Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ And ‘Not American’… Except That Federal Law Requires It (Andrew C. McCarthy)

Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ And ‘Not American’… Except That Federal Law Requires It – Andrew C. McCarthy


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 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).’

To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. Obama prefers not to dwell on the distinction between the jihadist treatment of Muslims, on the one hand, and of Christians, Jews and other religions, on the other hand, because he – like much of Washington – inhabits a world in which jihadists are not Islamic and, therefore, have no common ground with other Muslims… notwithstanding that jihadists emerge whenever and wherever a population of sharia-adherent Muslims reaches critical mass. But this is sheer fantasy. While there is no question that ISIS will kill and persecute Muslims whom it regards as apostates for refusing to adhere to its construction of Islam, it is abject idiocy to suggest that Muslims are facing the same ubiquity and intensity of persecution as Christians.

And it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American,” let alone “shameful.” How can something American law requires be “not American”? And how can a national expression of compassion expressly aimed at alleviating persecution be “shameful”?



You cannot help laughing at people this detached from reality

Wyblog has the latest on the low brain power voters

College students in New Jersey voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. And now they’re shocked to discover that his signature legislative achievement hits them where it hurts, in the pocketbook.

It was a health care shocker for college students in New Jersey who found out that they can’t buy low-cost health insurance at their schools because of the Affordable Care Act.

Now, they are at the risk of being without insurance, CBS 2’s Christine Sloan reported.

Many students have found themselves in health care limbo this semester. Community colleges in New Jersey used to offer cheap health insurance for hundreds of dollars a year but they had to drop the practice because Federal Law prohibits the sale of bare bones policies.

Under the Affordable Care Act it would have cost more to run the program and the cost would have been passed on to students.

“More than a thousand dollars per student and that is dramatically different,” said Union County Community College, Vice President of Administrative Services, Stephen Nacco said.

Students like Carlos Arias depended on the low-cost health care.

“I’m kind of healthy right now but I am worried that when something happens I’m not going to go to the hospital,” Arias said.

If only these students studied a bit of history, and possessed any common sense, or read THIS BLOG! Ed told you, I told you………..

Congress FINALLY reaches deal that will address spending!

Final… Oh wait, my bad, they actually only voted to ban the word “lunatic” from federal law. For a minute there I bet you thought these worthless shit bags were actually going to do their freaking jobs!

As the nation staggers through hard times toward total ruin as a result of the toll taken on the economy by Big Government, it’s nice to see our rulers finally addressing the serious issues that threaten us:

The word “lunatic” will be stricken from federal law under legislation that passed the House on Wednesday and is headed to President Obama for his signature.

The Congressional action is the latest effort to remove language from federal law that has become outdated or is considered demeaning.

Words are especially “demeaning” when they hit too close to home.

Only one Rep voted against the measure.

The lone “no” vote was cast by Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, who said in a statement that “not only should we not eliminate the word ‘lunatic’ from federal law when the most pressing issue of the day is saving our country from bankruptcy, we should use the word to describe the people who want to continue with business as usual in Washington.”

So, in 225 years, America has gone from Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Mason, etc. to THIS! One man, ONE in the entire House gets it? And the Republicans have a big majority in the House! Dear God we are so screwed!

The Congressional action is the latest effort to remove language from federal law that has become outdated or is considered demeaning. Two years ago Congress took out references to “mental retardation.”

Priorities people! Where are our priorities?