Don't you love it when people who are totally bereft of values or morals lecture our nation on values and morality?
Both Obama and Hillary (who fashioned and carried out Obama’s foreign policy for four years) have stated that immigration is an American “value.” I disagree. Yes, our nation is unlike most others in that it is made up mostly of descendants of immigrants. But immigration is a policy, not a value of the United States.
A value is “the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.” Examples of our values include freedom, liberty, justice and the rule of law.
A policy is “a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.” Our policy toward immigration has always been guided by conditions, including our need for additional workers. Our policy also includes giving preference in immigration to those who have genuinely suffered persecution. The fact that someone comes from a poor nation, or even a dangerous nation, does not constitute persecution.
But the one overriding value that has governed our immigration policy for over two centuries is the protection of the American people. Hillary and Obama seem to have forgotten that the number one job of the US government is the safety and security of our citizens.
OUR citizens. Not the citizens of the rest of the world. It is every nation’s job to take care of its own citizens. This is not a heartless statement. It is a practical statement. Despite its considerable resources, it would be impossible for the US to admit everyone who wants to come here. It is fair to say that the majority of the people on the planet, if given the opportunity, would opt to come to America. We couldn’t possibly provide jobs for all who want to come here – or, in the alternative, to support through welfare all those who cannot find jobs.
But our president – and the woman who aspires to succeed him – seem to believe that anyone who beats on our door and demands entry has some sort of right to come in. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that citizens of other nations have no right, under the Constitution or under federal law, to demand entry to our country.
The only rights they have come from our immigration policy. And those rights are limited to the fair administration of that policy. An example would be that it would be unlawful for the US to discriminate against one religion in favor of another in deciding whom to admit. But that is exactly what Obama and Hillary have done.
Ignoring the pleas of persecuted Christians, they have admitted tens of thousands of Muslims with terrorist ties. (See article link below, “Obama's Asylum Decree Favors Muslims over Christians.”) Christians in Muslim nations are suffering persecution, including rape, murder and enslavement simply because they are Christians. But this administration has turned a deaf ear to them, while admitting Muslims with links to terrorist groups – using the asylum process that is supposed to protect people being persecuted.
This is reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland’s upside down room. It is so bizarre that it almost defies description. They give preference to the persecutors, while denying asylum to the persecuted!
Neither do citizens of other nations have Constitutional rights. The Constitution applies to Americans, and provides protection to Americans. Of course, when foreign nationals are guests of this nation, they are afforded some of the rights of citizens. But to claim, as the Liberals do, that our Constitution protects everyone – including those who wage war against us – is insane. Yet, without the restraint of the Conservatives in Congress, Obama would long ago have given all the terrorists we have apprehended the same rights as US citizens.
If anyone questions that the Constitution does not apply equally to US citizens and foreigners living in the US (legally or illegally), just look at deportation. If a foreign national breaks the law he can be deported. US citizens, natural born or naturalized, cannot. Also, only US citizens can vote (although the Democrats are working very hard to remove the safeguards that insure that only US citizens vote in our elections).
What does US immigration law say about preferences that should be applied to immigration? There are supposed to be five categories, listed below in order of preference. Note that the purposes of these preferences are based on what is best for the United States, not what is best for those who wish to come here.
1) “Persons of extraordinary ability” in the arts, science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers, some multinational executives.
2) Members of the professions holding advanced degrees, or persons of exceptional abilities in the arts, science, or business.
3) Skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees, or “other” workers for unskilled labor that is not temporary or seasonal.
4) Certain “special immigrants” including religious workers, employees of U.S. foreign service posts, former U.S. government employees and other classes of aliens.
5) Persons who will invest $500,000 to $1 million in a job-creating enterprise that employs at least 10 full time U.S workers.
Do the descriptions above apply to the people Obama and Hillary have allowed to flood our nation? Of course not. The people they prefer are all members of the “Future Democrat Voters of America Association.” They are the unskilled people who are most likely to end up on the welfare rolls – and therefore vote for the Democrat Party which provides all the goodies.
The Center for Immigration studies reports that 52% of households headed by legal immigrants receive benefits from one or more welfare programs, while 71% of households those headed by illegal immigrants receive welfare.
So the illegal immigrants favored by Obama and Hillary not only take jobs from US citizens and legal immigrants. They also take money out of the pockets of people who are here legally. I personally know many legal immigrants, and they feel the same way about illegal immigration as I do. In fact, some of them object to it even more strongly than I: “Why did I spend years and thousands of dollars to enter the US legally, only to see illegals benefit from the taxes I pay?”
One of my best friends, a member of the British Commonwealth who lived and worked in America for years, properly left when his work visa expired. He spent tens of thousands of dollars and seven years to legally enter the US. He would have done better to fly to Mexico and walk across our porous border.
Now that we have established some background, let us proceed to the main point of this article. When Hillary and Obama claim that unfettered immigration is an American “value,” they are in reality advocating national suicide. Let me explain.
Obama started talking about taking in 100,000 Syrian immigrants. Hillary has repeatedly stated that she will continue Obama’s “executive actions” on immigration that bypass Congress – and that she will go even further. After he received tremendous resistance from patriots around the nation from both parties he lowered that number to 10,000. But make no mistake. Once he gets his 10,000, the number will go even higher than 100,000.
Who are these “refugees”? A refugee is someone who is “forced to leave their country.” In the past when we would see pictures of refugees they were mainly women with children and the elderly. But, as the picture above shows – and as even liberal news networks like CNN have noted – the great majority of the Syrian “refugees” are military age men. Most have left Syria by choice, not because they were forced out.
I believe many of these are part of what Muslims refer to as “Immigration Jihad.” They have waged this form of warfare against France, mainly by massive immigration but also by a birth rate almost five times that of French nationals. The result is that about 10% of France’s population is Muslim, and the best estimates are that before 2050 they will have taken over the nation. In the article linked below (“The Islamization of France”) Marwan Muhammed is quoted, “Who has the right to say that France in thirty or forty years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?"
If America allows Hillary to extend Obama’s policies for another eight years, journalists may soon be writing similar articles about the United States.
European investigators have already confirmed what I said early on about the Paris Muslim terrorist attacks: That some of the terrorists sneaked into France disguised as Syrian refugees, carrying valid Syrian passports. And ISIS has stated that they intend to use the “refugee crisis” to sneak jihadis into the West, including the US.
Then why do Obama and Hillary insist that no terrorists will arrive with the Syrians? They insist that the government’s “rigorous vetting process” will eliminate the danger. That would be the same vetting process that allowed the fake wife of an American Muslim to enter the US on a “marriage visa.” That “rigorous vetting process” allowed her to enter the US and murder 14 people with her “husband” – even though she had posted jihadi remarks on her social media and advocated terror against the US.
The bottom line: What our President and our former Secretary of State are pushing as an “American value” would be tantamount to national suicide. And suicide is not an American value.
Obama's Asylum Decree Favors Muslims over Christians
The Conservative Case for Immigration Reform
VIDEO: Feds Lose Track of Thousands Who Had Visa Revoked
VIDEO: San Bernardino Terror Probe Exposes Marriage for Visa Racket
Most Asylum Applicants are Interviewed by Phone. Feel Better?