Chris Christie’s Bizarre Love Affair With Radical Islam

/0 Comments/in , /by

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s nomination of Sohail Mohammed to be a state judge shows the governor’s tin ear for radical Islam. Not only did he appoint a longtime mouthpiece for radical Islamists to be a judge, but Christie has also turned a blind eye to the activities of one of Mohammed’s clients – radical imam Mohammed Qatanani, head of one of New Jersey’s largest mosques.

Qatanani has a history of Hamas support and was related by marriage to a leading Hamas operative in the West Bank. This fall, Qatanani will return to a New Jersey immigration court, where the Department of Homeland Security is fighting to have him deported. In his initial application for a green card filed in 1999, government lawyers say Qatanani failed to disclose a conviction in an Israeli military court for being a Hamas member and providing support to the terrorist group.

Oddly, Christie – a Republican who was then the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey – sided with Qatanani against DHS, allowing a top lieutenant, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness at Qatanani’s first immigration trial, and publicly embracing the imam at a Ramadan breakfast at his mosque. Christie later appointed McKenna as New Jersey’s head of homeland security..

As general counsel to the American Muslim Union (AMU), Mohammed often represented clients subject to government allegations concerning terrorists. The AMU often is highly critical of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.

One online newsletter even included a claim that a “Zionist commando orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks” and shows support for a “Rabbi” from the extremist Jewish organization Neturei Karta, which denies the right of Israel to exist and supports its dismantling.

The AMU has criticized some of the response to the September 11 attacks, especially regarding the PATRIOT Act. Explaining why the AMU had become more politically active and was holding voter registration drives, one employee of AMU said: “Right now, the Patriot Act—basically it’s unconstitutional…I believe it targets Muslims unfairly. If someone’s going to come out with a bill that’s discriminatory, I’m not going to vote for them.”

As general counsel, Mohammed bucked several high-profile terror support prosecutions. After authorities shut down the Holy Land Foundation near Dallas for alleged Hamas support in 2001, Mohammed told the Record of Bergen County, N.J., that the government was unjustly singling out Muslim organizations.”People see this as another example of how heavy-handed the administration has been thus far,” he said.

The move was newsworthy in New Jersey because an HLF officer, Mohammed El-Mezain, preceded Qatanani as imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County. El-Mezain and four fellow defendants were convicted of illegally routing millions of dollars to Hamas in 2008.

During a lecture given a year earlier, Qatanani included the HLF defendants in a prayer for relief from oppression. “Oh Allah assist our brothers and sisters in Philistine [Palestine], and Iraq and Chechnya,” he said. “O Allah remove occupation and oppression and o Allah improve the matters of our community … to assist our brothers and sisters in the Holy Land Foundation, ask oh Allah … to assist them and to remove the difficulty that they have been inflicted with all of the brothers and sisters in this country, oh Allah to prove them non-guilty.”

Additionally, Mohammed publicly defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian following a 2003 indictment which alleged he was a North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Appearing on MSNBC, Mohammed criticized the fact that it took years of investigation before the indictment was issued. “It all points out to the distrust that the Muslim community have, which is this is nothing but a witch-hunt,” he said. “This is nothing but a politically motivated indictment, and all you are waiting for is the right opportunity to indict the person, the climate is right.”

Al-Arian, a longtime professor at the University of South Florida, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ. In sentencing him, a federal judge said the evidence made it clear he was “a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. You were on the board of directors and an officer, the secretary. Directors control the actions of an organization, even the PIJ; and you were an active leader.”

In addition to defending accused terrorists, Mohammed is defensive about acknowledging their motivations. He was critical of a case brought by Christie’s office when the governor was U.S. Attorney. The Fort Dix defendants were accused, and later convicted, of plotting a mass casualty attack on the New Jersey military base as an act of jihad. Dix. Mohammed objected to the use of the phrase “Islamic militants” in the government’s case.

“Don’t equate actions with religion,” he said.

Then there’s this exchange with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews about two months after 9/11. Mohammed bristled at Matthews’ reference to the “Islamic terrorists” behind the attacks:

MATTHEWS: What else do they have in common, the people who blew up the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon? What else do they have in common?

MOHAMMED: All male.

MATTHEWS: Keep going.

If you’re a policeman, you have got to use your brain here. What else do they have in common? They all come from Middle Eastern countries. They’re all Islamic zealots.

MOHAMMED: Well, you cannot call them — and anybody who professes or who says that he believes in a religion, a peaceful religion, cannot take the banner and crash a plane, and you blame every single person who follows this faith.

Even while fighting to stay in the country, Mohammed’s former client, Qatanani, has participated in radical rallies and programs. During a rally in New York last March, demonstrators repeated a chant that subtly calls for Israel’s destruction. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

It’s a familiar chant at pro-Palestinian rallies. A Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea would cover all of what is now the state of Israel. In his remarks, which came after the chant, Qatanani expressed his agreement.

“Palestine will be free one day,” he told the rally. “And we will see it very soon by your actions, by your standing for justice, justice, freedom, the liberation of the land will be very soon.”

Just before the 2008 ruling in Qatanani’s favor was issued, and while he was still the U.S. attorney, Christie praised the imam at a Ramadan breakfast held at Qatanani’s mosque. “My view is he’s always had a very good relationship with us, and he’s a man of great goodwill,” Christie said, reportedly embracing him.

The U.S. Attorney’s office was not a party to the case, Christie said, and his praise for Qatanani was not meant to be “a commentary on the dispute between the imam and DHS” but after 9/11, he found the imam “to be a constructive force in attempting to strengthen our relations with that community.”

During the original immigration trial, one of Christie’s assistant U.S. attorneys, Charles B. McKenna, testified as a character witness for Qatanani. In his ruling, Immigration Court Judge Alberto Riefkohl said he was particularly impressed by “law enforcement officers that took time from their respective duties to appear before the Court” on Qatanani’s behalf. Other supportive testimony came from the sheriffs of Bergen and Passaic counties and U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-Paterson.

Qatanani’s visa application was prepared by Mohammed’s law firm and Mohammed sat with his client during an interview with DHS and FBI agents in 2005, immigration court records show. “QATANANI advised that he trusted his attorney, Sohail Mohammed, so he signed the I-485 form.”

During the interview, Qatanani admitted having spent three months in an Israeli prison but he did not disclose that on his application for permanent residency. He also admitted being in the Muslim Brotherhood, but said he left the group in 1991 when working and going to school while raising a family left him with no time.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a global religious and political movement that seeks to spread Islamic law. In a 1991 document, a member of the American branch explained that the group’s goal was ” a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

An immigration judge ruled in Qatanani’s favor in September 2008, saying the Israeli government documents and the testimony of U.S. law enforcement officials were not credible. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals sent the case back to the original judge in October 2009, finding that Judge Riefkohl committed a series of errors in downplaying the Israeli evidence and the agents’ testimonies. The appellate panel found that the Israeli evidence was “properly authenticated and that there was no adequate basis for the Immigration Judge to give them ‘very low evidentiary weight.”

The judge’s assessment of the law enforcement agents’ testimony was “clearly erroneous,” the board’s decision said.

In his original immigration trial, government attorneys presented Israeli court records showing Qatanani was convicted by an Israeli court in 1993 of being a Hamas member and of providing support to the terrorist group.

When he applied for a new visa, Qatanani marked “no” to questions about whether he had ever been “arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance” in other countries.

“An alien who has provided material support to a terrorist organization is inadmissible to the United States,” government attorneys wrote. “Therefore, by answering the questions in the negative, the respondent cut-off a line of inquiry relevant to his eligibility for adjustment of status.”

Immigration officials have successfully used similar misrepresentations to deport people tied to terrorist groups.

Christie’s support for Islamists such as Qatanani and Mohammed betrays either naivete or calculation. Either is troubling. (For more from the author of “Chris Christie’s Bizarre Love Affair With Radical Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan Caving on Gun Vote Is Exactly Why We Lose

/0 Comments/in , /by

Did you ever hear the saying “Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?” Well that is what Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., did yesterday when he announced the House would vote next week on a measure that would prohibit people on terrorism watch lists from purchasing firearms.

The Hill is reporting that Ryan caved to the demands of Democrats and he is scheduling a gun control vote on the House floor when they come back from recess next week.

In a conference call Thursday, Ryan told rank-and-file Republicans that the House will take up a terrorism package that will include measures to disrupt radicalization and recruitment, as well as a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, according to a source on the call.

Matt Kibbe of Conservative Review explains here why No Fly, No Buy = No Justice.

I recently wrote, “GOP Leadership: The Last Line of Defense Against Gun Control.” Although this will probably be an example of the House passing a bill that can’t pass the Senate because Senate Democrats will filibuster for more gun control, the political ramifications of repeatedly making your caucus walk the plank on damaging gun control bills is significant. Passing Democrat-lite bills always backfires and never provides real cover for members who will get hammered with 30-second ads on terrorists with guns.

The Senate Democrats have outsmarted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., by baiting him into having the Senate vote on six amendments to a bill that deals with this same issue. Now, Speaker Ryan has fallen into the same trap.

If the House runs with a proposal like the Cornyn Amendment or the Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Amendment that provided due process for people only after they are barred from purchasing a gun, they would be in violation of the Bill of Rights. First of all, the so-called “No Fly” list and “Terrorist Watch Lists” are mere lists compiled by the federal government that end up placing many people on these governments lists who don’t belong there.

Republicans should be pushing ideas that would look at immigration from nations that are incubators of terrorism, more so than focusing on gun control ideas that would not have prevented the Orlando shootings. Or they should simply not schedule politically damaging votes that will lead to legislation being passed that liberals will argue is a good first step, but not far enough to make the Second Amendment a dead letter of constitutional law.

(For more from the author of “Paul Ryan Caving on Gun Vote Is Exactly Why We Lose” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Bills That Can Stop Obama’s Transgender Makeover of the Military

/0 Comments/in , /by

The President and the Secretary of Defense have a message for our ruthless enemies. No, it’s not that they will lift the egregious and immoral rules of engagement on our special operators that are getting US troops killed and preserving our enemies. It is that those who live a transgender lifestyle will now be serving openly in the military. There is no word yet on those who live a trans-human lifestyle or suffer from other unfortunate hallucinatory illnesses that are otherwise medically unfit to serve.

What is Congress’ responsibility?

Congress must say no immediately. Members of Congress have three legislative vehicles viewed as must-pass that can easily be used to overturn this unilateral action: the defense authorization bill currently in conference committee, the defense appropriations bill, and the intelligence reauthorization bill.

If Congress can’t stop this unilateral move they should shut out the lights in their offices and save taxpayer funds.

At a time when the military leaders dramatically need to be gaming out a plan on how to prevent our 15 years in Afghanistan from becoming utterly worthless, and preserving our military strategy in dozens of countries, as well as war-gaming against Iranian aggression: here is what our enemies will see our military leaders working on [Military Times]:

Senior military leaders will have 90 days to draw up a detailed implementation plans that will address issues that include:

How the military health system will provide health care to transgender troops, to include medical support for gender transitions.

When a transgender service member will begin adhering to a different gender’s grooming standards and uniform-wear rules.

How and when a transgender service member will transition to new physical fitness standards.

When a commander should consider moving transgender soldiers into alternative barracks or birthing quarters.

How unit-level commanders should address a range issues related to deployments, job assignments and training that may arise among troops undergoing gender transitions.

How troops can undergo the bureaucratic process for changing their gender marker in the official Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, known as DEERS.

In your wildest imagination, could you ever have envisioned a day when something like this would be drafted in any social setting – not designed as a parody – much less in our military during a time of war?

Folks, this has gone too far. Obama has turned our military into the most grotesque social experimentation, promoting the broader homosexual agenda, women in all areas of combat at any and all costs, sensitivity training, promotion of Islam, and sickening rules of engagement. He has replaced the entire military brass and has installed left-wing politicians as generals to obsequiously carry out his orders. As I’ve noted before, the morale in the military was already near an all-time low, and that was two years ago. This must be the final straw. It’s time to put an end to this.

The notion of inviting those with such an illness is not only immoral, illogical, and dangerous during a time of war, it will create a logistical nightmare on our already-stressed military. Soldiers live together in close quarters more than individuals in any other aspect of life. From basic training through the actual service, members from each respective gender shower in one open room in their separate facilities. Are we now going to have males with male genitalia showering with the women?

While the numbers of those who live such a lifestyle in the military are clearly much less than the 2,500 to 7,000 figure advertised by the administration and the sexual identity lobby, this policy will invite endless provocation from this group. Think of all the religious and personal liberty/privacy problems that will arise from this at a time when Obama has already mandated a culture of anti-religious bigotry in the military?

When Congress returns from the holiday break we will find out if there is any degree of decadence to which Obama will stoop that will elicit an appropriate response from Republicans. (For more from the author of “3 Bills That Can Stop Obama’s Transgender Makeover of the Military” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How We Lost the Constitution

/0 Comments/in , /by

Let’s talk for a bit about the so-called “narrow” and “common sense” compromise being put forward by Democrats — and a few Republicans, notably Susan Collins (R-ME), to block people from buying guns if they’re “on a terror watch list.”

Sounds reasonable, right?

Well, it’s not.

And the reason it’s not has nothing to do with letting terrorists have guns. Nobody in their right mind wants to have someone who is an actual terrorist walk into a gun store and buy a firearm — or 10.

Rather, we blew it when we allowed the creation of “watch lists” that are (1) secret, (2) constrain people (e.g. “no-fly” lists) and (3) have no due process protections of any sort associated with them.

These are all unconstitutional, I remind you, to the extent they apply to American citizens.

Now it happens to be completely constitutional for The President (via the State Department) to bar anyone that is not a US Citizen from entering the country — whether by air, train, boat, car, walking or teleportation. Not only is there no Constitutional problem with doing so it is explicitly authorized by statute and no less than Jimmy Carter did exactly that during the Iranian Hostage Crisis (I’ll bet you know what group of people he banned too, right?)

Today politicians on both sides of the aisle — including Obama — like to claim that this is not “who we are.” Did they forget Carter?

It sure sounds like it.

The problem with “Secret Lists” is that there is no way to know if you’re on one up front and, if you discover you are (while trying to board a plane or buy a gun, for example) your liberties are infringed without due process of law and, often, without any means of challenge.

The government claims that disclosing this information means that their investigations may be “thwarted.” And? The issue isn’t that they have a list of people they’re watching — that’s called investigation and is part and parcel of any legitimate law enforcement agency. No, it’s the disability they impose without due process, without trial and without, in many cases, anything that would be regarded as actionable evidence of a crime.

If the government wishes to conduct investigations before getting warrants, that’s part of police work.

But imposing disabilities, including barring people from getting on a plane or buying a gun when you cannot make the case that a crime is in the process of being committed is unconstitutional, impermissible in a free society and must be stopped in its entirety.

Those who argue otherwise are IMHO not Americans and to the extent they’re in positions of political power they are not only not American they’re violating long-standing law (18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983) and must be both civilly sued and criminally prosecuted for their crimes. (For more from the author of “How We Lost the Constitution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DEMOCRAT PARTY GOES FULL RADICAL NUTJOB: ‘Most Progressive Platform Our Party Has Ever Seen’

/0 Comments/in , /by

“Most ambitious and progressive platform our party has ever seen.”

Those are words spoken by Hillary Clinton’s senior policy advisor about the draft of the Democratic Party platform and they should frighten every American that supports free enterprise and a restrained federal government. The platform draft approved by the Democratic drafting committee consisting of both Clinton and Sanders allies includes proposals that will make it more difficult for individuals to break free from government constraints and achieve the American Dream.

There are many dangerous proposals in the Democratic Party’s platform that should raise concern:

A $15 minimum wage, including one for tipped workers, will force businesses to slash jobs, shift to automation, and put companies out of business

Burdensome regulations will make companies subservient to the government and prevent them from expanding.

Massive new spending on government programs that won’t be paid for and will substantially increase the national debt.

In addition, Sanders allies proposed some costly ideas that were just a vote away from becoming part of the platform and will no doubt be under consideration in a Democratic administration. Those include:

An unaffordable national energy tax on Americans that will increase costs across the board and make it tougher for families to make ends meet.

Going further than ObamaCare and implementing a one-size fits all single-payer system controlled solely by the government.

Labeling Israel for causing an “occupation” and saying that they have “illegal settlements” in the Gaza strip.

These policy prescriptions are threatening, not only to conservatives but for the country as a whole. They represent a sharp left turn in favor of policies that radically expands the size of government and continues to restrict freedoms of individuals across the country. (For more from the author of “DEMOCRAT PARTY GOES FULL RADICAL NUTJOB: ‘Most Progressive Platform Our Party Has Ever Seen'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where the Hell Is the Orlando Jihadist’s Missing Wife?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the Orlando jihadist’s wife is a missing, AWOL, gone girl?

Where the hell is Noor Salman? Can we hold a sit-in at the FBI until someone finds her?

The keystone cops in Washington admit they lost track of her last week. So what are they doing to hunt her down? Playing Marco Polo in the pool with their eyes closed?

How crazy is this? In America in 2016 you can real-time track your dog, your kid, your iPhone, your luggage, and your Uber driver around the corner.

But the people in charge of homeland security are losing a dangerous game of Ji-hide-y and Seek with the devout Muslim Palestinian woman who chauffeured her radicalized Orlando jihadist husband around as he scoped out massacre locations and shopped for weapons.

Does FBI stand for fumbling, bumbling idiots? Get your shizzle together, please! (For more from the author of “Where the Hell Is the Orlando Jihadist’s Missing Wife?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Congress Should Seize the Brexit Opportunity

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week, the people of Britain won a major victory for democracy and sovereignty by voting to leave the European Union.

Many on the left, along with their allies in the media, are predicting that this Brexit will lead to economic disaster for Britain, if not all of Europe and the rest of the world. These doomsayers should take a deep breath and a fresh look at the reality of the situation beyond the initial disruptions caused by this momentous decision.

To hear many American elites talk about the Brexit decision, you would think the EU is the equivalent of Europe’s version of the North American Free Trade Agreement—a liberalized commercial area for a small group of foreign nations in close geographic proximity designed to facilitate economic cooperation. But it is much more than that.

By submitting to the EU, Britons have been subjected to the laws, decisions, and regulations of a centralized legislature, court, and bureaucracy located in a distant capital and out of touch with the local needs and priorities of the people—an arrangement that many Americans would recognize as similar to our own over-centralized, unaccountable federal government.

Moreover, the Brexit vote only begins the process of Britain leaving the EU. When announcing his resignation, Prime Minister David Cameron said his successor should decide when and how to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. And even after the next prime minister is elected, Article 50 provides a two-year process for Britain to negotiate both its own terms for leaving the EU and new trade deals with the rest of the world, including the United States.

That is what the United States should be doing now to support the people of Britain as they continue the work of disentangling themselves from the clutches of the EU’s centralized power structure in Brussels. We should be doing everything we can to negotiate new treaties with Britain to ensure a smooth, prosperous, and secure transition for both countries.

Prior to the Brexit vote, President Barack Obama indicated he wants to go a different path. Earlier this year, he threatened Britain that they would have to go to “the back of the queue” in any trade negotiations with the United States if they were to vote to leave the EU. This threat was ill-advised at the time and would be harmful to both countries if adhered to going forward.

Instead, Congress should pass new legislation both requiring the United States to honor our current agreements with the United Kingdom until new bilateral agreements can be negotiated, and directing the U.S. trade representative to begin negotiations on new bilateral agreements as soon as possible. There is no better way to honor America’s special relationship with Great Britain. (For more from the author of “How Congress Should Seize the Brexit Opportunity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Time for an American Brexit?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Tired of our country being flooded with too many refugees from the Middle East and illegal immigrants from all over the world? How about creating our own Brexit?

While many conservatives are celebrating the deadlocked Supreme Court decision on Obama’s “DAPA” amnesty, resulting in the 5th Circuit’s injunction against the illegal act remaining in effect, now is the time to keep up the pressure on Congress to act more than ever.

To begin with, the effects of Judge Hanen’s injunction are less consequential than what is widely perceived. The lawsuit only dealt with one amnesty and it only stopped Obama from issuing work permits and Social Security cards to DAPA recipients. Obviously, a court has no ability to stop Obama from suspending deportations. In fact, Obama already announced that he will continue with his policy of ordering immigration agents not to follow the law and deport most illegal immigrants. And even as it relates to the affirmative benefits, the Social Security cards for DACA recipients were not a party to the lawsuit and will continue to be issued. Obama has already illegally granted at least 700,000 Social Security cards to people who have no constitutional right to be in this country.

Thus, rather than GOP leaders using the court decision to wash their hands of this fight, the outcome leaves them with no excuses not to fight. While Obama unilaterally making citizens out of illegal immigrants was patently unconstitutional to even a non-constitutional scholar, now that the courts have spoken (after all, the courts are everything in our post-constitutional society), how can Republicans pass a budget bill in September that does not contain a provision defunding DACA. Let’s not forget DACA is just as unconstitutional as DAPA; it merely applies to a slightly younger demographic of illegal immigrants. However, it was not officially halted by the courts because it wasn’t the direct subject of the lawsuit. Obama is handing out work permits and Social Security cards every day and will continue to do so. How can Republicans fund it for even one more day?

This is different from any other odious policy that conservatives want to defund. We now have the much-vaunted federal judiciary confirming that it is completely unconstitutional. Let’s not pretend that the immigration issue was solved with this court ruling.
In addition to defunding DACA (in the operative bill that funds the government in late September), Republicans must also leverage any funding towards the re-instatement of the Secure Communities Program, which cuts to the heart of Obama’s refusal to detain and remove criminal aliens, an issue that was obviously not addressed in the lawsuit. They must also bar DHS officials from preventing ICE or CBP agents from apprehending and deporting illegal aliens pursuant to statute.

Moreover, Republicans have an obligation to stop Obama from enlisting illegal aliens in the military. Not only did they vote down an amendment to the NDAA to block the Pentagon’s recent policy, there is a provision in the bill explicitly blessing this action that has clearly been deemed unconstitutional.

An American Brexit on Refugee Resettlement

Finally, Congress has an obligation to intervene on behalf of the states in the other big immigration problem – Islamic refugee resettlement. Despite the fact that Obama is violating immigration statutes by resettling refugees in states without advanced consultation (or any consultation) with state officials, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit from Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton. The people and the states are sick of this social transformation without representation and they are certainly warry of the security risks. News continues to trickle out about the alleged rape of a 5-year-old special needs girl in the small heartland city of Twin Falls, Idaho at the hands of what appears to be several refugees.

When did the American people ever vote to transform their society to this extent? As I demonstrate in my upcoming book, Stolen Sovereignty, all of the transformation through immigration has been foisted upon us by the courts and the bureaucrats. To the extent there was ever legislation that led to harmful immigration policies, those bills were sold to the American people as the exact opposite of their desired result. The 1980 Refugee Act was advertised as a way of clamping down on mass influxes of refugees.

I don’t claim to be an expert on British affairs, but the obvious undercurrent of the #Brexit referendum in a general sense was the desire for self-governance, popular sovereignty, and to clamp down on social transformation without representation. Isn’t it time for our own Brexit? Instead of relying on the courts, which will be a net liability on immigration in the long run, Congress must take the power over sovereignty back from the executive branch and return it to the people and the states.

Last year, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the State Refugee Security Act of 2015 (S. 2363), which allows governors to block refugee resettlement in their respective states if they believe it poses a security risk to their residents. Although we are not governed by an international body the same way Great Britain was controlled by the EU, states suffering from refugee resettlement face a similar predicament to those European countries flooded with refugees. Refugee resettlement is controlled by the UN, unelected bureaucrats, and taxpayer-funded private resettlement contractors – without any input from the states or Congress. If Congress had to approve the refugee program today, there is no way it would pass either chamber.

It’s time for Congress to do its job and restore the sovereignty of the people, the states, and the federal union. As it relates to illegal immigration or refugee resettlement, the courts are not the solution. If Republicans truly desire to change the narrative from gun control, they can easily harness the security and sovereignty concerns of the American people by reclaiming authority over all aspects of immigration policy. (For more from the author of “Time for an American Brexit?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LEVIN: ‘America’s Constitutional System Is Hanging by a Thread’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Obama: “Our founders conceived of this country as a refuge for the world.”

No they didn’t. They didn’t conceive of the … who said it’s a refuge for the … who said that? They conceived of the nation. So they conceived the nation so it would be a refuge for the world. Who says? They conceived a Republic, where the people would have a say!

President Obama: “More than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful.”

No. It didn’t work that way. It wasn’t just wave of wave of people who wanted to come in. Now, if you’ve listened to this program you know the history.

We had waves at some point, and we also had long periods, like the 1930s to 1970s, where there weren’t waves, where there were periods of assimilation. But at all times prior to 1965, prior to the Great Society – which wasn’t so great – at all times the number one principle, the priority, was what’s in the best interest of the nation and the American people.

We didn’t have this obsession of waves and waves of immigrants coming to the country, changing the culture, changing the demographics, doing this, doing that. That wasn’t the drive behind immigration. Can anybody name a single Founder of this country who said otherwise?

And why is Obama citing them anyway? Some of them were slaveholders. I thought he hated them.

President Obama: “And dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character, and it has made us stronger.”

Some have made us stronger. Some have made us weaker.

President Obama: “I know a lot of people are going to be disappointed today, but it is important to understand what today means.”

I’m disappointed. What today means is separation of powers is hanging by a thread. That is, our constitutional system is hanging by a thread, and the greatest fear that the Framers had: this concentrated power in a centralized government is here. You’re staring at it.

President Obama: “We prioritize criminals. We prioritize gangbangers. We prioritize folks who have just come in.”

Oh he’s talking about immigrants. I thought he was talking about the illegal immigrants who he releases into society, that they prioritize criminals, gangbangers and so forth. Ask any local police department about MS-13 problems. Ask them! Just ask them.

He acts like everybody comes in hear picking lettuce and cleaning our homes. That’s not the way it works.

President Obama: “Millions of people who have come forward, and worked to get right with the law under this policy – they’ve been living here for years too, in some cases even decades. So leaving the broken system … .”

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa… So they have been defying the law for decades? And notice how he doesn’t differentiate, people who come here and violate their visa status, and others. Are all those people who come here on student visas, and teaching visas and entertainment visas and business visas – are they all picking lettuce? Are they picking lettuce, Mr. Producer?

How about all those Syrian refugees he wants to bring in? Are they going to be picking carrots? What are they going to be doing? How do they know they love America?

Is that part of the test when they come into this country: ‘Do you love America?’

President Obama: “That’s not a solution. In fact, that’s the real amnesty: pretending we can deport 11 million people, or build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money is abetting, what, really, just factually incorrect.”

“Factually incorrect?” You know, ladies and gentlemen, there is a law on the books – I believe it was passed in 2006 – where Congress said that they were going to build a wall and double fences and do all kinds of stuff with another 700 miles of that southern border, and they won’t do it.

Here’s my question: If Barack Obama won’t follow the law, if the bureaucracy won’t follow the law, if Congress won’t follow the Constitution and it keeps surrendering its powers, if the Supreme Court won’t follow the law and the Constitution, why should the rest of us?

If they don’t follow the law, why the hell should we? (For more from the author of “LEVIN: ‘America’s Constitutional System Is Hanging by a Thread'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Immigration Fueled the Brexit Result

/0 Comments/in , /by

The vote by Britons on Thursday to leave the European Union doubled as a referendum on how the country views the issue of immigration.

With immigration at an all-time high in Britain, voters concerned about related issues such as economic uncertainty and sovereignty decided to shed their national identity by voting to upend 43 years of life inside the European Union.

The tension over immigration is similar to what’s playing out in the United States, but different in an important way, in that Britain, as a European Union member, has no control of its borders.

That’s because as long as Britain is in the European Union, it has to allow anyone from the 28-member bloc to live and work there.

According to experts, Britain has experienced the changing face of immigration over the years.

Stephen Booth, the co-director of Open Europe, a nonpartisan think tank based in London and Brussels, said that of the roughly 5 million net immigrants to the United Kingdom between 1990 and 2014, over three-quarters came from outside Europe.

But immigration from the European Union now makes up nearly half of the United Kingdom’s net inflow, Booth said. The combination of European Union expansion in 2004 and 2007—which brought in poorer countries like Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland—and the Eurozone economic crisis has influenced substantial internal immigration to Britain and its relatively strong economy.

Proponents of immigration say it has grown the British economy, increased tax revenue, and attracted skilled workers. But critics say immigration has overwhelmed Britain’s public resources, and changed Britain’s culture and values.

“The evidence is that immigration does not have huge economic effects either way,” Booth said in a response to emailed questions from The Daily Signal. “There has been major changes to some areas of the country which are not used to immigration—new shops, languages, etc. Some people view this positively, others feel threatened by the change.”

“EU migrants make a fiscal contribution to the U.K., but the public is concerned that investment in public services, housing, and infrastructure has not kept pace and in some local areas integration is a challenge,” Booth added. “There is a particular concern about low-skilled migration, which can hold down wages for the lowest paid and increase competition for low-paid jobs.”

Yet Booth said policy changes such as the relaxation of restrictions on non-European migration in the late 1990s, and European Union expansion, were not preceded by appropriate public debate and that it is “not unreasonable” for Britons to clamor for greater control over who enters the country.

“[This is] particularly true when the government has promised to reduce numbers,” Booth said. “There is a feeling that politicians have promised something but are not delivering.”

Booth and other experts predict that Britain, split from the European Union and its ethos of free movement, will pursue a more selective immigration policy geared toward attracting skilled migration, based on the needs of the country.

“A ‘Brexit’ will result in a more global-based immigration policy attracting the best talent from around the world,” said Nile Gardiner, the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

“This is not about isolation,” Gardiner told The Daily Signal. “It’s about creating a better system for the British economy.”

Booth and Gardiner recommend Britain adopt a policy emulating the point-based systems used in Canada and Australia.

Under this model, an immigrant is “scored” or valued based on skills and qualifications to contribute to the economy. Those who reach a certain threshold would be eligible for a visa.

The government would prioritize industries and employers with skills shortages.

Booth argues this method is more nuanced than it seems, though.

“There is likely to be a continued need for migrant labour to fill low-skilled jobs,” Booth said. “Therefore, the U.K. would also need a mechanism to fill low-skilled jobs or meet labour shortages where employers have recently relied on EU migrants.”

In addition, the result of Thursday’s referendum won’t bring instant change—on immigration or anything else.

The process of breaking apart begins when the government acts on a provision known as Article 50, which sets a two-year deadline for negotiating the departure.

Gardiner contends that Britain will struggle even more to contain immigration during the two-year negotiating period, since people will seek to cross its borders while they still can. Britain cannot legally deny migrants entry before the withdrawal formally takes place.

“There is a big fear factor here,” Gardiner said. “You will see a lot of Europeans moving to Britain in that period. I’m not sure there’s anything you can do to stop that.”

Both experts note that whether Britain is separate from the European Union or a part of it, the country will continue to feel the impact of immigration.

“Despite public pressure to reduce migration, there are several reasons why net immigration is unlikely to reduce much,” Booth said.

“[That’s because] of the effects of globalization on migration flows, which the U.K. is not alone in experiencing, and the likelihood of some constraints on U.K. immigration policy under a new arrangement with the EU.” (For more from the author of “How Immigration Fueled the Brexit Result” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.