Sessions Delivers Landmark Speech on the Morality of
Immigration Policy Print, by: Daniel Horowitz, 12/10/15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=425&v=lkihB6IHsX0
Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up a nuclear
security bill (S. 1318). The bill was hijacked by an amendment put forth
by Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), which would have prohibited the U.S. from barring any
potential immigrant from entering the country based on their religion.
Leahy’s speech was full of outrageous sanctimony and moral
dyslexia, distorting our values, history, and Constitution. While we
almost never want to categorically bar entire categories of people, a sovereign
nation must always reserve the prerogative, from a legal sense, to do so.
Moreover, were this bill to become legally binding it would prohibit even the
consideration of religion as a contributing factor, even as it relates to
refugee policy. As we’ve noted before, the entire premise of refugee
and asylum is built upon identifying religious and ethnic minorities persecuted
by a majority in a given region. Only four Republicans—Sens. Sessions,
Cruz, Vitter, and Tillis—opposed the Leahy
amendment. Following Leahy’s remarks, Sessions delivered a
rebuttal that not only destroyed his entire premise and false sense of
morality, but expressed a set of important principles regarding the
philosophical and moral underpinnings of a just and ideal immigration
policy. All other GOP politicians would be wise to read every word of this
speech. This is the mature conversation on immigration the rest of the
“conservative” establishment is unwilling to have.
Here is Senator Sessions delivering his remarks. A full
transcript follows the video: "With regards it
immigration, it is the job of Congress to defend the rights and well-being of
American citizens. That means we must look at how immigration is
impacting Americans in their wages, in their salaries, in their national
security. It was five months ago that Kate Steinle died in her father's
arms on a pier in San Francisco because a repeatedly deported criminal alien
was set free. What about the American workers at Disney forced to
train their guest worker replacements? They claim they were discriminated
against because they were Americans. Where is the bill for them? We have
these fights over and over but we never seem to advance a bill or proposal that
actually results in more protections for American citizens. So that
is the context today in which we consider this unprecedented effort to extend
American's constitutional rights and protections to foreign citizens living in
foreign countries.
The adoption of Leahy Amendment would constitute a
transformation of our immigration system. In effect, it is a move toward the
ratification of the idea that global migration is a “human right”, and a civil
right, and that these so-called “immigrants’ rights” must be supreme to the
rights of sovereign nations to determine who can and cannot enter their
borders. Fundamentally, foreign nationals living in foreign countries have
no constitutional right to enter the United States. If they did, any alien
denied entry could file suit to demand entry and claim damages for lost
employment, lost welfare benefits, lost income.
Our immigration system derives exclusively from Article I,
section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which vests the
exclusive power in the Congress to establish a uniform system of immigration.
Through acts of Congress, the United States can – and does – exclude aliens
from entry into the United States for any reason provided by Congress. The
rules governing the selection of immigrants are, by definition, opposite the
rules governing the treatment of citizens living or naturalized in the United
States.
There are 7 billion people in the world. Choosing who can
immigrate into the United States is, by definition, an exclusionary process.
The goal is to select immigrants for admission based on the benefits they
provide to society based on skills, ages, values, philosophy, incomes, etc.
Our goal is to choose for admission those likeliest to
succeed and flourish and, crucially, to support our Constitutional system of
government and our values of pluralism and Republican governance. So
whereas we consider it improper to deny employment to a U.S. citizen based on,
say, their age, we consider it necessary and important to consider immigrants
according to their age and whether they will be able to contribute productive
years of work to American society. As stated by the United States Supreme
Court, “Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as
far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” What this amendment would do
would be to turn this fundamental principle on its head, and to apply some of
our core domestic legal and constitutional protections to foreign nationals
with no tie to the United States. The natural extension of this concept would
fundamentally undermine entire provisions of immigration law, and the results
quickly become radical.
In the United States, we have protections against
discrimination by religion, age, disability, country of origin, etc. We have
freedom of association. Rights of due process.
Now imagine extending these as part of our immigration
system. The logical extension of this concept results in a legal regime in
which the United States cannot deny an alien admission to the United States
based upon age, health, skill, family criminal history, country of origin, and
so forth. If an elderly alien needing 24-hour medical care applied for entry
and was denied, under this scheme of immigrant rights, they could file lawsuit,
demand entry, and taxpayer-funding.
But let's consider the question of religion more carefully.
If we say it is improper to consider religion, then that means it is improper
for a consular official to even ask about a candidate's religious beliefs when
trying to screen an applicant for entry. It would mean that even asking
questions of a fiancé seeking a visa about his or her views on any religious
matter – say on the idea of pluralism vs. religious supremacy – would be
improper, because if it is improper to favor or disfavor a religion, it is
improper to favor or disfavor any interpretation of a religion. Even if it is a
perversion of a religion, it is still a religion to that person. Are we
really prepared to disallow, in the consideration of tens of millions of
applications for entry to the United States, any questions about religious
views and attitudes? This amendment would mean, for instance, that the
United States could not favor for entry the moderate Muslim cleric over the
radical Muslim cleric.
We have huge unrest in the Middle East. An argument has been
made by some that we should prioritize resettling Muslim immigrants in the
region and prioritizing the entry of persecuted Christians; this measure would
forbid such considerations. Keep in mind, current refugee law requires us to
consider persecution on account of an individual’s religion; this would ask us
to discard, or undermine, that longstanding practice.
A U.S.-born citizen who subscribes to theocratic Islam has a
freedom of speech that allows them to give a sermon denouncing the U.S.
constitution or demanding it be changed. But, under this amendment, a foreign
religious leader living overseas could demand a tourist visa to deliver that
same sermon and claim religious discrimination if it is not approved. I
think it is a dangerous step.
The next step, of course, if we say religion cannot be
considered in any way is to say we cannot consider history, or geography, or
culture. We need to make a holistic decision about applicants. We
cannot labor under the illusion that these are simple binary decisions. It is
not as though every applicant is either clearly tied to terrorists on the one hand,
or is absolutely safe on the other.
Many people are radicalized after they enter. How do we
screen for that possibility, if we cannot even ask about an applicant's views
on religion? Would we forbid questions about politics? Or
theology? Furthermore, some of the same supporters of this very Amendment
supported the ‘Lautenberg Amendment’ that gave special preferences for
admission under our refugee program to Jews, Evangelical Christians, Orthodox
Christians, Baha’is, and religious minorities – all to the exclusion of others.
The import of this is that hundreds of thousands of
individuals have been admitted to the United States based exclusively on their
religion. The rights that have been neglected by this Congress are the
rights of the American people. The rhetoric today would have you believe we
have been operating some kind of closed-door immigration policy. The opposite
is true. No nation on earth has ever let in more people over a shorter period
of time.
We have admitted 59 million immigrants since 1965. We have
admitted 1.5 million immigrants from Muslim countries since 9/11. We have the
largest foreign-born population in our history as a raw number, and soon the
largest percentage of non-native-born in the history of the Republic. As a
share of population, it will soon eclipse every historical record.
Meanwhile, large companies are exploiting programs to
replace American workers and undermine their wages. Poor screening has resulted
in thousands of crimes against Americans. Our entitlement programs are
stretched. Wages have been flattened for decades. Every year, we admit another
1 million permanent immigrants, nearly 100,000 refugees and asylees, and
700,000 foreign guest workers.
Though it appears that day will not be today, perhaps we
should have a conversation soon about how to help the tens of millions of
Americans who are only just barely scraping by.
"Senator Leahy presents us a bold, dramatic Sense of
the Senate resolution that strikes at our hearts and pulls at our values
because we favor free exercise of religion. A serious discussion, colleagues, I
believe, is needed before we take this step. Certainly, the point is pressed as
a result of political statements, and I have tried to avoid commenting on those
statements because I don’t know how to firmly answer it. I don’t know what the
right response is, frankly. We need to be careful how we think about this.
Certainly Jefferson and Madison spent years of contemplation
and work on their founding of America’s philosophies. We celebrate America’s
commitment to the free exercise of religion. The question of religion and
the violence religious disagreements engendered in Europe prior to our founding
were well known to the Founding Fathers. Jefferson and Madison had the
answer they felt in the Virginia Statutes of Religious Freedom.
Gary Wills writes insightfully about it in his book, ‘Head
and Heart’. We do not allow a religious test for holding office, we allow
the free exercise of religion, and we ban the establishment of a
State-sponsored church. It’s in the Constitution explicitly. Encompassed
in the right of free exercise of religion is the duty to permit others to
exercise their own religion, freely, and not in some diminished state. But, as
with all rights, none can be absolute.
I remember Federal Judge Virgil Pittman in Mobile agreeing
to hear the petition of a prisoner who declared he was a Bishop in the Church
of the New Song and that its doctrines called for steak and wine every Friday
night and he demanded the federal prison provide it. After hearing his case,
the Judge found his demands were not justified. Nor can a person declare
their religion allows the use of illegal drugs. Nor use violence to
enforce its doctrines, nor physically abuse women, nor marry underage children
– no matter how deeply held those views may be.
But, that’s not the question here. It is well
settled that applicants don’t have the constitutional right or civil right to
demand entry to the United States. In fact, the INA has this provision:
‘whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of
aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest 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
or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he deems
appropriate’. I assume similar provisions abound in most countries the world
over. We accept those who we believe will advance the nation’s
interests. That’s what secular states do – and we are a secular
government.
As leaders we are to seek the advancement of the Public
Interest. While billions of immigrants may benefit by moving to this
country, this nation state has only one responsibility. We must decide if
such an admission complies with our law and serves our national
interest. Now, religion is highly respected in America.
Jefferson and Madison believed one’s relationship to God was
a matter between the believer and God. It was not a matter to be dictated
by the state. Jefferson’s words, chiseled in his monument, reflect this
unique American view: ‘I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.’ So, we must respect
our brothers and sisters across this globe who have different views about God,
faith, and religion, even as we may disagree. In America, we even value
free discussion as a method of reaching higher truth – even changing our minds
or another’s mind in the course. Wills says – as I remember, Washington,
and others at the time, used the phrase ‘toleration’ of other religious
views. But, he says, Jefferson and Madison went further, giving more
respect to dissenting views than mere toleration.
Based on Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution,
we can say with confidence that the establishment of an immigration policy has
been given to the Congress. Congress has not given rights to foreigners
to go to court to demand entry into the United States. Neither does the
Constitution. That is plain fact. Senator Leahy’s resolution doesn’t
explicitly assert that his demands are required by the law or the Constitution,
but on America’s founding principles. He insists we must all agree that
it is ‘un-American’ to deny entry into America on account of one’s
religion. Un-American is a strong word. Liberals have never liked
it used against their world visions. The Communists certainly didn’t like
it used. To affirm such a resolution would mean that religion can never
be taken into account to determine admissibility – throughout all the ages this
great Republic might exist. I think we must apply a prudent cast of mind
to our analysis. If there are circumstances we can foresee that would
cause open-minded, logical, fair persons acting in the national interest to
decide to act contrary to this resolution, and to be morally and legally
justified in so doing, then it must not pass.
We have conducted no analysis of this prospect. Unless we
are sure, we cannot pass such a broad resolution. Most religions focus on
one’s relationship with God. But, many religions are much broader,
covering all aspects of life – including government, public policy, and
law. Religions today too often are under appreciated for the good they
do. In marriage, in divorce, in birth, in death, in sickness, in health,
in poverty, and in wealth, religious faith, in millions, in billions of daily
actions, is a force for good.
Reality would be denied, however, if we do not recognize
that dangerous and damaging religions and sects have arisen. At least at
some points in history, most religions or segments of them, have sought to
overcome human laws and rules and impose doctrinal ideas that are contrary to
good common sense and good policy, even seek to destroy established governments
because they perceive that god has ordered them to do so. We may say this
is not religion. But, the adherents would say its religion indeed.
They say they are adhering to their text, their leader, or their
revelation. Didn’t the people of Jonestown believe theirs was a religion,
even as they took their own lives? Don’t suicide bombers think they are
religiously faithful? There are countless other examples that need not be
listed. What if a strong and growing religion believes that their leader
directly talks to God, believes that existing world governments are satanic and
corrupt and must be violently overthrown? They insist that the divine
solution is a theocracy where God alone rules and rules justly.
And now the time has come to move to challenge America to
carry out their evangelization? Secretary Carter says ISIS is
growing. What if it expands ever more rapidly and decides to focus its
believers on a long term effort to change the corrupt America? And their
doctrines justify force, do they not? Can we say that ISIS’s form of
religion is not a religion just because it is not consistent with classical
Islam? Why could they not demand as strong a right to enter as a peaceful
meditating Buddhist? Is it in the national interest to admit the ISIS
member equally with the Buddhist?
Is it wrong to say that immigration must serve the
legitimate interests of America and that others are more likely than those
committed to violent ideologies? After all, we can’t admit
everybody. Is it better to admit those who admire America, affirm its
constitutional order, than those who would be unhappy and unfulfilled until
their vision for the country more closely parallels their religious vision – a
government faithful to their theology? A theocracy? Again, sometimes
religions believe that their goals go beyond personal salvation. They
believe they are commanded to control the government and their doctrines must
dominate over other religions, denying them freedom.
Such religious people would have an unhappy time in the
United States. Maybe Senator Leahy’s resolution is correct. Maybe
the common sense interests of our nation must fall to this rather extreme
vision. But, I do not think so.
This is a dangerous injunction, colleagues. It goes
beyond being unwise. It is reckless. It is absolute and without
qualification. It could have pernicious impacts for decades, even centuries to
come. It may be even a step from the concept of the nation-state to the idea of
“global citizenship.” Such understandings have never been part of our
immigration law. The resolution lacks limits. Let’s not act
quickly, let’s think this through. In a time of intense political debate, we do
not need to be reacting to make political points. Let’s think deeply
about what this means and what the ramifications of it might be. I urge a no
vote on the Leahy resolution." - See more at: Conservative Review -
Sessions Delivers Landmark Speech on the Morality of Immigration Policy
Conservative Review - Sessions Delivers Landmark Speech
...The conservative position articulated in the face of national hostility. View
on www.conservativerevi..
Comments
Jeff
Sessions recommends resettling refugees in Muslim countries near their own
country. See: Sessions: Admin Hides Immigration Histories of
Terrorists, Then Asks For Blank Resettlement Check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lqAi6ZpVR0
Sessions reports the cost of resettling 10,000 refugees
in the US is $6.5 billion, so 100,000 refugees would cost $60.5 billion. We
could resettle 12 refugees in the Middle East Region for the cost of resettling
1 refugee in the US. Resettlement of 100,000 refugees in the Middle East region
would cost $5 billion total.
There are 700 open FBI cases on ISIS terrorism and they
are in all 50 States. We don’t need more
of this. There were 72 convictions of terrorists in the US last year and Obama
won’t tell Congress more about their immigration process.
Sweden is the rape capitol of the world because of
immigration of Muslim refugees. Rape
gangs are not jailed, because Judges don’t want the bad publicity.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment