As Trump indicated in his campaign promise, he issued an executive order that banned Muslim importation/illegal immigration from specific Middle Eastern nations and limited the intake of refugees to Christians from war-torn areas. Needless to say, this has caused quite the controversy, especially among left liberal progressive Democrats. Criticism ranges from the standard “racist, bigot, Islamophobe, xenophobe” diatribe to “compromise of national security.” Naturally, what follows is the “religious test” argument that applying a limit to immigration based on religion is unconstitutional, when it is not. And, the never ending argument that the “refugees” are thoroughly vetted before entering the US.
In a strange twist of “religious test” application, the Obama administration only allowed one percent of Syrian Christians into the US on “refugee” status while 95 percent of “refugees” were Muslims from Syria. Are we to take the former administration’s actions as “fair” or assume that only Muslims wanted to leave these “war-torn” areas controlled by an Islamic group? Are we to believe Obama when he said “refugees” were “strictly vetted” while intelligence agencies declared there was no way to vet the “refugees?”
Regardless of rhetoric, the problem remains with “vetting” any “refugee” from a war-torn area since the US would rely on records from those governments involved in conflict that may not be accurate or exist at all.
The changing of the guard has occurred in leadership in the united States. However, it does not change the fact that the “vetting process” for “refugees” is sorely lacking. Another stagnant fact that escapes those who advocate for “refugee resettlement” and open borders resulting in illegal alien invasion is money. It takes money to get the “refugees” (illegal aliens) into the republic and money to support them after arrival.
In order to counter the left liberal progressive Democrats’ arguments on “refugees” and “illegal alien invasion,” one has to arm oneself with information — accurate, factual, and reliable. And, the first question that comes up is where do those against a ban on Muslim “refugees” (illegal aliens) violate the Constitution regarding “religious test?” The answer is no where. The only reference to “religious test” in the Constitution is contained in Article VI, last paragraph, which states, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the united States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united States.” This means a religious test cannot be used as a measure for holding any office in the united States or the several States by government. Remember, the Constitution is a limit on government, not the people.
When it comes to immigration, the government, as representatives of the people, and/or the people can apply any test wanted to determine who can enter this republic. In fact, President Jimmy Carter used executive order authority to restrict immigration from Iran. So, when looking at the argument on “religious test” from a Constitutional standpoint, the “religious test” only applies to the government when in regards to holding a government office. Moreover, immigration law, which is constitutionally authorized as a power of Congress, can contain any measure to outline who is acceptable to enter the republic. If the Congress so chooses, it can limit immigration to people who only wear the color blue.
Present this information to any left liberal progressive Democrat, even in Congress, and they just about choke to find some ridiculous circular argument to counter these facts. But, their arguments are based on emotion, some false morality high ground, and some required obligation. At times, the United Nations Refugee agreement is used to prop up that obligation and morality. However, the UN agreement does not supersede our Constitution and even proclaims that no nation is under “obligation” to accept refugees. Add to this the action of the Obama administration to negate religious minorities persecuted by Muslims in the Middle East entry into the republic, the stuttering inevitably follows. But, bring up other UN member nations that do not take refugees, the argument quickly goes to “morality” — nations who refuse are immoral.
Yet, no nation could be more immoral than one that allows the murder of innocent babies in the womb by their own mothers. But, I digress.
In addition to the morality and obligation argument, left liberal progressive Democrats want to assert that refugees are thoroughly vetted already before being brought into the united States. When asked “how,” there is no definitive answer. Even the intelligence agencies admit there is no real vetting, so from where is the information coming that these people gaining entry into the republic are thoroughly vetted? Right on queue, the argument turns back to the government claims thorough vetting, essentially ignoring the intelligence agencies, who are charged with vetting, saying there is no real vetting or a way to vet this individuals. It’s a “here we go ’round the mulberry bush” argument with left liberal progressive Democrats as they circle back around to faulty reasoning.
If you bring up helping these individuals from war-torn countries in their home country, the leftists bring up the inscription on the Statue of Liberty as some formal policy. The plaque attached to the Statue of Liberty is inscribed with “The New Colossus” sonnet written by Emma Lazarus to raise money for the pedestal on which the Statue of Liberty sits. Remember, the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to honor the alliance during the Revolutionary War. It became a symbol of freedom and liberty to legal immigrants who entered the republic through Ellis Island. In fact, the plaque holding the poem was not attached to the pedestal until 1903, well after constitutionally passed immigration law was in place, and in no way considered policy, informal or otherwise.
Again, the argument becomes a liberal circle jerk when pointing out that all nations scrutinize those who enter to live and become citizens. While proclaiming that the united States is exceptional, they turn around and claim there is nothing exceptional about the united States to warrant scrutiny of those entering the republic. Trying to make sense out of that is only something a left liberal can do. Canada has initiated a restriction on immigration so those looking to immigrate to Canada will face tougher requirements. So, anyone looking to go to Canada can expect a long wait. But, the united States is exceptional in its immigration, but there is nothing exceptional about the US to warrant scrutiny of illegal aliens and refugees. Who even knows what that means?
In addition to all of these arguments, one has to look at the money — the money to bring these individuals into the united States, upkeep once they are here, and the consumption of local resources straining local governments and the people. America already has an increasing homeless population. The citizens are assessed tax upon tax and mandated to purchase health care insurance, which for some is astronomical, or pay a penalty some call a tax. Unemployment is rising. So, where does the money originate to provide upkeep of these individuals. Remember, these “refugees” and other illegal alien invaders are not skilled workers. The entry for skilled workers is done through various federal visa programs.
So, the US is increasing its non-skilled worker base. These individuals are propped up with access to taxpayer funded social programs. Their children attend the public government schools while not contributing through taxes to offset the cost. The increased cost is passed along to citizen taxpayers. As more of these individuals access taxpayer funded social programs, it drains the coffers that is reserved for citizens meaning the government borrows more money to cover the cost, increasing the debt and needing more tax money from taxpayers.
When it is suggested that “refugees” be helped in their own country with funds and security, this is not even entertained by left liberal progressive Democrats. Despite the willingness to help with money and security forces for protection and safety, which many in America are indicating compassion for these individuals and their situation, this is not good enough nor acceptable. Why, when the UN agreement indicates it is best to provide help in their own country first? And, if these refugees need to enter another nation, the goal is to repatriate them back to their home country.
But, this is not where the left liberal progressive Democrats want to go with this. They want to bring these people here and keep them here, providing them social programs and possibly citizenship. For the Democrat Party, this is about altering the voting demographic to swing majority Democrat, changing the makeup of the citizens to exercise more control and limit opposition, and move toward a socialist/communist form of government. It has nothing to do with morality, obligation or a higher ground stance. The average left liberal progressive Democrat citizen does not see this and repeats the establishment rhetoric, adding “multicultural diversity” to the mix.
Does not the united States already have many different cultures? Absolutely. What individuals entering this republic are expected to do is assimilate to our culture of lawfulness and recognition of individual God-given rights. But, the left liberal progressive Democrats tend to want to trample others’ rights, engage in lawlessness and aggression to suppress freedom and liberty — more often than not through using the strong arm of the federal government.
With the executive order by Trump, the controversy increased with those on the left experiencing a head explosion of anger, contempt and stubbornness in refusing to accept a temporary measure to regain control of a situation created by the lawlessness of the previous administration. For eight years, this sect of the public settled into the reign of lawlessness, thinking this would be policy going forward. Well, lawlessness has its consequences, which may not be evident in the immediate. And, the taxpayers of this republic cannot be asked to continually fund social programs for more and more non-citizens. Because the previous administration was acting outside the rule of law, mostly on whim of the executive, it has caused a massive crisis in the republic.
The immigration law is not broken. The previous administration refused to enforce it. Moreover, the previous administration “bent” to the United Nations against our Constitution. With a new administration returning to enforcement of constitutionally authorized legislation and exercising sovereignty over United Nations’ whims, it has the lawless left liberal progressive Democrats in a tizzy. It proves that lawlessness is acceptable to this portion of our population as long as it satisfies “their” ideological fantasies, even at the expense of everyone else in the republic. But, the united States is a republic with laws and a culture based on the rule of law, not the rule of man. To protect it, the limit of importation of individuals whose culture is based on lawlessness or the rule of man is restricted through immigration law — bottom line. And, those who violate that law are considered criminals.
While the left is busy with its full meltdown mode activated, these individuals forget that Obama did not enforce the law, which has caused a plethora of problems for the republic. Along the bigger picture, lawlessness brings about destruction to society and the government formed by the people to protect the rights of the individual. And, these Wicked Witches of the West cannot see the Trump is using what Obama had in place in previous years to allow the government time to process “refugees” seeking entry into the united States.