Congress supports US invasion by
Muslims, but a Bill called The Allow
State Sovereignty Upon Refugee Entry (ASSURE) Act has arisen.
When Bureaucrats manage Refugees,
it’s Grotesque, by Paul Bremmer, 10/8/16, WND
Plenty of commentators have said
Mike Pence won his vice presidential debate with Tim Kaine Tuesday night, but
the Indiana governor sustained a rebuke the previous day when a federal appeals
court upheld a preliminary injunction blocking
Indiana’s effort to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the state.
Judge Richard Posner, writing the
unanimous opinion on behalf of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, declared the state of Indiana “provides no evidence
that Syrian terrorists are posing as refugees or that Syrian refugees have ever
committed acts of terrorism in the United States.”
However, Pence initially suspended
the resettlement of Syrians not because of anything Syrian refugees had done in
the United States, but because of the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris.
Some of the Paris attackers had entered France among the flow of migrants and
refugees from Syria.
A Pence spokeswoman noted the FBI
and Department of Homeland Security had both acknowledged the process of
screening refugees from Syria was fraught with security gaps. Furthermore,
State Department spokesman John Kirby recently
admitted ISIS terrorists are trying to blend
in with refugee populations overseas in hopes of entering the U.S. posing as
refugees.
Philip Haney, a retired Customs and
Border Protection officer and author of “See
Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s
Submission to Jihad,” has investigated enough threats in
his life to know the U.S. needs to be careful about who it lets into the
country.
“If we’re going to err, why do we
not err on the side of caution?” Haney asked. “Meaning if you had children, for
example, and they’re playing in your front yard, and there’s only a 1 percent
chance they could run out into the street, is that an acceptable risk? Because
that means there’s almost four days a year when your kids are going to run out
into the street. Is that a risk any parent would take?”
“Why are we not erring on the side
of preservation of security and safety of American citizens, but rather on the
side of individuals who are not U.S. citizens?”
Haney pointed to another troubling
piece of information: the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) reported last month
that at least 31,000 individuals from “special interest countries,” meaning
countries of concern regarding terrorism, crossed our southern border in 2015.
“So now you have another stream of
threat that will naturally gravitate to the communities that are being
established around the country, in many cases against the will of the people
living in those communities,” Haney said.
Although Pence explained he wished
to exclude Syrian refugees because of the safety and security threat they may
pose to Indianans, Posner brushed aside that argument, writing that Pence was
engaging in “discrimination on the basis of nationality.”
But discrimination is necessary in some
cases, Haney said. In fact, he noted our federal government discriminates based
on nationality simply by designating certain countries as “special interest
countries.”
“CENTCOM noted that same
classification in that population of 31,000,” Haney said. “Are they
discriminating by pointing out that these people are from special interest
countries? No. You have to have some form of discrimination.”
Haney asserted discrimination can
also be a positive term, although it is almost always used in a negative
context today.
“If you’re a discriminating
aficionado of cigars, that’s a good thing, but if you’re discriminating in
terms of protecting our country, somehow that becomes a bad thing,” he said.
“Of course we’re discriminating! We have to, otherwise there’s no purpose for
law enforcement at all – or, for that matter, borders.”
Fortunately for Pence, Haney and all
those concerned about the security risk of Syrian refugees, there is hope on
the horizon. On Sept. 21, Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., introduced a bill that would
give state governments the power to approve or disapprove the resettlement of
refugees within their borders, a process now handled mostly by bureaucrats.
The Allow
State Sovereignty Upon Refugee Entry (ASSURE) Act would require the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of
the Department of Health and Human Services, to submit a detailed plan to each
state where it wants to resettle refugees. The plan must list expected costs of
housing, education, health care and any other subsidies that the state will
incur. The ORR also must disclose the health records, vaccination records,
criminal history and potential terrorist ties of the refugees to be resettled.
The plan would have to be ratified
by the state legislature and signed by the governor in order for refugee
resettlement to move forward.
Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at
Conservative Review and author of “Stolen
Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America,” praised Perry’s bill in a recent column.
“No legal body in this country –
from Congress to state legislatures – would approve the resettlement of tens of
thousands of Somali refugees if they had to affirmatively approve it today,”
Horowitz wrote. “Unfortunately, in the most grotesque violation of the social
contract and consent-based citizenship, the most radical forms of cultural
transformation are in the hands of unelected entities. Scott Perry’s bill would
right this ship and empower the people.”
Horowitz even went so far as to
proclaim this bill could
win Republicans the election if
only they would pass it.
“Individual conservatives who are
caught in the tortured trap between Democrats, Trump’s antics, and the
perfidious party leadership would be wise to run on Perry’s state empowerment
bill,” he offered. “It fuses together a major national security issue that has
captured the attention of the public with the principles of federalism and
state and popular sovereignty. If the left thinks turning Middle America into
the Middle East is so popular, why not let the states decide?”
In a similar vein, Haney questioned
the federal government’s secrecy regarding the refugee resettlement program.
“If the cause the federal government
is involved in, settling refugees, is so noble, then why is it so difficult to
get straightforward answers and accurate information on exactly what the costs
are and what their intentions are?” the former officer asked. “If this is the
federal government that we elected, why is it virtually impossible for anybody
in the American public to get that information? Why is it so difficult if this
is such a noble thing?”
Haney suspects if the feds told the
American people the truth, Americans would quickly turn against the refugee
program, making it difficult for the federal government and the UN to continue
to plant refugees in American communities.
Haney agreed Perry’s bill would be a
very practical proposal and a good way to restore the constitutional principle
of federalism to the refugee issue, because something that affects the social
fabric of America should not be shrouded in mystery.
“This is not a clandestine tactical
operation in some foreign country; this is what’s going on right here in our
own backyard,” Haney said. “Why so much secrecy?”
Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in
black. Find out how in “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From
Transforming America.” Available now at the WND Superstore!
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/when-bureaucrats-manage-refugees-its-grotesque/
No comments:
Post a Comment