to bomb Syria? Today’s announcement by the Interior Ministry that some mosques that teach sharia and jihadism would be closed was a good start. There are, however, an estimated 47 mosques dedicated to sharia and jihad in the Paris region alone. Closing all of them would be a historic struggle.

First, we have to define the real war and the real enemy.

Then, we have to define victory and establish a strategy to achieve victory.

Then, we have to ensure we have the systems and structures to implement that strategy.

If we don’t do all three, we can’t expect to start winning the real war.