Breibart News November 19, 2015 by Julia Hahn
House Speaker is ruling out making any cuts to Muslim immigration.
In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Ryan declared that considering an applicant’s religion would not be “appropriate” and would be fundamentally un-American— insisting “that’s not who we are.”
In his questioning of Ryan, Hannity cited populist thought leader Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who chairs the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and whose office has put out a series of analyses in recent months detailing the enormous scope of immigration into the United States in general, as well as the vast scope Muslim immigration in particular.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has accepted more than 2 million immigrants, refugees and asylees from predominantly Muslim nations. Sessions has repeatedly called on Congress to reduce the number of green cards issued, including in an op-ed last week one day prior to the Paris attack.
“Eighty-three percent of voters want to see projected immigration growth reduced — which means Congress must take up and pass a bill to reduce the number of visas handed out each year,” Sessions wrote. “Congress should immediately begin to move popular immigration reforms that would be backed by overwhelming majorities of voters, including… blocking the president from using federal funds to unilaterally expand the costly refugee resettlement program.”
In his question, Hannity asked Ryan point blank about some of Sessions’ recent analysis. Hannity said:
We have resettled 1.5 million Muslim migrants in the United States. Senator Sessions had put out a piece where all these people that we took in to the country then come here and then get involved in terror activity. I put it up on my website, I urge you to take a look at it. And we take in 100,000 Muslim immigrants into the United States every year. Do we have to think about somebody who grows up under Sharia— believes that women can’t drive, can’t be seen in public without a male relative, four eyewitnesses for rape— do we have a clash of cultures we’ve got to consider? How do we know if they want to assimilate? How do we know if they want to bring terror into the United States? How will we ascertain that?
Ryan replied:
Well, first of all, I don’t think a religious test is appropriate. That’s not who we are. We believe in the first amendment of religious freedom. And I don’t think it’s the appropriate test because anybody can come under the guise of something else. It’s not hard for a person to claim that they are something that they’re not— like a Christian or something like that to get into the country. That is why we are calling for a security test. I think the test that maters is a security test because anybody can try and infiltrate this country by posing as something that they are not, so I don’t think that’s the proper test. I think a security test is the proper test.
(Rant: A lot more at the link. Once again the Republicans fold led by Rhino dipshits like Paul Ryan. They are not going to even pass a bill that would put us on record to opposing massive migration of terrorists from the Middle East. What a moron. It is a no brainer. You pass the bill. Let Obama veto it. Or let the Senators on the bubble vote to sustain a filibuster. Then we know who is in favor of letting terrorists into the country. Because they will come in. They will kill Americans. Then they will turn around and say how could we know. Bullshit.)
16 comments:
Until ISIS is "contained" - NO refugees to America. We know some fraction of the refugee population, - no matter how small, will contain terror cells. Do you think ISIS sleeps? Takes a day off? They are planning an attack on Americans on our soil. Again.
Religious tests are creepy and unworkable-- Even though I prefer we save the Christians. The Christians are, for the most part, the people being slaughtered. WE cannot perform a religious test. We need to say no to all of ME refugees.
In any case, we can help the refugees on their own continent. They don't need to come here. President pissy petulant wants to pound his fists on the table and shove his way down our throats. (again) After one year - he's gone. The next president will have to handle the inevitable terror attack(s)
...with any luck, a corrupt dictator with good rhetorical skills and billions of dollars.
What the hell is a "security test?" What is that, a magic bullet? Ryan thinks if he keeps repeating security test security test we'll all go back to sleep.
"Hey Mohammed, do you come in peace?"
"Yes infidel, I come to make piece, Allahu Akbar."
"Great, come on in."
My prediction is a muslim attack by Christmas.
They are going to rigorously strenuously submit refugees to rigorous and strenuous vetting. How? Don't you worry. & stop asking!
The media plan is to blame republicans after some of the refugees disappear. After eventual terror attacks, this will all be swept into the memory schmemory hole.
Well, now we know.
Time to start working on primarying him and all the other Whigs.
ricpic said...
My prediction is a muslim attack by Christmas.
That's what I'm thinking.
New Year's at the latest.
What if the possibility of finding someone who can lead from as far to the right as you want him just doesn't exist?
What if America has a political system that simply wasn't designed to make governing from the extremes all that likely?
Questions, questions.
Balls, if 2% of the refugees are not refugees but terrorists in disguise - is that OK with you?
Not ok. But if you want to get a position that seems that extreme (not that I'm saying it is, but that it seems that way) through then you have to persuade more Americans to that side. You're already doing a decent job of getting them there, and I think Ryan (from what I heard) was doing his part. I haven't read the whole thing, but if he can pivot from an untenable religious-based prohibition to a "test" that's just as effective, then all's well that ends well.
Be like Bernie and ask why the fuck the 20-umpteen Arabian states aren't taking in any? Pound that point home until Europe is utterly demoralized at their lapdog willingness to keep sopping up the errors of their Mid-East friends.
I was watching a documentary last month on the history of Spain from the Moorish conquest to the reconquista. The really interesting thing is how Spain changed religions back and then forth. It wasn't through depopulation, repopulation, depopulation and then repopulating with Christians again. It was because the people were just like, "Oh well. What the hell. Let's be Muslims! Wait. It's six hundred years later and the monarchy's returned. Ok, let's go be Christians again! Yeay!"
You have to realize how malleable Europe is w/r/t religion. They're so bent on "social cohesion" that just going along is the name of the game almost without any regard for the ideology. Nothing makes me more irritated than when I watch a guy like Douglas Murray on the BBC debating the clueless moderator on whether or not terrorists have actual religious inspiration for what they do, and his interlocutor consists of a lily white newly converted Anglo-Celtic broad in a headscarf who insists on how "un-Islamic" the terrorists are. And then they put up a cockney accented Pakistani guy who cheers on ISIS and "invites" the entire panel to Islam. They dismiss him off as a "lunatic" and pretend that written texts and the example set by warlord-prophet misses the point.
I shake my head in disbelief and thank God for being born in America.
And another thing, they need a second amendment, too. I'm now completely convinced that the only thing keeping the 1st amendment intact is a 2nd to back it up. You can see how this plays out all across Europe (at least esp. in Britain) when you realize the lengths they go to so as to police speech and "defuse tensions". Nothing promotes polite assimilation better than a native-born community quite willing to blow you away if you get too violent. (And lower, more manageable immigration rates). The Muzzies seem to know this and respond accordingly.
Be like Bernie and ask why the fuck the 20-umpteen Arabian states aren't taking in any?
it's a valid expectation. Why can't the rich oil nations in the ME take them in?
Actually - I've said as much. Lots of people on the R-side have been saying the same thing.
Obama frames it with his strawman argument - 'oh your so horrible - you stupid Americans who disagree with me.' Hannity radio was playing Obama's rhetoric all day long over and over. Obama sounds like a petulant child. He's the fool.
your = you're
While the Obama quote I heard ("widows and children") sounds like it's in-bounds, I do disagree. The newest comparison to WWII refugees seems to disprove him. America had strict quotas, strict preferences within those quotas for Europeans, stricter quotas even still for favoring Northern Europeans over Italians, etc., and Obama has the balls to go on about "this is what we are." It's disingenuous. You can say you disagreed with the early 20th century quotas that kept out millions to die in Europe (due to mass murder not fleeing war) but that sure as hell WAS who we were. And Jews didn't even holy books to venerate naming religious communities all around them to dominate or terrorize. Nor did they ever carry anything like that out. But the WaPo is still sticking to that stupid line today. What a swell bunch.
Obama doesn't try to appeal -- he mocks. "windows and children" is bull. it's mostly men. Is that presidential? NO.
Obama is inviting everyone in, illegally. The idea that, even after our intelligence officials are saying outright 'we do not have a way to track these people. They don't come with paperwork or data. Obama is mocking us for our concern. it's gross.
If Obama knows it's bull and says it anyway, then that's definitely unpresidential.
I dont think simply federalizing human trafficking makes it humanitarian. Splitting up populations and transporting remnants to the 4 corners of the earth seems barbaric. Why not provide them the means to defend their homeland?
Post a Comment