Posted on 11/20/2015 6:51:12 AM PST by Freedom56v2
As I argued in Faithless Execution, the principal constitutional duty of the chief executive is to execute the laws faithfully. President Obama, by contrast, sees his principal task as imposing his post-American "progressive" preferences, regardless of what the laws mandate.
In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:
When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who's fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that's shameful. That's not American. That's not who we are. We don't have religious tests to our compassion.
Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things]...was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a "refugee" as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien's religion:
The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... religion [among other things] ...[.]
The law requires a "religious test." And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president's personal (and rather eccentric) sense
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Do any of our legislators know the law?
Its all a matter of perspective - to a muslim or someone who prefers muslims to Christians - seeking to screen out muslims would seem shameful no matter how reasonable doing so would be.
The rule of law is OVER. The law can and will change on a weekly basis.
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always THE REVOLUTION.”
that provision does not sound like a religious test in the way that some are interpreting it.
It doesn’t read like:
if religion = A, you’re in
if relgion = B, you’re out
It reads like you are determining whether (among other factors) the individual is being persecuted (and hence seeking refuge) on the basis of their religion.
Have I read that incorrectly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm2TAL53wVc
Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:
The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality ...and who is unable or unwilling to return to ...that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... religion [among other things] …[.] The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion.
Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution. There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. War, regrettably, is a staple of the human condition.
Civil wars are generally about power. That often makes them violent and, for many, tragic; but it does not necessarily make them wars in which one side is persecuting the other side. In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery).
They'd have to read it first and they admit they don't read anything.
Do any of our legislators know the law?
They’d have to read it first and they admit they don’t read anything.
It is equally obvious that the chattering class has not read the law either :(
Do any of them really care? I looked at a graph that suggests Syria seems to be posing a religious test for refugees— the vast majority of them are Muslim. They also seem to disprove Obama in his snarky BS on foreign soil about the GOP being opposed to widows and Orphans— because the stats on Syrian refugees shows a large number of males —and good number of them of fighting age. Far more Islamic males than there seem to be Syrian Christian refugees.
It's as if "Lutheran and Nazi" were intertwined and dependent on each other - and the "Lutheran" part wanted to come to the US during World War II.
Surplus Muslim men invading other countries spreading Islam is part of the 'religion'. War and conquest are outlined by Mohammad. Read Islamic writings - it's all in there.
When one man has 4 wives, three men have none. We're seeing legions of surplus Muslim men moving into Europe. These men don't have wives and children - and in their 'home' country they never will.
Islamic incentives create surplus men - men that in their rage and frustration become the invaders and killers that spread Islam... Benefits covered by Islamic writings for surplus men include treasure, violence, and women as spoils of war... Read Islamic 'religious' writings - it's all there in black and white. Incentive on incentive on incentive.
Rather than projecting ourselves and our ideas onto these people - and assuming they're 'like us' we need to ask questions and listen to the answers. My guess is fewer than 1% of the single men moving into Europe have wives or children.
Reporters needs to talk to the 'refugees' and find out how many of these single men of military age have wives... it might be an eye opener. They're not leaving women and children - they're looking for them.
Broken Link. This works: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427262/refugee-religious-test-shameful-and-not-american-except-federal-law-requires-it-andrew?target=author&tid=900151
You’re reading it correctly. The law states that persecution or the fear of it on the basis of an applicant’s religion may be a factor in claiming refugee status. But it doesn’t state that the religion itself is a factor in determining who is and isn’t allowed to enter the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.