The headline has to make your blood boil. “Obama admin unilaterally changes law to allow immigrants with ‘limited’ terror contact into US.”
The Daily Caller begins its story this way:
The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.
“These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” a DHS official explained to The Daily Caller.
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry signed the exemptions.
DHS contends that the law change is “commonsense” and that immigration procedures will remain the same in other respects.
The headline, in this case, is slightly better than the lead in, in my opinion, if you are looking at the story from the standpoint of wanting to know what is most scandalous compared to what might also be scandalous.
Do you really trust our government to be wise and just in protecting us from terrorists? I don’t.
Bear with me for a moment.
While I am firmly in the “Obama is evil” (Or “Obama is a stupid puppet for evil”) camp, that doesn’t mean every single thing he does is necessarily wrong. There are other parts of our government that are stupid and/or evil besides the White House. It is hard for me to believe the White House would do anything that risked a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that could be blamed on White House policy.
I have no idea how broadly “material support for terrorism” can apply. I’m not going to believe that the changes are “commonsense” because DHS says so, but I am not going to rule it out unless and until I do some of my own independent research.
(I find it interesting that a Commander-in-Chief who insists that any young man killed by a drone counts as a “militant,” not as collateral damage or a civilian casualty, simply because he was a young man at the target, is now being so careful to make distinctions. Why is it “commonsense” to kill lots of people based on rumors and not to bar these people from entering our country?)
While the administration says the rule change is reasonable, former State Department official and current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, Jessica Vaughan questioned the administration’s right to unilaterally change the law.
“[T]here is a very legitimate question as to whether the administration actually has the authority to change the law in this way,” Vaughan wrote in an email to TheDC. “It seems to me that they are announcing that they will be disregarding yet another law written by Congress that they don’t like and are replacing it with their own guidelines, which in this case appear to be extremely broad and vague, and which are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous refugee admissions program.”
The law does give some leeway to admitting refugees. But the language sounds like they are supposed to make personal exceptions, not simply cancel entire provisions that Congress enacted.
If the law was too strict, then why not push for Congress to change it? Apparently, that takes too much time or expends too much political capital that is being saved for (savor the irony) “immigration reform.”
Whether or not we are being put in danger by outsiders, the dictator inside our White House is a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Republic.