The Patriot Post® · Libs to Trump: Keep Your Pause Off Us!
There are plenty of differences between Barack Obama and Donald Trump — but believe it or not, their immigration caps aren’t one of them. While the Left hits the panic button on the president’s executive order halting entry to the U.S. for some visas and refugees, the reality is that the Republican’s immigration thresholds aren’t that much different than his predecessor’s.
David French blew the lid off of that hypocrisy in National Review, where he pointed out that after the “immigration pause” ends, Trump would be limiting refugees to 50,000 a year, “which is roughly the same as President Obama’s admissions in 2011 and 2012, and not far below the 70,000 per year cap in place from 2013 and 2015.” Of course, that’s just one of the lies cranking out of the Left’s misinformation machine on the president’s EO. Here’s what it does do: suspends the refugee resettlement into the U.S. for four months (and from Syria indefinitely). It also puts a temporary hold on anyone entering the country from Iraq (which President Obama also did!), Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. As Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) pointed out in a great interview on NPR (listen here), it’s a matter of common sense. “We have to carefully review any persons who are entering our country from areas that we know to be terrorist strongholds … [and] I don’t think the commander in chief felt he had the luxury to wait on this.”
Here’s what it doesn’t do: ban Muslims from entering America. In fact, as Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner pointed out, the largest Muslim-majority countries in the world aren’t even named in the order. It also doesn’t violate the law. While critics race to stop the “immigration pause” in court, the reality is that the president has the authority to take these steps, especially in the interest of American security. As former CIA Director John Brennan testified, ISIS “is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.” Obviously, very few immigrants are a threat to American security. But it only takes one refugee with evil intentions to change our country forever.
And, unfortunately, the Obama administration’s lax attitude toward immigration law has been another way for our enemies to exploit us. In fact, that’s one of the starker contrasts between the 44th and 45th presidents. While Obama may have capped certain refugees, he showed unusual hospitality to populations who pose the greatest threats to the U.S. President Trump is determined to change that, putting the brakes on the immigration process until a better, safer vetting protocol is in place. But since Trump issued the order in late January, liberals have been in hyper-drive trying to discredit the idea, which — ironically — was based on security reviews conducted by President Obama’s own team. Unfortunately, the Left just can’t seem to wrap its mind around Trump’s protective measures when its only national security doctrine seems to be “inclusivity” and “sensitivity.”
That’s also the cry of the religious Left. Since Syrian refugees started streaming into America, some liberals tried to use Scripture to suggest we should let anyone and everyone into the country. Of course, these are the same people who claim we’re trying to impose a theocracy when we advocate for laws that uphold basic and historical standards of morality. Still, there seems to be a growing chorus of believers who justify these open-door policies on immigration with the Bible’s command to “love the stranger.”
I agree — we should love the stranger, but there’s no suggestion in the Bible that we should jeopardize our own security and well-being to do so. There are plenty of charitable solutions for refugees that don’t involve bringing them to America and letting them abuse our hospitality for ill-intent. Our nation can be caring and benevolent without unnecessarily endangering our own people. What many forget is that loving the stranger is just one component of Scripture’s teaching. God also commands foreigners to assimilate and keep the laws of the land. As Exodus 12:49 makes clear: “There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” The United States’ goal should be a safe haven for everyone. And that means protecting America’s welcoming reputation without sacrificing our systems and safety.
For more on this important debate, check out my interview from [yesterday] on Fox Business’s “Varney & Company.”
Originally published here.
Girl Power on Girls’ Showers
If you think a partnership between PETA and the red-meat eaters of America would be odd, try this one on for size: the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) and the Family Policy Alliance. That’s right. If there’s one thing President Obama’s outrageous bathroom mandate has accomplished, it’s bringing together all kinds of unlikely viewpoints. Feminists and Christians aren’t exactly natural allies, but when it comes to protecting the safety and privacy of America’s girls, count them as comrades. The idea that men and boys should be able to walk right into girls’ locker rooms, showers and restrooms is so offensive that the two sides are teaming up to topple the Obama policy.
On Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Show,” WoLF Board Chair Kara Dansky explained how objectionable the idea is. “We think that ‘women and girls’ are a meaningful category worthy of civil rights protection. If we define sex, under Title IX, to mean gender identity, what we’re essentially says is that ‘woman and girl’ can mean anyone who self-identifies as ‘woman and girl,’ which makes the category ‘women and girls’ meaningless.” Then, in a bit of irony, Dansky went on to talk about the unreasonable labels LGBT activists put on them for defecting. “We’re called transphobic bigots because we ask questions about gender identity,” Dansky said. “We’re asking questions and we’re standing up for women and girls. And that seems to be not permitted.” Welcome to our world! Without the facts and biology stacked against them, liberals have to resort to distractions and name-calling.
In this case, neither seem to be working. While the NCAA is threatening to pull six years of championship events out of North Carolina for keeping facilities gender-specific, Houston leaders could only shake their heads. In Space City, the local economy did just fine after its referendum to protect privacy and safety in local facilities — $350 million okay, to be exact. As politically motivated as the NCAA’s push may be, it’s equally short-sighted. Even PolitiFact thinks as much, giving the bogus claim that Texas businesses would lose revenue over Sen. Lois Kolkhorst’s statewide Privacy Act a “MOSTLY FALSE” rating.
It’s time to stop what Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (R) calls “fearmongering” and get back to the real business of protecting Lone Star women and children. And voters agree. According to a new poll, 77 percent of people surveyed support S.B. 6 even if it costs the state a major sporting event. That’s a sentiment that crossed age and racial lines. Losing a bid to host a game is nothing compared to even one child losing their innocence. If you live in Texas, let your state leaders know you agree!
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.