World PoliticsSocial IssuesEconomyMilitaryUS PoliticsActivismGovernment

The American Left's Hysterics, Distortions, and Hypocrisy Regarding Immigration: Part One

Updated on February 7, 2017
Source

The Deporter in Chief

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The President must enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of the current administration’s views or even past precedents. President Obama failed to enforce the law in some cases, particularly in the area of immigration. President Trump is now ordering government officials to enforce the law, following through on his campaign promises to build the wall, secure the border, and protect the country.

Very rarely do my friends on the Left refer to Obama as the “Deporter in Chief,” yet many immigrants rights activists certainly do. President Obama has now left behind a well-oiled deportation machine (in addition to an all-powerful executive branch) for Mr. Trump to put to use. Yet of course, because just about all of the mainstream media loves, admires, and fawns over our 44th president, he received a pass on this as he did for many other things that would have possibly derailed a Republican president.

Protests erupted at John F. Kennedy International Airport last Saturday after incoming refugees were detained by customs and border patrol agents following President Trump’s executive order temporarily banning immigrants and refugees from 7 Muslim-majority countries. However, back in 2011, then-President Obama banned all Iraqi refugees for six whole months. He did this after discovering that Al-Qaeda terrorists were living as refugees in Kentucky. Therefore, the Obama administration blocked all Iraqi refugees from entering the United States for six months. There were no protests. There was no outrage. The Left said nothing. Similar to their silence during all of 2016 when President Obama dropped 72 bombs per day. That’s 3 bombs every hour. One every 20 minutes. But back to immigration.

Obama deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants during his two terms from 2009-2015, a 23 percent increase from the Bush years. And the numbers are not even in yet for 2016 so it is sure to be much higher. However, he used soft rhetoric to cloak what he was really doing. No one noticed because he signed DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - a policy started in June 2012 that allowed certain undocumented immigrants to the United States who entered the country as minors to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility), which brought in and encouraged further illegal immigration from Central America during his two terms. In 2014, it was estimated that more than 200,000 Central Americans tried to emigrate into the U.S. without documentation.

The 2.5 million deported under Obama were removed through immigration orders, so this total does not count the number of people who “self-deported” or were turned away to their home country by border patrol. Furthermore, according to government data, the Obama administration deported more people than the sum of all of the presidents of the 20th century. For reference, George W. Bush’s administration deported just over 2 million during his two terms in office from 2001 to 2008.

Source

The Border and the Wall

Despite all of this happening during the last eight Obama years, the mainstream media, driven by an overly sensitive and grossly irresponsible liberal wing of this country, have removed any semblance of honest discourse over our mess of an immigration system. The media constantly refers to illegal immigrants as “undocumented workers” or some other friendly term to disguise the fact that they are not allowed to be here. We are not saying most of these are not law-abiding people. We need to welcome who we can. But we cannot have open borders. That is simply asking for it.

Unfortunately, if anyone proposes a sensible immigration policy that prioritizes security and current citizens over illegal immigrants, they are roundly called racist or xenophobic. No one is doubting that many of these are good people trying to seek a better life. We simply want them to play by the rules so we can document them properly and keep our citizens safe by knowing who is in this country. Is that really controversial?

This heated rhetoric coming out of our declining major media mavens has created a very misinformed public. My own roommate was scared on November 9th because of what Trump was going to do to him and his friends from Mexico. A woman I was seeing for a time thought that things will be fine for me as a white man in Trump’s America, but everyone else is in trouble. And of course I would not understand because I am white. Okay…

Perhaps we’ve reached a boiling point. A Seattle area preschool teacher and activist astonishingly called for “killing people” and “killing the White House” in response to President Trump’s recent actions on immigration. If a Republican activist did the same or conservative protests erupted after Obama’s victory in 2008, the media would be calling it a revolution. Now that liberals are voicing their displeasure over the current administration? They call it a resistance.

Nevertheless, Trump is fulfilling promise after promise. Promise number one? Building that wall.

“A nation without borders is not a nation,” Trump declared after signing the measures on building the wall and targeting sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration law. “Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders.” While the Left freaks out over the fact that Mr. Trump is more serious than many thought about building the wall, everyone tends to forget that we already have over 600 miles of fence and wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. So, settle down. Building a wall is not out of the realm of possibility It is already a reality in many places.

About one-third of our southern border, 653 miles to be exact, is already blocked off by some kind of fence or barrier. These were built after the passage of the Secure Fence Act passed in the final year of the second Bush administration. In California, the fence climbs out of the Pacific Ocean and is three layers thick in some places around San Diego and Tijuana. Half of those 14 miles are topped by razor wire.

Almost all of Arizona’s southern border is fenced, however, the deterrence effect for drug smugglers and other border crossers has been constantly questioned. Many declare that a ladder can easily assist border crossers. This much is true. But it at least slows them down and gives some a sense of security, which is not fictional. Nearly all of Texas’ 1,250 mile border is fence-free, with the Rio Grande River essentially being the only barrier and other natural boundaries like hills and mountains providing other dividing lines.

Source

The Nonexistent Muslim Ban and the Existing Extreme Vetting Process

And now we get to the supposedly controversial part of today’s latest outrage. The immigration ban from 7 Muslim-majority countries is not a blanket Muslim ban. It’s not even close. These countries represent roughly 13 percent of the world’s Muslim population and were identified by the Obama administration. It is a temporary 90 day suspension of immigration from the top seven exporters of terrorism, according to the Obama administration.

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as "countries of concern." This is being done so we can properly put together a more comprehensive vetting process to ensure that we don’t have another situation like we did in 2011 in Kentucky where Al-Qaeda settled in as refugees. Or like Germany in recent years with refugee-orchestrated attack like the Berlin Christmas market attack. Or just this last Friday in Paris, when a man yelling, “Allah akhbar” tried to enter the Louvre and was shot by soldiers.

The sticking point for me is that the executive order also bans entry to the U.S. from all refugees for 120 days and all refugees fleeing war-torn Syria indefinitely. As The New York Times aptly points out, we already have very extreme vetting of refugees, which is what the current president is shooting for. So I think he might’ve gone too far on this front.

The current screening process for all refugees involves many layers of security checks before entry into the country and Syrians are already subject to additional checks and screenings. Sometimes, the painstaking process, detailed below, can take up to two years.

First, you must register with the United Nations. Then, you interview with the U.N. Then, your refugee status must be granted by the U.N. and a referral for resettlement in the United States, if deemed worthy of settlement (less than 1% of refugees worldwide are). The fifth step in the process is an initial interview with a State Department contractor.

If you’re lucky to have gone this far, then you’re ready for a background check. After that, another higher-level background check. But wait, there’s more. A third background check is also required before the first fingerprint is taken and a photograph is snapped.

After that, a second fingerprint screening is done. Then, a third. After cross-checking your fingerprints against the F.B.I. and Homeland Security’s databases, then your case is finally reviewed at the U.S. immigration headquarters. Some cases require additional review. If your are a Syrian, you must undergo an additional extensive in-person interview with a Homeland Security officer and obtain Homeland Security approval.

After all of this is completed, then the resettlement for the refugee is finalized and the closing security check done at the American airport of entry. So, let’s keep things in perspective. It is quite difficult to enter this country as a refugee. They are not pouring in by any means.

Do you think Trump’s orders on immigration went too far?

See results
Source

Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Somalia

Getting back to the 7 terrorist-ridden countries temporarily suspended from entry by Mr. Trump. Just about each and every one of these countries are dangerous and should be looked at more carefully in terms of letting their citizens enter our country.

Syria is an obvious choice. Over 500,000 people have died since the bloody civil war started. In the process, the state has become a terrorist hotbed for forces such as the Islamic State (ISIS) and the Al-Nusra Front. Using the chaos of the war as a training ground for a new wave of terrorists, many young men go in and out of Syria and they should not be trusted as to where they have been or who they have spoken to or coordinated with. ISIS has made clear its intentions to infiltrate the West by posing as refugees. They have already succeeded in Europe. Syria has been known for its support of Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia movement backed by Iran, who has been fighting against the terrorists in Syria and on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Iraq has been an unstable country since the ill-fated 2003 invasion by the United States. With the overthrow of strongman Saddam Hussein, the Shia government took over and the Sunnis were squeezed out of the governing class. ISIS, made up of mostly Sunni terrorists, have filled the vacuum left by President Obama’s politically-motivated pullout of American troops in 2011, before the start of his 2012 reelection campaign. ISIS has been in charge of large swaths of the country since spilling over from Syria and has held Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, since 2014. Only now are government forces liberating the city from the terrorists, though the campaign has been slow and deadly. Over a two year period, ISIS-linked violence was responsible for the deaths of almost 19,000 Iraqi civilians, according to a UN report. This was in addition to millions of others who were forced from their homes and thousands more held as slaves.

The banning of Iran was a bit more of a surprise than some of the other countries. While Iran has been designated by the State Department as “the foremost sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world,” according to CNN, the Obama administration put a fragile deal, but a deal nonetheless, with many other nations to curtail Iran’s race to a nuclear bomb. While the neoconservative, Israel-friendly lobby in Washington D.C. was not too pleased with this deal, they have apparently convinced Mr. Trump to slap more sanctions on the Iranian regime following their supposed violations of the sanctions in their testing of ballistic missiles recently. Iran has given weapons and cash to organizations like Hezbollah in Lebanon and other Iraqi Shia groups. While Iran is known to support some terrorist organizations in the Middle East, these same forces are fighting perhaps even more ungodly groups (i.e. ISIS and Al-Nusra) in Iraq and Syria.

The North African nation of Libya has been a powder keg of terrorism since before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convinced President Obama and NATO to intervene via fly-by airstrikes in 2011, toppling Muammar Gaddafi in the process and ushering in the existence of a terrorist state for years to come. After the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens shortly thereafter, suspending immigration from Libya is a no-brainer until that country gets back to some semblance of order and stability. “There are, in addition to ISIL, probably six or eight other terrorist groups that have gathered in Libya,” said James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, to Congress in 2015. “So it's a magnet because, essentially, it's ungoverned.”

Somalia has been a shitshow since the Bill Clinton years of the 1990s. Widely regarded as a failed state, it was ranked as the most fragile country in the world by the Fund for Peace in 2016. The U.N.-backed government has been at war for years with the East African terrorist group, Al-Shabab, for control of the country. Al-Shabab has imposed a type of Sharia law in parts of the country it has captured, allowing them to stone women to death for adultery and cut off the hands of thieves.

Source

Sudan, Yemen, and No Saudi Arabia?

Sudan has been out of sorts for some time now. The country was placed on the State Department’s list of terrorism sponsors back in 1993. In the late 1990s, however, Sudan showed a willingness to help the West fight terrorism. In May 2004, Sudan was removed from the list of countries “not fully cooperating” with American anti-terrorism efforts. Yet, it remains on the state sponsors of terrorism list for its support of Hamas, the Palestinian group fighting Israel. Who knows what will come out of Sudan, such a war-ravaged country?

Yemen is perhaps the poorest Arab country and has been in the midst of a brutal civil war since the start of 2015. The Houthi rebels are a Shia political movement that took control of the Yemeni capital at the end of 2014. Since then, Sunni-backed forces have tried to take back control. Many casualties have befallen the Yemeni population, many of them from the Saudi-executed and American-backed air strikes. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has a stronghold on the southern part of the country, launching regular attacks and thriving off the chaos from the devastating civil war with no end in sight.

Interesting that Saudi Arabia, the country financially responsible for September 11th, 2001, with the most native terrorists participating in the plot on that infamous day, is not on the list.

Breaking on Friday afternoon was the issuance of a temporary nationwide restraining order stopping President Trump’s executive order banning 7 countries citizens from entering the United States. Bush appointee Judge James Robart, in Seattle of course, ruled that the order would be stopped nationwide, effective immediately.

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson declared that “The Constitution prevailed today,” after the ruling was announced. “No one is above the law -- not even the President.” "It's our president's duty to honor this ruling and I'll make sure he does," Ferguson added.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. We will be witnessing a power struggle between Trump’s executive branch and his judicial branch. Who will win the day?

Again, Trump’s temporary ban of these seven dangerous countries is quite similar to what Obama did in 2011 for six months, despite what Mr. Obama and other liberals say to the contrary. Perhaps Trump will go bold and expand the travel suspension to other countries such as Saudi Arabia? Trump does not cave in to media-created pressure and likely thrives off of it. He will do what he thinks is best for the country, whether the Left likes what he does or not.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 9 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      So true, Bobby. I've reached the point, I believe NOTHING until I have a chance to look into it myself at length. I need to know what good the news is when WE have to go up behind them and search for the REAL facts.

      In the past week, 18 pieces of news have been "retracted or Corrected" within 24-36 hours!! (If they would simply be decent & honest?) What I despise most is having our intelligence insulted. P.

    • Bobby Shanahan profile image
      Author

      Robert Carbery 9 months ago from Seattle, WA

      Thank you Pauala! The truth is all that matters. And you are not getting the full story from our mainstream media unfortunately. It seems to be true that if you follow the news you are misinformed if you don’t you are uninformed. You just need to know what sources to use.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 9 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Bobby....This may be the most accurate, clear & truly factual article on this particular topic I've read in quite some time. BRAVO! & thank you. How comforting to read the sheer truth. President Trump is doing what needs to be done, should have been placed into action, long ago.

      The continual influx of refugees surely must be controlled & these people vetted as necessary. Who, what responsible American can question this basic common sense in view of the insanity & killings through out the World?

      I see you are relatively new to HP, (less than a year). Welcome, Bobby. It's clear to me you are an asset here & I'm pleased to have discovered your site. As I scroll your titles, I see I'll be back soon & often.

      Peace, Paula.