How international terrorists would turn Clinton's "compassionate" immigration proposals against us.
Hillary Clinton clearly shares the views and ideology and goals of open-borders/immigration anarchists.
On October 23, 2016 Breitbart reported, “Hillary Clinton and the United Nations on the Same Open Borders Page.”
That disconcerting report included this excerpt:
In a private, richly-paid speech that Hillary delivered to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013, she said: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future, with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
The section of Hillary’s address to the foreign bankers was confirmed by a release from the hacker site WikiLeaks.
For her part, Hillary claimed that she doesn’t want completely open borders and pointed to the segment of her speech where she mentioned energy and claimed she was only talking about sharing an electric grid across international boundaries.
“If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy,” she said during the last debate. “We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined.”
But this seeming obfuscation doesn’t reflect many of her past claims nor even the policy proposals on her own website.
Calling her plan the “Breaking Every Barrier Agenda,” Hillary says on her website that she wants to “break down all the barriers” to make things fair in the United States. Part of that plan is to “keep immigrant families together” by offering a sort of amnesty to allow illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. by offering a “path to citizenship.”
The Breitbart report went on to note:
In much of this, Hillary Clinton finds common cause with the United Nations, which recently announced its “New Urban Agenda,” a plan that includes unlimited migration across national borders.
Clinton would agree with the U.N.’s plan for unlimited immigration. After all, in another WikiLeaks release, Clinton insisted that putting limits on immigration was “fundamentally un-American.” Clinton made this claim in a speech to Goldman Sachs in October of 2013. In her address, she attacked those who want to put limits on immigration.
“She’s totally in line with the U.N. agenda, on board with everything they do,” economist Patrick Wood recently told WND.com.
“She’s making a pre-announcement here that she’s going to follow the U.N. agenda,” Wood said. “She’s signaling to her fellow globalists that she’s 100 percent on board with their agenda.”
Hillary Clinton willfully and deceptively refuses to make distinctions between aliens who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and illegal aliens who run our borders or violated the terms of their admission, simply referring to all aliens, irrespective of their means of entering the United States as simply being “Immigrants.”
Clinton is not being “Politically Correct” but is making use of Orwellian Newspeak to confound any honest discussion about immigration, castigating anyone who insists on enforcing our immigration laws and securing our borders against those who would enter the United States illegally, claiming that they belong in her “Basket of Deplorables.”
Our immigration laws, our borders and the inspection of people seeking entry into the United States conducted at ports of entry, is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity whose presence in the United States would be detrimental to national security, public safety or the well-being of Americans.
Hillary has promised to provide unknown numbers of illegal aliens who evaded the inspections process at ports of entry with lawful status within 100 days of taking office. She has made no secret that if elected she would expand the use of prosecutorial discretion that has come to pass as “business as usual” for the Obama administration.
She has also promised to increase the number of refugees admitted into the United States by more than 500% even though there have been a succession of statements made by high-ranking members of the Obama administration in which they noted that it is impossible to effectively vet refugees from Syria and perhaps elsewhere in the war-torn Middle East.
The controversy surrounding the admission of refugees is not based on xenophobia but based on very real and understandable concerns that terrorists could embed themselves within the refugees entering the United States in order to carry out deadly terror attacks inside the United States.
This precise concern has been voiced by John Brennan, the Director of the CIA and by James Comey, the Director of the FBI. I addressed concerns voiced by John Brennan in my article, “America the Vulnerable: How Obama's immigration anarchy facilitates the entry and embedding of terrorists” and turned my attention to Comey's dire predictions in my recent article, “Comey Predicts Tsunami of ISIS Terrorists Heading for U.S. - An administration ignores the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.”
I also addressed the nexus between immigration failures and the threat of terrorists gaining entry into the United States and being able to embed themselves as they go about their preparations for deadly terror attacks in my article, “Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe.”
On September 16, 2016 the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the official investigative arm of the United States Congress, issued a report, “Syrian Refugee Admissions and Resettlement in the United States: In Brief” that provides vital insight into the controversial refugee program.
The entire report is certainly worth reviewing, but for starters, consider that the report notes that the only requirement for the president to meet in establishing limits (or no limits) on the number of refugees admitted into the United States is that Cabinet-level representatives “consult” with members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
These two paragraphs are found at the beginning of the summary of the report:
The admission of Syrian refugees to the United States has generated public controversy, with opponents citing concerns chiefly about terrorism and national security. As of August 31, 2016, the United States has admitted 10,740 Syrian refugees in FY2016, meeting the Obama Administration’s fiscal year goal. These new arrivals have been placed in 40 states. From October 1, 2010, through August 31, 2016, the United States admitted a total of 12,623 Syrian refugees.
The admission of refugees to the United States and their resettlement here are authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980. The INA defines a refugee as a person who is outside his or her country and who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In special circumstances, a refugee also may be a person who is within his or her country and who is persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The maximum annual number of refugee admissions (refugee ceiling) and the allocation of these numbers by region of the world are set by the President after consultation by Cabinet-level representatives with members of the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees.
It is also critical to know that although some state governors have attempted to block the resettlement of refugees in their states, the administration has often acted against the wishes of these governors and the residents of those states. Additionally, as the Summary of the CRS report notes in its final paragraph:
Refugees who are accepted for U.S. resettlement are placed in communities throughout the United States. Regardless of where refugees are initially resettled, they are free to relocate at any time. Once admitted to the United States, refugees are eligible for initial resettlement assistance through the DOS Reception and Placement Program and longer-term resettlement assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
In other words, to borrow a phrase from Star Trek, where the resettlement of refugees in towns and cities across the United States against the wishes of local and state officials and citizens of the United States are concerned, “resistance is futile.”
Furthermore, the next president will immediately fill the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the late Justice Scalia. At present the Supreme Court has been evenly divided over the program known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) which is the sequel to the Deferred Action- Childhood Arrival (DACA) Program that essentially parallels the defunct DREAM Act and has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, as old as 31 years of age, who claim to have entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays with temporary lawful status.
The next Supreme Court justice to be appointed will make the pivotal decision where this vital issue is concerned.
The irrefutable bottom line is that international terrorists have weaponized immigration and the policies of the current administration and the policies Clinton would implement in the name of “compassion,” would facilitate the entry and embedding of terrorists and transnational criminal organizations.
However, suicide is not an act of compassion.