Horowitz: Where is Congress? Why are they not helping Trump on immigration?
Mar 15, 2017 by Ann Corcoran
That’s been my question too!
Here at Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz asks why Congress is not backing the President’s right to control immigration to America and determine how many refugees we admit and from where they originate.
Instead Congress is entangled in one major mess over Obamacare. And, frankly, although important, repeal of Obamacare did not motivate voters to support Trump in the way immigration restriction did.
Here is Horowitz (emphasis mine):
Where is Congress?
Look at the House GOP’s agenda since January. It has been devoid of any substance. What other majority party with control of the White House has failed to act on a single significant issue in its first 100 days? Why are they not passing bills defending Trump’s executive order, and why are they not stripping the courts of jurisdiction over immigration?
Trump’s only major accomplishment thus far was the refugee moratorium and that is hanging by a thread thanks to the erroneous outsourcing of legislative and executive authority to the courts. It’s time for Trump to work with House conservatives to bolster his immigration agenda against the courts, instead of fighting conservatives to enshrine Obamacare into law.
Trump must demand that Congress back his immigration order in the April budget bill by defunding the refugee resettlement program and the issuance of any visas from the six countries on his list. House conservatives should also work with Trump to defund Obama’s executive amnesty.
Instead of threatening conservatives with primary challenges if they fail to betray Trump’s own election mandate, why not threaten to primary the RINOs for not backing his immigration agenda? Or is it easier to go after conservatives because they are politically expendable?
Read the whole column here and see how “rogue” judges are taking control of the immigration issue in America.
For more on Congress, see my tag ‘Where is Congress‘ especially on the appropriations issue!
Pew: Almost 2,500 refugees from travel-restricted countries entered US since Trump took office
Mar 15, 2017 by Ann Corcoran
Pew Research has done a handy little summary of where we stand with refugees admitted this fiscal year, but most importantly they made a useful graph of how many entered from travel-restricted countries since the first week of December, through Trump’s inauguration and up to last Friday.
There is nothing we haven’t already been talking about as we reported also from Wrapsnet over recent weeks and months, but they put it in a neat little package for your review on the eve of the 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement.
A total of 2,466 refugees from six countries under new travel restrictions – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – have resettled in the United States since Donald Trump became president, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. State Department data. The number of refugees from the six travel-restricted countries represents 32% of all refugees who have entered the U.S. since Trump took office.
Including refugees from countries with no travel restrictions, a total of 7,594 refugees have entered the U.S. during Trump’s first seven weeks in office (Jan. 21 to March 10). Of these refugees, 3,410 are Muslims (45%) and 3,292 are Christians (43%), with other religions or the religiously unaffiliated accounting for the rest.
So far in fiscal 2017 (which began Oct. 1, 2016), refugees who hold citizenship from the six restricted countries have accounted for more than a third (34%) of 37,716 refugee admissions.
President Trump has set the ceiling for the entire 2017 fiscal year at 50,000, a number we explained here is not that low!
Endnote: It is amusing to me to see research/articles like this because for years and years (I started writing RRW in 2007) no one paid any attention to the numbers, religions and ethnicities of refugees entering the US. It is nice to see so many news outlets educating the public!
Sterling Heights mosque could be delayed further as local community files its own lawsuit
Mar 15, 2017 by Ann Corcoran
For background see our earlier post, here. And, take note that the Obama US Attorney who sided with the mosque builders was one of those asked to resign by President Trump a few days ago.
From Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily (Christians who escaped persecution in Iraq are fighting back!):
The saga of the 21,000-square-foot mega-mosque in Sterling Heights, Michigan, is not over yet.
The mayor and city council voted Feb. 21 to settle a lawsuit by a Shiite Muslim group and allow it to build a mosque in a residential neighborhood populated largely by Chaldean Christian refugees who escaped Islamic persecution in Iraq.
A companion suit against the city by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice alleging the city had denied the mosque a permit based on “anti-Muslim” sentiments in the community was also settled at the Feb. 21 meeting, paving the way for the mosque to start construction.
But the counter-lawsuit filed Monday argues that city officials were actually favoring the Shiite Muslims of neighboring Madison Heights while ignoring the wishes of its own citizens who were overwhelmingly against the mosque.
If built, the American Islamic Community Center, or AICC, will become the third mosque in Sterling Heights.
Second DOJ-imposed win for Muslims in less than year
It was the second bitter mosque battle in Southeastern Michigan in less than a year.
Obama’s DOJ forced a madrassa on Pittsfield Township, near Ann Arbor, and that town had to pay out $1.7 million to the mosque while sending township employees to be trained on how not to discriminate against Muslims.
After the contentious Feb. 21 meeting in Sterling Heights in which the mayor ordered police to empty the city-hall chambers before the council took a vote on the mosque deal, WND reported that the Chaldean Christians were upset and talking about a counter-lawsuit.
On Monday, they acted. They had Ann Arbor-based American Freedom Law Center, or AFLC, file a civil rights suit on their behalf against the city and Mayor Michael C. Taylor, alleging violations of state and federal law.
“The mayor and the corrupted personal interests behind him have outraged a community which is comprised of the largest minority Assyrian/Chaldean Christians from Iraq,” said Nahren Anweya, spokeswoman for the Chaldean and Assyrian Christians in Sterling Heights. “This minority group consists of more than four generations of refugees and genocide victims under radical Islam.”
CAIR crows and threatens:
When the city agreed to settle the suit and allow the mosque to be built, the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, said the victory for the mosque should teach Michigan cities a lesson.
“We hope that this settlement, along with last year’s settlement in Pittsfield Township regarding a previously blocked Islamic school project, sends a strong message to city governments in Michigan seeking to deny zoning of religious institutions simply because they are led by Muslims,” said CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid.
An attorney for the AICC mosque, Azzam Elder, threatened to “monitor” local residents he felt were Islamophobic.
“Moving forward, we’re very concerned about some of what you’ve seen at the public hearings with some of the residents,” Elder told the Detroit News. “We’ll be monitoring what we feel (could be) potential hate groups.”
Hohmann’s story is very thorough. I have only snipped a small portion of it, go here to learn more.
Besides the lawsuit, I’m thinking that the citizens there might follow the Rutland model and work very hard to remove (at the ballot box!) the elected officials who caved!
One of the great and lasting legacies of a naive federal refugee program is that the US State Department and its contractors have placed Middle Eastern groups who have been in conflict for centuries in close proximity to each other in American cities assuming, we can only presume, that their religious conflicts will melt away in the great (mythical?) American melting pot.
Yes we have a melting pot, the problem is the Jihadist Rapefugees do not want to melt…they want to takeover.
Days after clashes in which migrants and guards were shot and stabbed, France announced that the rapidly growing camp near the port of Dunkirk must be dismantled “as soon as possible”.
Speaking of security concerns and “unacceptable” behaviour by migrants living at the ‘Grande-Synthe’ camp, Bruno Le Roux said France “cannot let things go on like this”.
“The question is no longer today about merely restoring public order. It is about the progressive dismantling of the camp, which must begin as soon as possible”, he said on Wednesday.
Speaking at a Senate committee, the minister also made mention of “unacceptable” behaviour by migrants who prevent other residents at the camp from using its facilities such as showers, demanding “ransoms” and money for their use.
Mr Le Roux also highlighted rising violence at the site, which has seen regular clashes in recent weeks, including on Friday when two people were shot and two stabbed
The camp’s population has more than doubled since the destruction of the ‘jungle’ camp at Calais in October, and is now thought to be holding around 1,500 migrants who are hoping to break into Britain.
Noting that migrant flows are continuing to arrive at the site, the minister warned that the camp, which was built by pro-mass migration, Soros-funded NGO Doctors Without Borders, had become “itself a factor” in drawing migrants who want to illegally cross to the UK.
The Telegraph reports that the Interior Minister’s announcement came as a surprise to Dunkirk mayor Damien Carème, who pushed for the camp to be built to meet international humanitarian standards.
“This camp is more necessary than ever as if there is one today, it’s because the humanitarian response wasn’t sufficient.”
“There is no solution. If we’ve reached 1,500 people in the camp, it’s because there aren’t enough places in welcome and orientation centres. It’s plain to see we have played an indispensable role and I don’t see how to stop this role”, the Green politician said.
In February, the head of Britain’s Immigration Services union told the BBC that huge holes in Britain’s border controls act as an incentive to people traffickers, because the majority of migrants are allowed to stay if they “get on the back of a lorry and get to the UK”.
Lucy Moreton also revealed lack of resources means that migrants found to have entered the country illegally are often told to make their own way to a processing centre more than 50 miles away, and that authorities “have no way of knowing” who newcomers really are.