FoxNews.com reports that
President Biden increased the limit of refugee admissions to 62,500 for this fiscal year on Monday following intense pressure from fellow Democrats.
Biden increased the refugee cap just weeks after he announced his intent to maintain a 15,000-refugee cap first imposed by former President Donald Trump. The initial limit drew outrage from prominent Democrats, who accused Biden of moving too slowly to reverse Trump-era refugee entry policies.
“This erases the historically low number set by the previous administration of 15,000, which did not reflect America’s values as a nation that welcomes and supports refugees,” Biden said in a statement. “The new admissions cap will also reinforce efforts that are already underway to expand the United States’ capacity to admit refugees, so that we can reach the goal of 125,000 refugee admissions that I intend to set for the coming fiscal year.”
The Biden administration first proposed raising the refugee cap to 62,500 in February. However, the president appeared to reverse course in April, signing an emergency declaration to keep the Trump-era limit of 15,000 in place.
Prominent Democrats seized on the delay. Sen. Dick Durbin described the Biden administration’s initial target as “unacceptable” and said there was “no reason to limit the number to 15,000.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the decision was “flat out wrong” and accused Biden of “upholding the xenophobic and racist policies of the Trump admin.”
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in April the Biden administration had inherited a “decimated refugee admissions program.” She added that Biden would announce a “final, increased refugee cap” by mid-May.
In a lengthy statement detailing his revised refugee cap, Biden said the “sad truth is that we will not achieve 62,500 admissions this year.”
“We are working quickly to undo the damage of the last four years. It will take some time, but that work is already underway,” Biden said in a statement. “We have reopened the program to new refugees.”
The revised limit added more entry slots for refugees from specific regions. Under the updated guidelines for this fiscal year, the US will accept a maximum of 22,000 refugees from Africa, 13,000 from Near East and South Asia, 6,000 from East Asia, 5,000 from Latin America, and 4,000 from Europe and Central Asia.
Who will be doing the vetting of these “refugees”?
The same kind of imbecilic bureaucrats who allowed Europe to be trashed by Muslim “Refugees” who looked more like a plain-clothes army?
In November of 2015, the Ultra-Liberal BBC.com reported on the process.
If a refugee is cleared to be considered by the US, the process for approval is lengthy – 18-24 months, said one senior administration official.
Refugees are admitted at about a 50% acceptance rate after being subjected to “the most rigorous screening of any traveller to the US,” an official told reporters in a conference call.
That involves extensive in-person interviews about their experiences with conflict, as well as the collection of both biometric and biographic information that is cross-checked with the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and in some cases, the Department of Defense.
…Ten thousand people have been referred for resettlement in the US, but the US has not processed their applications yet.
After 18-24 months, a refugee may then be sent to his or her new community.
That exercise in futility was, of course, conducted during the Obama Administration.
If you were watching Saturday morning cartoons in 1977, during President Carter’s time in the White House, on ABC, you would have seen a Schoolhouse Rock musical cartoon titled The Great American Melting Pot. It extolled the unique greatness of our American Heritage.
For a while now, that heritage has been under attack.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.
This act allowed all of these immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.
And, Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we face today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.
Today, our country is at war on two fronts: We are at war against the Drug Cartels and those who would enter our country illegally to work, and those who are “escaping” a war-ravaged land, or so they claim.
This new batch of “immigrants” are unvetted and unwilling to assimilate into American Culture. Their loyalties remain with the country whose conditions were so horrible that they left.
The reason that Biden and his Administration are doing away with Donald J. Trump’s immigration proposals is that they are full of common sense, utilized in defense of our sovereignty.
Biden’s “Handlers”, like most Modern American Liberals, from Hillary Clinton to Colin Kaepernick, want to “radically change” this Sovereign Nation that God, through our Founding Fathers, bequeathed to us, into a Modern-day Tower of Babel, for their own ungrateful benefit.
The same people who gave us the “Syrian Refugee” problem, including Obama, are involved in the Biden Presidency.
I wouldn’t trust those Liberal idiots to vet children for a part in a Daycare Play, much less determine the character of foreign nationals wanting to be declared “refugees” and enter our Sovereign Nation.
President Trump limited the number of refugees who would be able to come to America out of a genuine concern for the safety of Americans.
The Far Left Democrats running the “Biden-Harris Administration” don’t give a rat’s rear.
They have been putting and will always put AMERICA LAST.
Until He Comes,
DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Breitbart.com reports that
As the immigration crisis at the border continues unabated with hundreds of thousands of migrants suffering and even dying on the treacherous trek through Mexico to the U.S. border, Democrats are blaming President Donald Trump and gearing up to introduce legislation to increase the number of refugees admitted to 100,000 a year.
This despite evidence that shows some 500,000 migrants —mostly from Central America— will get across the U.S./ Mexico border without being apprehended, including women and children. The United Nations reports that in 2018 the United States took in around 23,000 refugees from all over the world.
A refugee is an immigrant who gains asylum after the court grants him or her that status because they have met the “credible fear” standard of persecution in their home countries.
In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, the commentator blames President Donald Trump, even though Trump has tried multiple avenues to end the illegal immigration crisis at the U.S. border with Mexico, including declaring a national emergency at the border, diverting federal defense funds to secure the border, and crafting comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Thus far, judges and Democrats have thwarted those efforts.
The Post reported:
“Do we want to make it harder for desperate people to legally secure refuge in the United States, or easier for them to legally do so?
The Democratic answer to this question is: Make it easier for desperate people to migrate, provided it is done in a legal and orderly fashion, in as many ways as good policy allows.”
(Trump has blamed the Democrats not only for their inaction on the current border crisis but also for putting in place incentives — like catch and release and special treatment for migrants with children, even children that aren’t their own — that encourages migrants to come to the United States.)
“Now House Democrats are set to roll out a major new proposal on the asylum crisis that will constitute a big down payment on the longer-term argument Democrats are making,” the Post commentary said.
The bill is called the Northern Triangle and Border Stabilization Act — the majority of migrants in this latest border surge come from that Triangle: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.
The new bill would, according to the Post, increase services to minor migrants in federal custody, create more ways for Central Americans to get refugee status before coming to the U.S., expand “dramatically” the support for migrant families while their cases are being processed, and increase financial investment in Central America to address the alleged problems migrants are fleeing.
The Post notes that the 100,000 number is “separate and apart from the refugees we take in from elsewhere.”
The Democrats are playing the emotional card, as evidenced on the House floor last week when Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA) expressed the idea that all immigrants are “human beings” who deserve the same rights as citizens.
“The United States of America has been the gold standard and that is the argument that we are making today,” Cardenas said. “This is not a game.”
“We are fighting for the lives of human beings who should have the opportunity to be like everyone else on this floor to be allowed the freedom to be who they choose to be, who God made them to be in the greatest place on the planet,” Cardenas said. “And that’s why we are fighting today.”
This push by the Democrats and their Vanguard, the Main Stream Media, to paint the President as a heartless monster is very hypocritical and disingenuous.
The practice of separating immigrant families at the border isn’t new.
The Alien Transfer Exit Program
The United States since 2008 has had a policy called the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP), which detains male Mexican migrants near the border and, instead of repatriating them to their area of origin, leaves them hundreds—and sometimes thousands—of miles away at the opposite end of the U.S.-Mexico border. They are often released from custody at unusual times of day in completely unfamiliar areas where they have no family or other support system. The practice is supposed to deter further border crossing attempts, but instead it subjects migrants to crime and danger.
In 2011, the Alien Transfer Exit Program affected an estimated one-fifth of migrants detained by Border Patrol along the southwest border. That’s because ATEP ramped up under the Obama administration as a way to handle the spike in Mexican migrants attempting to enter the United States.
…“Under the transfer program, many immigrants who are caught in California are flown to Texas border cities, and the flights return west filled with immigrants caught in Texas. In Arizona, immigrant groups are divided, with some deported through Texas and others through California,” the Los Angeles Times reported at the time.
Federal immigration agencies have long claimed that ATEP “breaks the smuggling cycle by physically separating aliens from the smuggling organizations that will repeatedly attempt to bring guide them into this country,” but the program—called “cruel and unusual punishment” by human rights’ advocates—has separated families.
‘Lateral Repatriation’ Is Family Separation
While ATEP targets Mexican men attempting to enter the United States, the program doesn’t just nab men traveling alone. Men migrating with their families are separated from them, detained, and transported to an unfamiliar place in Mexico, while their partners and children are left to languish in detention centers. In 2011, during the height of ATEP, almost none of the reporting about the program focused on family separation.
The Arizona-based organization No More Deaths refers to ATEP as “lateral repatriation,” noting that the program often separates family members and purposely sends them to cities far from one other. Families aren’t notified of where each member ends up, leaving them unaware of where their partners and children are.
In other words, gentle readers, the House Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites who really do not care about these “poor separated children”.
If they actually did, they would have protested ATEP under Obama.
Just like Obama used children as human political props after the Sandy Hook Massacre and Democratic Activists have been using children in school walkouts to try to achieve the taking away of guns from Americans, their “concern” over the welfare of the children of those who wish to illegally enter our Sovereign Nation is nothing but a political ploy.
It is a plan born out of a Democratic desperation to avoid an Electoral Landslide in the 2020 Presidential Election by somehow damaging President Trump.
I mean, they had to do SOMETHING.
Mueller and his investigators produced nothing but a big fat zero in their attempt to prove that the Russians got Trump elected President.
The Dems’ “Stormy” attempt to re-invent a porn actress into a saint fizzled out.
Their recent debates featuring their Presidential Candidate convinced no voters of the “brilliance”of their relabeling of Marxism as “Democratic Socialism”.
So, they decided to prove that they are the “Party That Cares” by trying to “protect the children” through photo ops of them heading down to the border to show how much they “care”, like the image of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez heartbreakingly looking through a fence at those who are detained wen actually there was nothing but a parking lot on the other side of the fence.
Let’s fact it, gentle readers.
The Democrats still want to “radically change” America and to do that they need to import NEW voters.
Those of us already here have already figured out their game.
Heck, if they actually cared about the welfare of children, they wouldn’t advocate for a million of them to be yanked out of their mothers’ wombs every year in America.
Oh, the irony.
God help us.
Until He Comes,
“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,”- 8 U.S. Code § 1182
As was reported on www.SpartaReport.com yesterday, the Supreme Court has overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stay of President Trump’s Travel Ban…again.
According to TheHill.com,
The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily lift restrictions on the president’s travel ban.
In a one-page order signed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court temporarily blocked the part of last week’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that barred the government from prohibiting refugees that have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program from entering the U.S.
Kennedy said that part of the decision is stayed pending the receipt of a response from the state of Hawaii. That response that is due by noon on Tuesday.
The Supreme Court’s decision came less than two hours after Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall filed a request for a stay.
In its opinion last week, the 9th Circuit also blocked the government from banning grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members of a person in the U.S. from entering the country.
But the administration said it decided not to fight the “close-family aspect of the district court’s modified injunction.”
Wall said in his request to the court that that part of the ruling was “less stark” than the nullification of the order’s refugee provision.
“Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any freestanding connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government,” Wall wrote.
“Nor can the exclusion of an assured refugee plausibly be thought to ‘burden’ a resettlement agency in the relevant sense.”
The court was forced to act fast, given that the 9th Circuit decision was set to take effect at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday.
Wall argued that allowing the 9th Circuit’s ruling to go forward would force the government to “change course” on orders it began implementing on June 29 and invite “precisely the type of uncertainty and confusion that the government has worked diligently to avoid.”
The Supreme Court handed Trump a partial win in June when it allowed theadministration to temporarily block people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. But the court carved out an exemption for people with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the country.
The federal district court judge in Hawaii who blocked Trump’s order in March further weakened it in July by including grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the U.S and refugees working with resettlement agencies in the definition of what constitutes a bona fide relationship.
The Trump administration’s travel ban blocks travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that have been consolidated challenging the ban on Oct. 10.
According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.
From The Federalist #78
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-power Political Party, to sabotage a president trying to protect American Citizens?
The repeated, desperate actions taken by the Liberal-led 9th Circuit Court of Appeals proves that Liberals are more concerned about their politics than they are the safety of our nation.
And, you know what is so stupid about this whole fiasco?
The list of countries which Trump wishes to temporarily suspend immigration from , was originally compiled by the Obama Administration, as a list of countries in which “Radical Islam” (although they probably did not call it, that) is growing exponentially.
And, another thing…I asked a couple of Liberals, when the ruling was announced, if they were taking these refugees into their homes…especially the 20 something year old military-looking ones with cellphones, which were so prevalently seen in the pictures of the “Muslim Migration” that swept across Europe.
Of course, all I received was the sound of crickets in return.
In the past, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.
However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.
This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.
Are “The Smartest People in the Room” so contrary, as to not realize that Radical Islam punishes every single social issue that American Liberals so “righteously” defend in this nation?
The maddening thing is that every time you challenge Liberals on this fact, they try to equate Radical Islam with American Christianity.
Frankly, the ignorance of these young Liberals blows my mind.
As a Lifeway Survey taken in 2014 showed, older Americans, such as myself, actually see Radical Islam and Sharia law for what it is.
Why is that?
I believe that it is because of the old adage,
With age comes wisdom.
Older Americans can remember when the Shah of Iran was deposed and the Radical Mullahs took over the nation, holding Americans hostage, under the ineffectual American President Jimmy Carter, for 144 days.
The only reason that those hostages were not killed and were let go, was the inauguration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.
The only thing that these barbarians fear is strength, as the leader of Jordan has recently demonstrated.
Older Americans were raised differently than this current generation, for the most part. We were raised to understand Christianity’s place, as the stitching, in the fabric of our nation.
As I have written before, American Christianity is a legacy which our fathers and their fathers, bequeathed to us, along with the courage to stand up for our beliefs.
Our Founding Documents and our System of Law are based on our Judeo-Christian Beliefs.
This latest generation, seems to be more interested in giving Dress-wearing Johnny his perceived “Constitutional Right” to “drop trou” in the company of our wives, daughters, and daughters-in-law in public and school restrooms and locker rooms, or crying and crawling up into a ball in their “safe spaces” or violently protesting in public, when they don’t get their way like a bunch of 3-years olds in Walmart who are told that they can not have a toy they want, than they are about what is actually happening in our nation as related to our Sovereignty and our very lives.
This generation’s predilection for situational ethics, relative morality, and all-encompassing political correctness, is reminiscent of the cattle who are led up the ramp to the slaughter house.
They go through their lives, content in their ignorance, until the blade falls.
Neville Chamberlain would be so proud of the Modern American Liberal Judicial Activists that comprise the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Modern American Liberals who cheer them on.
Unfortunately, this is the generation that we are leaving our country to.
It is time for them to wake up, grow up, and stand up…before it’s too late.
I. for one, am very glad that we now have a President who is not afraid to say the words “Radical Islam” in front of the world or to hire men who will stand up for our Sovereign Nation in the face of it.
As we were so hauntingly reminded yesterday,
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
Until He Comes,
Last night, as I was trying to figure out what to write about, I came across a wonderful article by Peter Heck, a speaker, author, and teacher, who writes for The Christian Post. The title of the following article is “Would Jesus Scold Trump on the Refugees”?
If there is one thing that I am grateful to see coming from the Trump presidency, it has been the sudden renewed interest in applying Biblical principles to our country’s moral and ethical dilemmas amongst so many on the progressive left.
Whether politically motivated or not, it is refreshing to see Hollywood (of all places) express concern over debauchery and indecency. It’s encouraging to witness progressive voices that have long sought to keep discussions over Biblical morality confined within the church walls now asking society how Jesus would treat foreign refugees.
In my view, the more we are talking about pushing American society closer to the character of God, the better off we will all be.
That said, I think it is important to be wary of those who prefer selective application of Biblical principle when it comes to the great moral issues of our day. If God’s word should inform our people how we should think and act relative to the plight of the immigrant or refugee (it should), it should also inform our people how we should think and act relative to race relations, abortion, pornography, and sexuality.
Those who demand Scriptural fidelity to one, but not another, are likely far more interested in twisting and manipulating the Bible to promote personal political agendas than they are understanding and properly applying Biblical values.
For instance, notice the glaring paradox that unfolds when progressive faith leaders on the left like Al Sharpton remind everyone that, “Jesus was a refugee.” Obviously they are referencing the escape of Mary and Joseph to Egypt in the years shortly after the birth of Jesus. Making their case for an open door refugee policy where the United States government places no restrictions on access to the country and its resources from those fleeing persecution in foreign lands, these progressives correctly note that Mary and Joseph sought refuge in a foreign country to escape the mass infanticide decree of King Herod.
What is peculiar about that is that the very same political movement citing this account of Scripture is the same one that has been adamantly demanding for a generation that the teachings of Jesus be stricken from the law so as to allow the continued legalization of mass infanticide.
That is not to say that all Biblical arguments relative to refugees are as flimsy. Progressive faith leaders often point to the admonition of Hebrews 13:2: “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.” There’s no question that we are given a direct and unequivocal personal command to be hospitable to those in need. Coupled with the directives Jesus gives us personally in Luke 14 and in the parable of the Good Samaritan, living an inhospitable life lacking in personal compassion is simply irreconcilable with godly, Christian conduct.
It’s fair to assume that is why Christians, individually and collectively, remain the single greatest charitable giving force in the world by far. But when it comes to refugee policy we are contemplating more than just personal commands. We must endeavor to determine whether or not it is Biblically sound to apply such individual instructions to the work of civil government.
When famed evangelical Christian leader Franklin Graham articulated one perspective on this question saying, “We have to realize that the president’s job is not the same as the job of the church,” progressive Christian activist Shane Claiborne immediately criticized him. Claiborne tweeted in response: “No. It is theological malpractice to say that the president is exempt from the Sermon on the Mount or not accountable to Christ’s commands.”
But that isn’t what Graham said. He accurately affirmed that while all Christians are held to the same standard of private, personal morality, the Biblical expectations for ministers are different than those for government leaders. Far from heretical, such an understanding is essential to any logical, consistent reading of Scripture.
Imagine the turmoil that would ensue, for instance, if we pretended the command of Jesus not to judge another (Matthew 7:1) applied to American courtrooms. Or consider the calamity if we assumed our instruction to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) was to be the national security policy of our civil government.
Cultural Left’s Influence on Democratic Party Is a ‘Real Problem,’ Jim Wallis Warns
Claiborne’s failure to grasp this fairly obvious reality was perplexing until just days later when he again lashed out at Graham on the issue, this time in a very personal way. After Graham had offered his opinion that we lock our doors at night, “Not because you hate the people on the outside, but because you love the people on the inside,” Claiborne compared him to the villains in Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan.
He chided, “As the religious folks turned a blind eye, the Samaritan was more concerned about the man in the ditch than himself.”
At this point I realized that Claiborne was far less concerned with understanding a Biblical approach to refugees than he was in grandstanding and attacking a fellow Christian publicly. After all, it takes an extraordinary amount of personal animus and tunnel vision to miss that Franklin Graham’s ministry literally does the work of the Good Samaritan all over the world, regardless of creed, nationality, or ethnicity.
Minds dedicated to Scriptural fidelity will ignore unserious voices such as Claiborne’s and instead work to contextually understand and apply God’s truth. We will ask whether it is responsible to extrapolate the teaching of Hebrews outward into a command on civil government.
To say that Christians have a duty to care for widows, orphans, the impoverished, and endangered is unquestioned (by anyone) Biblical truth. To say that such care can only be provided by enacting open-door refugee policies that may or may not compromise the security of citizens (including widows, orphans, and the impoverished here at home) is an entirely different proposition. It’s a proposition that, to this point, does not appear to be supported by Scripture.
On February 5th, 2015 after then-President Barack Hussein Obama’s incendiary and decidedly anti-Christian remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, Reverend Franklin Graham spoke truth to power:
Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Mr. President–Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life. Mohammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ—true followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.
As Rev. Graham said so eloquently, Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.
During the Republican Presidential Primary, Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, got a lot of attention from hang-wringing Liberals in the Main Stream Media, the Democratic Party, and among the Vichy Republicans, also, when he said that a Muslim should never be President of the United States of America., because Sharia Law in incompatible with The United States Constitution.
He was absolutely right.
The Center For Security Policy issued the following PDF, ” “Sharia Law Vs. The Constitution”,
Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land
- Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”
- Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)
First Amendment: Freedom of religion
- Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”
- Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89 ; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on nonMuslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom.(o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).
First Amendment: Freedom of speech
- Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”
- Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.
First Amendment: Freedom to dissent
- Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
- Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
Second Amendment: Right to self-defense
- Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
- Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.
Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial
- Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.” Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.” Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
- Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.
Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment
- Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
- Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished:”The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).
Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process
- Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
- Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.
Given this incompatibility between Sharia Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, which our Freedom and our System of Laws are based upon, if given the choice, which would Muslim Refugees, being imported into the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave choose to be faithful to?
Back on June 23, 2015, the Center for Security Policy released the following findings for a poll they took of 600 Muslims, who were living in America…
The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.
Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall. The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
To conclude, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”, and, wish to invade our Sovereign Nation and over-throw our Government.
However, there is a difference between being an average Christian American and a Muslim, living in America.
In Islam, the way to “walk with God and escape his judgment on that final day of judgment” is through ‘falah’, which means self-effort or positive achievement. The faithful must submit to God and follow all of his laws as found in the Koran. Judgment day in Islam involves some sort of measurement of what the believer has done wrong and what they have done right. And, even then, you might not be let into heaven if Allah decides you’re not good enough.
This is the direct opposite of Christianity.
According to the Bible, no man can ever be good enough to deserve God’s favor, to win God’s heaven, because from birth we have Free Will. This Free Will may cause us to reject God and live our lives our own way. That’s why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die for our sins, covering us in His blood of the New Covenant.
God’s Word tells us that what we need is not ‘falah,’ but faith. To have faith in, to trust, to rely on Jesus and his death as as “the expiation for our sins”. Those who have been Saved by Jesus Christ can be sure that in the future God will welcome them into heaven with wide open arms, because they have been washed by His blood.
Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.
Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.
When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American Citizens.
When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.
In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.
In the case of the Radical Islamist Couple in San Bernadino, it let them to murder their neighbors and co-workers.
In the case of the barbarians of ISIS, it has turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.
While we are told as Christians to “entertain strangers”, we are also told to
be wise as serpents and innocent as doves – Matthew 10:16
And, you can’t “be wise” if you lose your head.
Until He Comes,
The Liberal Sycophants of the Main Stream Media attacked President Donald J. Trump’s Press Secretary once again during his daily press briefing. And, once again, Spicer proved to be up to the task.
Foxnews.com reports that
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer accused the media Monday of overplaying and misreporting on a range of fresh administration controversies — specifically describing claims of a shakeup at the National Security Council as “utter nonsense.”
“There’s been a lot of misreporting,” Spicer said.
The press briefing on Monday saw a return to a more combative style for Spicer. While he spent much of the briefing chiding the media over their description of President Trump’s executive order on immigration, he opened with a point-by-point rebuttal — complete with visual aids — to critical reports about a separate action signed Saturday that restructures the NSC, a key advisory body.
Those reports claimed Trump had effectively downgraded the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, while promoting adviser Steve Bannon to the principals committee – which is the National Security Council, only without the president.
The New York Times had labeled Bannon’s role “a startling elevation of a political adviser” and said it put him at the same level as National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. The Times also said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and DNI chief are only to join the principals committee when directly affected.
Spicer shot back, saying, “The idea that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and DNI are being downgraded or removed is utter nonsense.”
In making his point, he presented a related 2001 memo by President George W. Bush and a related 2009 memo by President Barack Obama, and argued the relevant passages were virtually the same.
As for Bannon’s elevation, Spicer also downplayed its significance and noted that former Obama adviser David Axelrod had attended NSC meetings as well, though had not been given a formal promotion to the role.
“David Axelrod walked in and out of NSC meetings,” he said. “What this shows is that this administration is being rather transparent.”
He also suggested Bannon “won’t be at every meeting.” He added, “He’ll come in and out as needed, but we wanted to be up front about it.”
Spicer also reacted to a tweet by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who had asked where the role of the CIA was in the memo. Spicer noted there was no mention of the CIA in Obama’s 2009 memo either. However, he said Trump had decided to amend his memo to add CIA Director Mike Pompeo to the top circle of national security advisers
Since taking the podium for the first time last week, Spicer has made a point to call out what the administration believes to be inaccurate or biased reporting. On Monday, he also doubled down on the administration’s defense of the controversial order suspending the refugee program and entry to the U.S. for travelers from certain countries. Spicer said it was one of a number of steps “to make sure that this country is as safe as it can be and that we’re ahead of every threat.”
Spicer further was asked to comment on a report in The Washington Post that said dozens of State Department staffers are ready to sign a memo opposing Trump’s travel restrictions, saying they are poorly conceived and against American values.
Spicer seemed unfazed by the memo: “I think that they should either get with the program or they can go,” he said. “This is about the safety of America.”
He also addressed the controversy surrounding a statement released by the White House on Holocaust Remembrance Day – which omitted any specific reference to Jewish people despite them being the overwhelming majority of victims in the genocide.
“By and large he’s been praised for it,” Spicer said of the statement. He said Trump was recognizing the suffering of those who endured the Holocaust, “whether they were Jews, Gypsies, gays, [people with a] disability, priests.”
“The idea that you’re nitpicking a statement that sought to remember this tragic event that occurred and the people who died in it is just ridiculous,” he said.
The Republican Jewish Coalition, among other groups, called the omission “unfortunate.”
The Main Stream Media remain the Vanguard of the National Temper Tantrum which America has witnessed from Modern Liberals since Donald J. Trump was elected the President of the United States of America.
The Liberal Democrats just cannot come to grips that their “perfect” candidate was, in fact, a lousy pick and a hateful, inept, downright mean individual whom they never should have nominated as their Presidential Choice.
One of their arguments has been that Trump did not win the Popular Vote, a “fact” which is suspicious at best and one which is being investigated even as I write this post, with illegal aliens have voted already being discovered in California.
As I have stated before, the Electoral College was put in place to prevent what the Liberals are still trying to accomplish, which is choosing a President based on the favored Political Ideology of isolated Metropolitan Areas with dense populations.
The Democrats, as a result of their own regional bias toward the major metropolitan areas on the East and West Coasts, which has been obvious to average Americans for the last several decades, effectively divorced themselves from the people whom they claimed in every previous election cycle to “love”…Average Working Class Americans.
To put it in Marital Terms, Average Working Class Americans and the Democratic Party are no longer “evenly yoked”.
The Democrats became the party of the “Upper Crust” and Special Interest Groups, who look down their noses at Americans who live here in “Flyover Country”.
The Democrats assumed, after reading their own press clippings, that all Americans wanted the Progressive/Marxist Political Ideology and style of governance which Barack Hussein Obama practiced during his time as President.
Well, we all know what assuming does, don’t we, boys and girls?
The American People overthrew the “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we have suffered under for the last 8 years on November 8th.
An article, recently written by a member of the Main Stream Media, strategically placed the word “mandate”, which Vice-President Mike Pence used while speaking about President Trump, in quotes, as a form of derision.
The Oxford Dictionaries define the word “mandate” as
the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.
Guess what, all of you “Special Snowflakes” who still throwing a National Temper Tantrum?
Trump won! Therefore, he does have a mandate.
It is to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
Enjoy the ride.
I dedicate the following song which I have written to each and every one of you.
AND, DONALD TRUMP IS STILL THE PRESIDENT
(sung to the tune of “The Times They Are Changing”)
Listen to me, you Liberals who are throwing a fit
On November the 8th your egos took a hit
Americans aren’t fooled yet you refuse to admit
Your political party has just failed you
It’s time you grew up, and go ahead and submit
Because Donald Trump is still the President.
Hey, Congressmen and Senators way up on the Hill
There’s a new Boss in town, this is no fire drill
Both Republicans and Dems should extend their goodwill
It won’t be business as usual
So you better get movin’ up in your anthill
Because Donald Trump is still the President.
Yes, Donald Trump is still the President.
Hey, MSM and George Soros, too
You can save your breath, America’s not listening to you
Try as you might, you won’t change our worldview
Americans just simply were outraged
So we took back our country after an 8-year miscue
And, Donald Trump is still the President.
Until He Comes,
The year is 1903, The Russian Social Democratic Party is meeting in London. All the intellectuals in their party have been arguing since the end of the 1800’s as to the direction the party should take. One year earlier, in 1902, a man named Lenin, living in exile, wrote a paper entitled, “What Is To Be Done”.
The work was smuggled into Russia and spelled out his views regarding what the Social Democrats should be doing as a party. Lenin attacked party members who “were content to wait while history took its predetermined course.” Rather than wait, Lenin wanted to kick-start the issue he believed in to get things done rather than wait on intellectuals sitting around refuting each other’s ideas. The meeting resulted in a Party split creating the Mentsheviks and the Bolsheviks. The two factions reunited under Lenin in April 1905. Lenin went on to organize the November 1917 Russian Revolution on the Promise of “peace. bread, and land”.
Isn’t that like “sharing the wealth”?
Please allow me to share with you with some quotes from Vladimir Lenin. Their relevancy to the Presidential Leadership (or, lack thereof) of the last 8 years and the political situation in which we find ourselves now is amazing.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.
Sometimes – history needs a push.The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.
The goal of socialism is communism.
The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
To rely upon conviction, devotion, and other excellent spiritual qualities; that is not to be taken seriously in politics.
Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.
While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.
This last weekend, Breitbart.news reported the following…
TEL AVIV — Immigration lawyers from groups financed by billionaire George Soros, a champion of open border policies, were signatories to a lawsuit filed Saturday to block President Donald Trump’s executive order halting visas for 90 days for “immigrants and non-immigrants” from Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq.
The executive order further suspended the entry of all refugees for 120 days, indefinitely blocks Syrian refugees from entering and lowers the ceiling to 50,000 for refugees allowed to enter the U.S. during Fiscal Year 2017 .
The New York Times first reported on the lawsuit:
At least one case quickly prompted a legal challenge as lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees held at Kennedy International Airport in New York filed a motion early Saturday seeking to have their clients released. They also filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and other immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry.
The suit was filed by lawyers from the International Refugee Assistance Project, the National Immigration Law Center, the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the International Refugee Assistance Project (formerly Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project) at the Urban Justice Center.
The ACLU is massively funded by Soros’s Open Society Foundations, including with a $50 million grant in 2014.
The National Immigration Law Center has received numerous Open Society grants earmarked for general support.
The Urban Justice Center is also the recipient of an Open Society grant.
Taryn Higashi, executive director of the Center’s International Refugee Assistance Project, which is listed on the Trump lawsuit, currently serves on the Advisory Board of the International Migration Initiative of Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
Over the last decade, Soros has reportedly provided some $76 million for immigrant issues.
In 2014, the New York Times credited “immigrant rights groups” financed by Soros and a handful of other donors for influencing President Obama’s immigration policy.
The newspaper reported:
When President Obama announces major changes to the nation’s immigration enforcement system as early as next week, his decision will partly be a result of a yearslong campaign of pressure by immigrant rights groups, which have grown from a cluster of lobbying organizations into a national force.
A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation’s wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally.
In August, Breitbart Jerusalem first reported hacked documents from Soros’s Open Society Institute boasted that the billionaire and his foundation helped to successfully press the Obama administration into increasing to 100,000 the total number of refugees taken in by the U.S. annually.
The documents revealed that the billionaire personally sent President Obama a letter on the issue of accepting refugees.
As anybody who has paid any attention to American Politics in the last couple of decades knows, George Soros has played the role of the “Evil Puppetmaster” behind the scenes for quite a while now.
MoveOn.org was formed in 1998 as a supposedly “bipartisan e-mail group” in order to send a petition to Congress to “move on” past the planned impeachment of President Clinton. It rose to national prominence for its strong disapproval of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
A Liberal Political Group based in the United States, MoveOn.org has played the role of a National Community Organizer and Democratic Propaganda Machine, whose “foot soldiers”, paid and unpaid, are estimated to number over 2,000,000. The group’s publicly stated mission was to promote “grassroots advocacy” through various political activities including running a PAC, voter registration drives, and political advertising (especially in swing states).
It’s covert mission is more nefarious.
MoveOn.org supported the Democratic nominees for the 2004 U.S. presidential election, and played a part in the failed attempt to stop George W. Bush’s re-election effort, raising millions of dollars for Democratic candidates. It is one of several 527 committees who supported John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in the 2004 U.S. presidential election; others include America Coming Together and the Media Fund.
Like numerous other Far Left Political Organizations, a major funder of MoveOn is Former Nazi Collaborator and Hedge Fund Billionaire, George Soros.
George Soros and a partner ponied up $5 million to MoveOn.org, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions in the failed attempt to oust President George W. Bush.
In 2017, after funding the election of the worst United States President in History, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), the “Evil Puppetmaster” financed the racist movement known as Black Lives Matter, which has joined with MoveOn.org, in an effort to violate the First Amendment Rights of Donald J. Trump and to prevent him from becoming President of the United States of America.
It should be noted that, according to various sources, during the Nazi Occupation of Hungary in the 1940s, Soros reported his own countrymen to the Nazis (National Socialist Party of Germany), facilitating their removal via “the long train ride from which very few ever returned”.
Soros began his modern “philanthropic activity” in 1979, establishing the Open Society Foundations in 1984. These “foundations” (i.e., political organizations), fund a range of global initiatives “to advance justice, education, public health, business development and independent media.”
It is through this “philanthropic activity” that Soros is funding the current “civil unrest”, the seeds of which were planted in Ferguson, Missouri.
An article published by the Washington Times, on January 14, 2015, titled “George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action”, reporter Kelly Riddell went into detail about Soros’ “Community Organizing”…
… Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.
The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre.
“Our DNA includes a belief that having people participate in government is indispensable to living in a more just, inclusive, democratic society,” said Kenneth Zimmerman, director of Mr. Soros‘ Open Society Foundations’ U.S. programs, in an interview with The Washington Times. “Helping groups combine policy, research [and] data collection with community organizing feels very much the way our society becomes more accountable.”
…Colorlines is an online news site that focuses on race issues and is published by Race Forward, a group that received $200,000 from Mr. Soros’s foundation in 2011. Colorlines has published tirelessly on the activities in Ferguson and heavily promoted the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag and activities.
…Mr. Soros gave $5.4 million to Ferguson and Staten Island grass-roots efforts last year to help “further police reform, accountability and public transparency,” the Open Society Foundations said in a blog post in December. About half of those funds were earmarked to Ferguson, with the money primarily going to OBS and MORE, the foundation said.
Just as was the case in the Russian Revolution, any “Democratic Socialist” nation we see around our Modern World, went through a course-altering revolution, whether through a violent overthrow of the Government or through a “radical change” in the political ideology of their nation and the way that their populace voted in the subsequent election.
I firmly believe that the mission of George Soros, from the moment he landed on our shores to this very day, has been exactly what his political puppet, Former (Thank God) President Barack Hussein Obama, said that his was during his first presidential campaign: to “radically change” our nation into something that every patriotic American will no longer recognize.
With citizenship and voting rights granted to illegal aliens by his Democrat Operatives, with Un-vetted Radical Muslim “Refugees” pouring in by the thousands, and with Soros’ covert and overt support of perpetually-grieved protesters, recently paid to stage organized demonstrations at metropolitan airports, thanks to Former President Obama, Soros has created his own version of Lenin’s Bolsheviks.
That is why the election of Donald J. Trump to the Presidency was so very important.
Someone has to stop George Soros and his paid “New Bolsheviks”.
America’s survival as a free nation depends on it.
Until He Comes,
And, not all of them will be American students.
According to the Liberal Newspaper, the Chicago Tribune,
U.S. authorities have apprehended more than 52,000 lone minors this fiscal year, part of a wave mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. This week, President Barack Obama asked Congress for $3.7 billion to cope with the deluge that’s overwhelmed processing centers, shelters where some children stay, courts and social-service agencies.
The Justice Department is changing its policy to give unaccompanied minors and families with children priority in immigration court, which could speed deportations and dissuade others from coming. Most children won’t qualify for humanitarian relief and will be deported, said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.
A report from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, though, found that 58 percent may qualify for international protection.
…For all the political theater, schools are confronting the fallout of the crisis. In farflung cities and towns, a new student population is struggling to adapt to unfamiliar homes and the American education system. All the while, they’re trying to persuade officials to let them stay.
Stories of beatings, rapes or extortion suffered in their home countries, during their travels or in the U.S. are widespread, said Debra Duardo, executive director of student health and human services for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Separation anxiety is common.
“There’s no way a child is going to be able to come to school ready and able to learn if we don’t address some of the other issues they’re facing,” Duardo said. “Schools are a safe haven.”
Many lack immunizations or documentation proving they’ve had them, she said. While heightened demand crowded the main assessment center where checkups are done, moving it was too expensive, she said.
Soon after border agents detain unaccompanied minors, responsibility for their care falls to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement. The agency’s involvement ends when it places children with a relative or other sponsor, said a spokesman, Kenneth Wolfe.
That leaves districts like the Houston Independent School District, Texas’s largest, on their own to estimate how many newcomers they’ll receive.
Houston is planning for more this year than last year’s 910, said Altagracia Guerrero, assistant superintendent of multilingual services. That was nearly double the number it had in 2012, but no one knows how many will show up on the first day of school in August.
Last year’s influx helped qualify the district for a $1.6 million federal grant. Guerrero, who’s part of a team coordinating a district-wide response, said she’ll hire tutors and outreach workers, and educate employees about the surge so they can help students who are a part of it.
“You try to staff as closely to the projection as possible,” she said.
Back in 2008, judicialwatch.org reported on some of the problems the Texas Public Schools faced with having to provide a free education to illegal aliens…
There are an estimated 1.5 million school-aged illegal immigrants in the United States and the government spends an estimated $12 billion annually to educate them. The biggest chunks are spent by California ($7.7 billion) and Texas ($3.9 billion), where the situation has become a public education crisis with no end in sight.
The Lone Star State’s public schools have seen a huge increase in illegal immigrant Hispanic students with dismal Mexican and Central American education histories that are contributing to an overall lowering of academic standards across the board.
Case in point: The Irving School District, located mostly in Dallas. It has suffered one of the nation’s largest increases—63%–of illegal immigrant students in the last year compared to a 33% increase in 1995. Irving’s superintendent says it’s tough to bring so many students with such poor schooling up to state and federal standards.
Mexican government statistics reveal that only 58% of Mexicans 15 and older have some elementary school education and working with them requires slowing down and teaching the very basics. Many of the kids that attend Irving District schools haven’t been in a classroom for years and educating them is an ongoing uphill battle that has depleted public resources in many Border State districts.
Besides spending nearly $6,000 a year to educate each student, the districts also spend more than $1.5 million annually to pay bilingual teachers extra because they are hard to find and have additional credentials. Illegal immigrants are well aware of the free education perks and admit they are a big incentive to enter the country illegally.
A family of illegal immigrants living in Irving says it has greatly benefited from the U.S. taxpayer-financed free education, which makes living in the country illegally worth the risk. The 35-year-old mother took free English classes offered by Irving schools so that parents can help their children with homework and her children speak English fluently thanks to their free topnotch U.S. education.
Since then, of course, the number of these “precious children” illegally here in our country, has grown exponentially, under President Barack Hussein Obama.
Just suppose these “refugees”, as the White House and Liberals en large are calling these illegal aliens, decide to take advantage of the lack of governmental paperwork, especially concerning their age and scholastic standing, in order to “game the system”.
No…they would not do that, would they? No…of course not.
By the way, could I interest you in buying two bridges across the Mississippi River at Memphis?
Newsmax.com reports that
Adult illegal immigrants are posing as unaccompanied minors to enroll in public high schools in Massachusetts, officials said Friday.
“Some of them have had gray hair, and they’re telling you that they’re 17 years old and they have no documentation,” Jamie Cerulli, the chief of staff for Mayor Judith Flanagan Kennedy of Lynn, Massachusetts, told The National Review. “If my children went to the public schools, I’d be very uncomfortable with all of these unaccompanied minors [that] are placed in the ninth grade.”
Catherine Latham, the school superintendent, said that foreign-student admissions have increased in the district by 500 since the 2010-11 school year. That includes illegal immigrants, refugees, and foreign nationals, the National Review reports.
Nearly 250 students came from Guatemala last school year — and 126 of them enrolled in the ninth grade, Latham said.
Located about 10 miles north of Boston, Lynn has a large Guatemalan population, she told the National Review. Many of the illegal immigrants who arrive there from the Central American country come from the city of San Marcos.
The National Review obtained information and images from the Department of Homeland Security on two illegal immigrants in Lynn who have registered for high school using questionable data.
Isai and Candelaria — whose full names were withheld — are enrolled in the ninth grade and are expected to attend classes this fall, Latham told the National Review.
Latham said that when possible age discrepancies arise, city officials visit the homes of those in question and try to verify age and other information.
She told the National Review of a case in which a relative of an illegal immigrant who registered for school as a “child” was identified by a relative as being 30 to 35 years old.
Heck, they have already entered our country illegally, why should illegally registering for High School bother them?
I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children. We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight. But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.
Do you want to have access to the blessings of American Citizenship, such as the right to attend our schools? Fine. Become an AMERICAN CITIZEN.
I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish. But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.
So, let’s take this one step at a time. Secure our borders. Enforce the anti-illegal immigration laws. And if the Federal Government won’t, the states, like Arizona, will have to pass their own laws. America became a great nation because it is a melting pot of American-born and legally-immigrated citizens with a shared allegiance, not a multi-cultural United Nations with everyone loyal to their home country.
A wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now. All of OUR SERVANTS, up on Capitol HIll, need to quit playing political games. The safety of America is at stake . SECURE THE BORDER NOW.
Until He Comes,