Josh Hawley: Joe Biden’s ‘Dangerous’ Vetting Policy for Immigrants Flouts 9/11 Commission’s Recommendations
President Joe Biden’s administration is openly disregarding recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission that tout the importance of properly vetting all immigrants to the United States, in person, before granting their entry with a visa, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says.
Last month, Biden’s State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that foreign nationals applying for H-1B, L-1, and O-1 visas will not be required to sit through an in-person interview at an overseas U.S. consulate to secure their visa.
The decision to further ease vetting requirements for foreign nationals arriving in the U.S. comes as foreign nationals seeking temporary H-2B work visas and F-1 student visas have been exempt from having to undergo in-person interviews with U.S. consulate officials.
Likewise, the Biden administration has brought more than 75,000 Afghans to the U.S. for resettlement since mid-August. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has admitted in congressional testimony that “not all” Afghans are being vetted in person.
In a letter to Mayorkas and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Hawley requests that the administration “immediately rescind these misguided policies and ensure that everyone who enters this country has been adequately vetted.”
“These policies are dangerous and transparent attempts to normalize the Biden Administration’s historic failures during the evacuation from Afghanistan. They should be rescinded immediately,” Hawley writes, noting that the 9/11 Commission urged in-person vetting as a vital tool to stopping would-be terrorists from entering the U.S.
“Our nation’s immigration policies have generally required that immigrants undergo an in-person interview so that government officials can review immigrants’ documents and evaluate the truthfulness of their claims,” Hawley writes:
Indeed, the 9/11 Commission’s report emphasized that several would-be terrorists were thwarted by the in-person interview process. For example, “One potential hijacker was turned back by an immigration inspector as he tried to enter the United States. The inspector relied on intuitive experience to ask questions more than he relied on any objective factor that could be detected by ‘scores’ or a machine. Good people who have worked in such jobs for a long time understand this phenomenon well.” Examples like this illustrate the critical role that in-person interviews play in our immigration programs. [Emphasis added]
…
The first and highest priority of our immigration system is homeland security. It is paramount that we ensure that everyone who enters our country does not pose a threat to public safety. But it appears that the Biden Administration is now doubling down on its failed attempt to adequately vet those evacuated from Afghanistan. These new policies are a transparent ploy to normalize that failed vetting process. [Emphasis added]
While Hawley warns of the policy’s potential for danger, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has praised the lax vetting procedures as necessary for businesses to readily import foreign workers for blue-collar and white-collar American jobs.
“The critical factor going forward will be the extent to which consulates exercise these newly-granted authorities,” the Chamber’s Jon Baselice told the Wall Street Journal. “The more the State Department uses them, the more beneficial they will be to American companies.”
Every year, about 1.2 million foreign nationals are rewarded with green cards to permanently reside in the U.S. In addition, about 1.5 million foreign nationals are given temporary work visas to take jobs in the American economy that would otherwise go to Americans.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Fighting Back Against the Establishment Anti-Semites
Jew hatred is no longer a fringe phenomenon. Out and proud anti-Semites are organized and have the backing of large and prominent corporations and nonprofits. But others are fighting back – and winning.
Steven Emerson reports in The Algemeiner that Jewish Voice for Peace, which I call Jews for Jihad, is now on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Top Ten list of anti-Semites. I do not like, however, the frequent comparison of JVP to kapos, or Jewish concentration camp inmates who collaborated with the Nazis. The kapos almost always had guns to their heads, and often literally; they would have been killed had they not done what they were told. JVP does not have the excuse of duress with regard to its support for the agenda of terrorists who want to make the Middle East Judenrein.
There is indeed an intersectionality between Hamas, Al Qaida, Hezb’allah, and ISIS. All consist of violent extremists who abuse Islam as an excuse to murder those unlike themselves, including those they deem to be the wrong kinds of Muslims. None have any use for women, unless for sex or as punching bags, or for LGBT people. Anybody who supports any of these entities even indirectly therefore supports, regardless of intention, school shootings such as the Ma'a lot massacre and the Beslan massacre, church, synagogue, and mosque shootings, the murder of U.S. Marines in Beirut by a suicide bomber, the murder of three thousand people (including roughly three dozen Muslims including emergency responder Mohammad Salman Hamdani and yes, we will say his name) on 9/11, the Mumbai Massacre, bombings of pizza shops and Seders, hanging LGBT people in Iran and throwing them off rooftops as practiced by ISIS, "honor killings" of women including rape victims, and rocket attacks that would rightfully draw overwhelming retaliation from any nation on earth except apparently Israel. They support the foreign terrorist counterparts of school shooter Adam Lanza, church shooter Dylan Roof, and synagogue shooter Robert Bowers, along with domestic abusers who batter and even kill female family members. This is what you support if you support BDS.
JVP is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. While the Internal Revenue Service will not, contrary to the apparent belief of Hamas stooges Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D), Rashida Tlaib (D), Ayanna Pressley (D), Cori Bush (D), and Jamaal Bowman (D), revoke an organization's tax exemption because somebody on either side does not like it, it will act on efforts to influence elections and (possibly) ultra vires activities outside its charter. Any JVP web pages, or public statements by its people while speaking on the organization's behalf, that support or oppose the election of any political candidate should be reported to the IRS via Form 13909. Ultra vires could meanwhile apply to BDS involvement by various 501(c)(5) unions but it is up to the IRS to make this determination; our role is to bring this to the agency's attention. As a final note, the IRS needs objective evidence it can verify for itself, and not opinions.
The BBC's ex-employee Tala Halawa
The BBC also found itself in the Top Ten due to BBC reporter's Tala Halawa's tweet, “Hitler was right.” The BBC, however, fired Halawa as a result. This nonetheless leads to two questions. The first is whether Halawa and her kind would like to tell Queen Elizabeth II, who served as a mechanic during the Second World War, or veterans or families of the countless veterans who died in the war against that evil—a full quarter of the Royal Air Force pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain did not survive—that Hitler was right. The second is as to why a civilized country like the UK allowed this individual to immigrate in the first place.
Facebook and Twitter
The Wiesenthal Center also cited Facebook and Twitter, both of which banned Donald Trump but tolerated and continue to tolerate anti-Semitic hate speech. Facebook, for example, said Jewish Ritual Murder did not violate its community standards before a massive outcry compelled it to remove the page. I have also seen 9/11 conspiracy theories. If they can ban Trump then they can ban hate material and 9/11 conspiracy theories. If they won't, the best course of action might be to send the links to their advertisers (assuming you haven't blocked the ads as clutter) to show them what their money is supporting. Don't tell them their ad appeared on a hate page or 9/11 conspiracy page if it didn't; just say that you reported the material (if you did) and that it is still online. A screen shot of your complaint could help.
Council on American Muslim Relations (CAIR)
CAIR also makes the list, which underscores the need for Muslims to distance themselves from this group the way Christians distance themselves from the Westboro Baptist Church, Caucasians distance themselves from white supremacist groups, and JVP is to Judaism what bacon-wrapped scallops are to kosher.
Ben & Jerry's: Where Social Responsibility is a Slogan
Last but not least comes Unilever and its subsidiary Ben & Jerry's. The SWC explains, "From the outset, the SWC labeled the boycott a purely political act. It was pushed forward by its activist board Chairwoman, Anuradha Mittal, who has a track record of endorsing the BDS movement and defending Hezb’allah and Hamas terrorist groups."
Ben & Jerry's needs to learn the hard way that there is a genuine shooting war between the civilized world and terrorists such as Hamas, Al Qaida, Hezb’allah, and ISIS, and it has made itself a party to the nonviolent domestic theater of that war. This means we can and should target Ben & Jerry's interests with whatever nonviolent and lawful means are at hand. We cannot state accurately that Ben & Jerry's ice cream is unhealthier than its competitors because all non-diet ice cream contains substantial saturated fat. We cannot say it tastes bad if we have never tried it.
We can however express the informed opinion that Ben & Jerry's is grossly overpriced in relation to store brands. It comes in one-pint containers which are the least economic size, and we can speculate or opine that this is by intention. Ben & Jerry's doesn't let you buy its product in the three-pint containers that are typical of store brands. We can make the rational argument, therefore, that its management wants customers to pay a premium price for the Ben & Jerry's label along with pictures of celebrities like Colin Kaepernick. The Ben & Jerry's label therefore adds cost but no value.
Ben & Jerry's Doggie Desserts meanwhile throw every single word the company has ever said about social responsibility into the nearest dumpster. The company advertises them as "Fairtrade certified" and "non-GMO" but also stipulates, if you look at the ingredient list, the first two items are water and sugar. Water adds no value which means the customer is paying for water rather than actual food. The sugar is even worse because it is as harmful to dogs as it is to humans, if not more so. Ben & Jerry's can blatter about social responsibility all it wants, but its addition of sugar to dog treats tells us everything we need to know about its brand. If Unilever does not like this than its directors need to take action to protect the interests of its investors and employees with regard to not only BDS but also Doggie Desserts.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. He or she is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment