Posts

‘Manchurian Generation’ Ballot Flood: More than 1 Million Chinese With U.S. Citizenship Could Vote in 2030 Elections

/0 Comments/in , /by

More than one million Chinese with U.S. citizenship who grew up in communist China will soon start voting in American elections, #1 New York Times bestselling investigative journalist and Breitbart News Senior Contributor Peter Schweizer reveals in his new book, The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon.

In his explosive new book, Schweizer details how Chinese elites have exploited America’s birthright citizenship policies by engaging in a practice known as birth tourism, whereby Chinese mothers intentionally travel to the United States give birth on American soil so that their newborn children will automatically be granted U.S. citizenship.

One of birth tourism’s biggest appeals is the chain migration that it triggers. “When such children turn twenty-one, they can also apply for resident status for both of their parents,” Schweizer explains. To demonstrate the extent of the practice, he uses the U.S. territory of Saipan in the Pacific as an example, writing that “[m]ore than 70 percent of the newborns in Saipan are PRC birth tourist parents who utilize the territory’s forty-five-day visa-free visitation rules and the ‘Covenant of the Northern Mariana Islands’ to guarantee that their children will have American citizenship.”

Because the U.S. federal government does not directly track birth tourism, no one knows the true extent of the practice, Schweizer writes:

Chinese officials estimate that the number is a staggering fifty thousand of their own citizens per year. Scholars who have studied the subject in depth, like Australian-based professor Salvator Babones, put the figure even higher, perhaps twice that. “With up to 100,000 Chinese babies being born US citizens every year,” he writes, “birth tourism may result in millions of new elite Chinese-Americans.”

(Read more from “‘Manchurian Generation’ Ballot Flood: More than 1 Million Chinese With U.S. Citizenship Could Vote in 2030 Elections” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Judge Gives Residency to Migrant Who Set Village on Fire, Killing Multiple People

/0 Comments/in , /by

A judge has granted humanitarian residency to a Gambian migrant who admitted to having started fires in his native village, killing several people.

The migrant arrived in Italy in 2016 but was initially denied asylum by the Bologna Territorial Commission in September of 2018. He then appealed the decision to the Bologna court, which granted him a residency permit on humanitarian grounds late last month.

According to a report from newspaper Il Giornale, the migrant admitted to setting a large part of his village on fire.

He told judges that he had worked in the fields of his village after two years at an Islamic school, and one day he set dry grass on fire which spread to nearby houses due to heavy winds. The fire ultimately killed several people and put others in the hospital.

(Read more from “Judge Gives Residency to Migrant Who Set Village on Fire, Killing Multiple People” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘Good Judges’? Think Again: Trump Appointee Blocks Key Trump Immigration Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

The same Trump-appointed judge who gave Jim Acosta a right to demand access to the White House in 2018 has now given 7.8 billion people the potential “right” to sue for entry into the country as for asylum, even when they purposefully pass over numerous other countries first. What’s next? Can I get standing in court to demand that Trump meet with me every Sunday morning to discuss my ideas? Why is it too much to ask that Republican-appointed judges understand the role of the judiciary, standing, fundamental rights, and sovereignty?

In another failure of the faux conservative legal establishment, Trump appointee Timothy Kelly ruled on Tuesday that Trump could not enforce his policy from last July requiring asylum-seekers to first apply in the first country they pass through before being eligible for asylum status in America. Shockingly, he did so even after the Supreme Court already stayed an injunction by a California judge against this rule.

It’s truly hard to overstate how radical this decision is. The entire definition of asylum is that you are seeking safety somewhere else because you are in danger in your own country. The fact that these people are cherry-picking the United States for their destination demonstrates that their claims are bogus.

Plus, the courts have ruled for hundreds of years that foreign nationals have no standing to sue for the right to come into this country. How then could there even be standing to hear such a case? Also, third-party advocacy groups, such as the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition of Washington, the Texas-based Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), and Human Rights First were named as plaintiffs. So, could conservative NGOs now become plaintiffs to sue on behalf of foreign nationals to block foreign policy? Can I sue the Pentagon for using our soldiers and taxpayer funding for Kabul urban renewal projects?

For most of our history, the courts were clear that private parties can’t bring lawsuits to protect imputed rights of parties not before the court. Even if we are going to countenance the recent deviation from that principle, the third-party standing should not be expanded to foreign nationals. In Warth v. Seldin (1975), the Supreme Court explained, “Without such limitations — closely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governance — the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions.” Nowhere is this more evident than in questions pertaining to international migration and border security during times of peril.

This is the first time I can remember a court messing with a foreign policy of the president. These agreements were hashed out in high-level diplomatic negotiations with Central American countries. This is exactly why the Supreme Court said long ago that the “exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty” and that “the right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation” [Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 1950]. It’s not just that the president has 1182(f) delegated authority to shut off all immigration, even asylum requests. It’s inherent in his Article II powers to govern foreign affairs and foreign commerce.

The court further punctuated this point in Kleindienst v. Mandel, (1972): “In accord with ancient principles of the international law of nation-states … the power to exclude aliens is inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers — a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government.”

This is why, even if the president didn’t fully abide by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the way he promulgated this new policy, as Judge Kelly suggests, there is no way there can be valid standing or judicial jurisdiction to adjudicate the consequences of that policy in this context.

Moreover, 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) explicitly exempts a “foreign affairs function” from the APA. And for good reason. A president doesn’t have time to play games while national security is at stake. Border security and immigration policy sit at the nexus of foreign policy and national security. This is exactly why the Supreme Court said in Mathews v. Diaz (1976) that “decisions in these matters [immigration] may implicate our relations with foreign powers” and therefore, these “decisions are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive than to the Judiciary.” In this case, these very policies were born out of bilateral and multilateral agreements with at least four countries.

Ironically, one of the problems we faced from the flood at our border in 2018-2019 was a health crisis overwhelming our hospitals with people coming here for care. Why is it that the courts believe elected officials can violate the Bill of Rights under the guise of combatting a public health crisis, but somehow foreign nationals can assert a right to enter even in the face of a health crisis?

The answer is that we have become strangers in our own land, and even Republican-appointed judges have bought into this inverted thinking that flips the Declaration of Independence and consent-based governance upside down. The lower courts, thanks to tacit greenlighting from the Supreme Court, have been creating rights for illegal aliens at breakneck speed. They have essentially abolished ICE.

Just this month, a federal judge vacated the deportation of an illegal alien with prior battery convictions who was arrested for rioting at a BLM event simply because he had DACA status! An illegal alien has no right to remain in the country even without a criminal conviction, but now that the courts have mandated Obama’s amnesty, at least temporarily, they are now staying deportations even of those with criminal records who are ineligible for the status under Obama’s system. The illegal alien has now violated the terms of his release and faces yet another court appearance next week.

Once again, we have Trump-appointed judges who not only decline to roll back existing bad decisions but will even add new insane principles to our body of case law that downright conflict with past Supreme Court precedent. Guess what: Judge Kelly is the same man who ruled in 2018 that political activist Jim Acosta had a right to a press badge to access the White House. This judge seems to be confused about fundamental rights, standing in court, and what exactly defines a judicial case or controversy.

Until we declare these court opinions null and void for violating separation of powers, we will never have a sovereign republic. But in order to do that, we need elected officials in the other branches of government who believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. That will not happen under this Republican Party and certainly not under its judicial appointments. (For more from the author of “‘Good Judges’? Think Again: Trump Appointee Blocks Key Trump Immigration Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Hands Trump Administration HUGE win on Deportation Powers

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday for the Trump administration in a key immigration case, determining that a federal law limiting an asylum applicant’s ability to appeal a determination that he lacked a credible fear of persecution from his home country does not violate the Constitution.

The ruling means the administration can deport some people seeking asylum without allowing them to make their case to a federal judge. The 7-2 ruling applies to those who fail their initial asylum screenings, making them eligible for quick deportation.

In a decision in the case of Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the court ruled that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) – which prevents judicial review of the credible fear determination – does not violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, which protects habeas corpus privileges that allow courts to determine if a person should be released due to unlawful detention.

“In this case, however, respondent did not ask to be released. Instead, he sought entirely different relief: vacatur of his ‘removal order’ and ‘an order directing [the Department] to provide him with a new . . . opportunity to apply for asylum and other relief from removal,’” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion, ruling “that relief falls outside the scope of the common-law habeas writ.”

Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national, had crossed the southern U.S. border without documentation in January 2017, was apprehended within 25 yards of the border, and detained for expedited removal. According to court documents, he said he was afraid of returning to Sri Lanka because he had once been abducted and beaten by a group of men, but did not know who they were or why they attacked him. At the time, he said that he did not fear persecution due to his political beliefs, race, or any other protected characteristics. (Read more from “Supreme Court Hands Trump Administration HUGE win on Deportation Powers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Rules Green Card Holding Immigrant Subject to Deportation

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision against a permanent immigrant resident subject to deportation for multiple crimes.

In a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines on Thursday, the high court issued a ruling to broaden the scope of crimes that make immigrants, including green card holders, ineligible to have their deportation orders canceled.

The case, Barton v. Barr, involved the U.S. government ordering Jamaican immigrant Andre Martello Barton to be deported in 2016 for multiple crimes in Georgia, including firearms violations, drug crimes, and aggravated assault offenses. Barton, a permanent resident who holds a green card, applied for a cancellation of removal, which the attorney general is authorized to grant under U.S. law so long as an immigrant meets certain eligibility requirements.

One such requirement demands that immigrants reside within the United States for at least seven years after being granted any form of legal status. However, the residency requirement is subject to “stop-time rule,” which halts time accrued within the country should an immigrant commit a crime, making them “inadmissible.” The law was part of the immigration package signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. At the time, Clinton lauded the package as legislation that “strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system — without punishing those living in the United States legally.” . . .

“Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the court’s majority opinion. “Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens — even lawful permanent residents — who have committed certain serious crimes … the immigration laws enacted by Congress do not allow cancellation of removal when a lawful permanent resident has amassed a criminal record of this kind.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Rules Green Card Holding Immigrant Subject to Deportation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Plans to Temporarily Suspend Immigration

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump said Monday that he will sign an executive order “to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States” because of the coronavirus. . .

He offered no details as to what immigration programs might be affected by the order. The White House did not immediately elaborate on Trump’s tweeted announcement.

Trump has taken credit for his restrictions on travel to the U.S. from China and hard-hit European countries, arguing it contributed to slowing the spread of the virus in the U.S. But he has yet to extend those restrictions to other nations now experiencing virus outbreaks. (Read more from “Trump Plans to Temporarily Suspend Immigration” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Migrants Riot in Mexican Detention Center at Texas Border — Some Escape

/0 Comments/in , /by

Dozens of Central American migrants rioted and set fire to the furniture inside a local immigration detention center Friday. Some managed to escape.

The rioting started shortly after noon when dozens of migrants tried to take over the facility and set fire to mattresses and other furniture at the offices of the National Immigration Institute (INM). During the confusion, some of the migrants ran into the streets to escape and avoid deportation. Dozens of federal and state police responded to the scene to contain the matter. Some migrants were being held for deportation hearings while others waited for U.S. asylum determinations. . .

While the federal building does have some detention capabilities, it was recently refit to house more migrants since some local shelters were forced to close following the arrival of the Coronavirus. Currently, the border city has two confirmed cases. Piedras Negras is immediately south of Eagle Pass, Texas. (Read more from “Migrants Riot in Mexican Detention Center at Texas Border — Some Escape” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Poll: 5-In-6 Americans Want to End Immigration From Mexico

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the midst of the Chinese coronavirus crisis, about five-in-six American adults said they want to see the United States end all immigration from Mexico.

The latest Harvard/Harris Poll asks Americans whether they would support or oppose an immigration moratorium on Mexico during the coronavirus crisis. Overall, 83 percent — or five-in-six — said they favor ending all immigration from Mexico at the moment.

This sweeping support for ending immigration from Mexico includes 75 percent of Hispanic Americans and 77 percent of black Americans. Another 73 percent of Democrat voters said they support ending immigration from Mexico, while 84 percent of swing voters and 93 percent of Republican voters support such a measure.

Even among the most liberal voters, nearly 70 percent said they support ending immigration from Mexico, as well as 74 percent of voters who supported failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The poll comes as Mexico’s coronavirus cases continue to climb, now reaching nearly 1,000 confirmed infections with 20 deaths and 938 active cases. (Read more from “Poll: 5-In-6 Americans Want to End Immigration From Mexico” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump’s Updated Immigration Moratorium List: A Good Start

/0 Comments/in , /by

In what is perhaps more important news to the future of our nation than impeachment, the White House announced late on Friday an updated “travel ban,” with a new list of countries from which immigration has been suspended due to national security concerns.

Pursuant to a new DHS global assessment report of how carefully countries share identity-management and national security information with us, the administration has determined a need to suspend immigration visas to nationals of Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. The acting DHS secretary has also determined a need to continue the suspension of visas from the countries on the existing list – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Yemen.

According to the White House, the determination was based on three criteria: “Whether a foreign government engages in reliable identity-management practices and shares relevant information; whether a foreign government shares national security and public-safety information; and whether a country otherwise poses a national security or public-safety risk.”

The new proclamation indicates that the DHS report recommended “implementing suspensions and limitations on entry for certain nationals of twelve additional countries,” more than the six that were ultimately restricted. It appears that senior administration officials felt that some of the other countries either made improvements to their data sharing in recent months or were left off the list because the U.S. “has experienced a recent deepening of diplomatic ties that generally mark increased cooperation toward achieving key regional and global United States foreign policy goals.”

The new ban is slated to take effect on February 22.

This is a good start for Trump to finally fulfill his campaign promise of ratcheting down immigration from dangerous parts of the world. However, there are some glaring omissions and inconsistencies in the proposal:

1) The ban on these six countries is only for immigrant visas. Nationals of these countries are still eligible for all non-immigrant visas, including student visas. We have about 13,400 foreign students from Nigeria. In the case of Sudan and Tanzania, the only form of immigrant visa that is suspended is the diversity visa lottery. Sudan is embroiled in an Islamic civil war. And according to the White House, all these countries have “deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal, or identity information,” thereby creating “an unacceptable likelihood that information reflecting the fact that a visa applicant is a threat to national security or public safety may not be available at the time the visa or entry is approved.” If that is the case, then why is the ban so limited?

2) Nationals of these countries can still apply for waivers. As we’ve already seen from the existing countries on the list, 48 percent of all applications for visas from those countries were approved, totaling 42,000 issuances over the past two years.

3) Nobody in government can say with a straight face that the Chinese share any meaningful information with us. Border agents have told me this firsthand about processing Chinese nationals at the border. China poses the greatest espionage, counter-intelligence, and trade secret theft threats of any country. And immigration is its biggest weapon. The director of national intelligence warned in the latest Worldwide Threat Assessment, “China’s intelligence services will exploit the openness of American society, especially academia and the scientific community, using a variety of means,” Yet we bring in more immigrants (roughly 80,000) and long-term foreign students (roughly 370,000) from China than from any other country.

4) The 800-pound gorilla in the room, based on Trump’s campaign promises, is left off the list. Those are the countries from which there is the strongest element of jihadism and a sharia supremacist mindset among the population. Does anyone really believe we can vet the hearts and minds of those from Iraq and Afghanistan? Just over the weekend, an Iraqi immigrant was arrested in Arizona because of an outstanding warrant in Iraq, where he is accused of murdering policemen on behalf of al Qaeda. Yet our government is putting our “diplomatic relations” there ahead of homeland security concerns.

More fundamentally, as I noted regarding our government’s response to the Pensacola shooting and Saudi military trainees, what ever happened to Trump’s promise of ideological vetting? Sure, we have great relations with countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but what about the people living there? They might not have a criminal record, but many of them could harbor jihadist sympathies, as we saw with the Pensacola shooter, Mohammed Alshamrani.

This paragraph from the proclamation should disturb Trump supporters:

In his report, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security recognized a close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected government of Iraq, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security considered another similarly situated country and determined that, for reasons similar to those present in Iraq, entry restrictions and limitations would not be appropriate.

Really? This is a pro-Iran government. This is the most vivid illustration of the backward priorities of our national security leaders – send our military to referee Islamic civil wars and then use that as a pretense for bringing in more immigrants to our homeland.

It’s clear the administration is trying to sidestep the issue of ideological vetting, as well as avoid the suspension from countries where the number of immigrants has been significant. In 2018, we only had 838 from Kyrgyzstan and 2,428 from Eritrea. We bring in more from Tanzania (3,186) and Sudan (3,658), but only diversity visas were suspended from those countries. The only countries on the list with significant numbers are Burma (8,182) and Nigeria (13,952). Most of the Burmese are refugees. We’ve admitted a huge number of Burmese refugees in recent years, roughly 170,000 since 2007.

However, if you look at some of the countries with the most jihadists, we continue to bring in tremendous numbers: Iraq (14,351), Afghanistan (12,935), Bangladesh (15,717), Pakistan (15,426), and Egypt (9,668) to name just a few countries. And while we get very few immigrants from Saudi Arabia, we continue to bring in roughly 40,000 foreign students from there, and now will evidently continue the military training program as well.

Very tellingly, when explaining the rationale for the suspension from Kyrgyzstan, the White House notes the presence of “an elevated risk, relative to other countries in the world, of terrorist travel to the United States.” But doesn’t that apply to several dozen other countries not mentioned? Why pick the one with less than 1,000 annual immigrants?

Clearly, the lawyers and bureaucrats in the administration wanted to avoid making this about vetting out jihadist sympathies and more about technocratic criteria of information-sharing. They also wanted to keep the numbers of those affected to a minimum. However, it doesn’t really speak to the prevalent threats that mass migration from many other countries poses. Given the sweeping victory in the Supreme Court on the president’s power to exclude, the administration could have been more aggressive in its approach.

If this is just the first step, then it’s a good one. But if this will set a precedent of foreclosing any ideological vetting, it won’t effectively keep out most terrorists, spies, or security threats. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Updated Immigration Moratorium List: A Good Start” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘Extreme Vetting’? Trump Administration to Continue Training Saudis on Our Military Bases

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is not too much to ask for a process to ensure that those who come into our country as immigrants or on long-term visas actually have a love for this country or, at the very least, not a hatred for it. Indeed, President Trump promised a moratorium on immigration from the Middle East until such a system could be conceived. But now the administration is not even ending the visa program that brings them to our military bases, even after the Pensacola attack.

After a supposedly vetted Saudi military trainee killed three people at Naval Air Station Pensacola, I noted that this would be the perfect time for Trump to fulfill a key campaign promise on immigration, as well as a promise to end the gun-free zone policies. In December 2015, Trump promised a “total and complete shutdown” of Middle Eastern migration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” and “where this hatred comes from.” Now, following the Pensacola terror attack, the Trump administration is refusing to terminate the Saudi training, much less suspend the broader program, much less suspend any of the hundreds of thousands of long-term visas and green cards given out to nationals of countries where this “hatred” is pervasive.

The Hill reported on Thursday that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper plans to visit the naval base in Pensacola next week and announce new security measures. However, one of those security measures will not be terminating these foreign military training programs. Instead, the DOD will be resuming the training of roughly 850 Saudis after it was temporarily suspended following the attack. In fact, several weeks ago, Esper expressed his desire to grow the program’s enrollment by 50 percent.

Are we really to believe that in just a few weeks’ time, officials have carefully vetted not just the 850 existing Saudi trainees but the several thousand others from countries like Afghanistan? How can we really know the nature of their family ties and whether they subscribe to jihadist views when we missed openly jihadist social media postings of Mohammad Alshamrani, the shooter at Pensacola?

The answer to these questions is further disquieting given that Attorney General William Barr seemed to indicate that we don’t even care about the Sharia supremacist views of those who enter the country for military training, much less as civilians. During Monday’s press conference, the attorney general announced that 21 members of the Saudi military were disenrolled in the training and are being sent back after 17 of them “had social media containing some jihadi or anti-American content” and “15 individuals (including some of the 17 just mentioned) had had some kind of contact with child pornography.”

I expected Barr to continue and declare emphatically that we will not tolerate jihadist sympathizers on our soil, much less on our bases, and that in the future there will be a system of vetting to bring in only those who we can confidently certify are against jihad. Instead, he went on to say that nothing posted was criminal under our laws. “However, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia determined that this material demonstrated conduct unbecoming an officer in the Saudi Royal Air Force and Royal Navy and the 21 cadets have been dis-enrolled from their training curriculum in the U.S. military and will be returning to Saudi Arabia (later today).”

As Andrew McCarthy observed in a recent column, our government is missing the point about terror threats. It’s not just about vetting visa applicants to see if they are carrying cards that identify them as members of a known terror group. It’s about vetting for the anti-American, Sharia-supremacist mindset.

“Consequently, it has long been known that our capacity to protect America from jihadist attacks hinges on our ability to discourage the infiltration of the political ideology that fuels them, which would necessitate vetting for sharia supremacism and jihadism when foreign Muslims seek to enter the United States,” wrote McCarthy, who studied Islamic ideology carefully as the lead prosecutor in one of America’s earliest Islamic terror trials. “Nevertheless, though the Constitution would not prevent such vetting (there being no constitutional right for an alien to enter the U.S.), our laws, guidelines, and political conditions have made it practically impossible to bar foreigners from entering the United States on ideological grounds. Instead, we draw the line at violence: If it can be shown that an alien has ties to a known terrorist group, or has engaged in terrorist activities, that alien may be denied entry.”

This is the core point made by President Trump in his speech in Ohio on August 15, 2016, when he announced his plan for “extreme vetting.”

“A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people,” said then-candidate Trump as he announced a new screening policy. Noting how the recent terror attacks “involved immigrants or the children of immigrants,” Trump was the first Republican to drill down on the need to not only “screen out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups,” but also “screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.”

Trump again promised “to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism,” noting that “the size of current immigration flows are simply too large to perform adequate screening.”

“We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year,” observed Trump. “Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of temporary workers and visitors from the same regions. If we don’t control the numbers, we can’t perform adequate screening.”

The president was so presciently on target. There is simply no way to properly vet just one category of Saudis, much less hundreds of thousands of visa and green-card applicants from the most volatile countries.

Fast-forward three years, and in 2018, by my best estimate, we handed out over 150,000 green cards to nationals of predominantly Muslim countries, not including over 100,000 foreign student visas and other visa categories.

Three years in, if this administration won’t even halt foreign military training programs following the Pensacola terror attack, this is yet another immigration promise that is headed for the ash heap of history, unless conservatives gently but firmly remind the president of his continued opportunity to fulfill it. (For more from the author of “‘Extreme Vetting’? Trump Administration to Continue Training Saudis on Our Military Bases” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE