Posts

‘Refugee’ Infectious Diseases Sparking Alarm

/0 Comments/in , /by

Minnesota pays out millions every year in welfare for refugees, but there are secondary costs that never get tabulated.

In fiscal 2017, which ended last last week, the state spent $1.5 million to combat three infectious disease outbreaks — including the largest measles outbreak in three decades, which was concentrated in the Somali refugee community. And health officials notified legislative leaders this week that they want to tap a special public-health fund to offset additional costs.

Dr. Ed Ehlinger, Minnesota Health commissioner, told the Star-Tribune his department will need another $600,000 for fiscal 2018 to help control the spread of measles, drug-resistant tuberculosis and syphilis.

The state has had 78 confirmed cases of measles this year, in an outbreak that began in March. Of those 78 cases, 64 have been in the Somali refugee community. The outbreak is now showing signs of being under control, with no new cases reported this month. But the costs continue to pile up.

Health Department officials want $100,445 to continue prevention work. About half the money would go toward hiring a “temporary employee” to conduct outreach to the Somali community, including efforts to increase measles vaccination rates, the Star-Tribune reported. (Read more from the author of “‘Refugee’ Infectious Diseases Sparking Alarm” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Appeals Court Keeps Freeze on Trump’s Refugee Order

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal appeals court Thursday night kept a freeze on President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting refugee resettlement and other forms of legal immigration, meaning those previously blocked from traveling to the U.S. under the action can continue to enter the country as the case makes it way through the legal system.

A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco unanimously rejected the government’s assertion that the suspension of the order imperils national security, and ruled that the suing states would suffer “irreparable harms” if travel suspension could carry on.

“The states have offered ample evidence that if the executive order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the states and multiple other parties interested in the proceeding,” the court’s ruling stated.

The judges on the Ninth Circuit panel were Judge Michelle T. Friedland, appointed by President Barack Obama; Judge William C. Canby Jr., appointed by President Jimmy Carter; and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush.

The ruling was focused on the narrow question of whether Trump’s executive order should be frozen while courts consider its lawfulness. The government could now ask the Supreme Court to lift the stay of the order, but the ideologically-split high court is down a member, and a 4-4 ruling would leave the appeals court decision in place.

Trump quickly turned to Twitter to denounce the decision, writing:

Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to the president, later said in an interview with Fox News that the administration “is fully confident” they will ultimately win in court.

“This ruling does not affects the merits at all,” Conway said. “It is an interim ruling, and we are fully confident that now that we will get our day in court and have an opportunity to argue this on the merits that we will prevail.”

Trump’s executive order, signed Jan. 27, bans Syrian refugees from the U.S. indefinitely, imposes a four-month suspension on all refugee admissions from anywhere in the world, and bars for 90 days people from seven countries the Obama administration and Congress had designated as posing risks of terrorism.

Those countries are Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia.

The Trump administration received widespread criticism early on for its seemingly chaotic and uneven implementation of the order.

After facing legal challenges, the government clarified the order does not apply to green-card holders — or legal permanent residents — and it granted waivers to Iraqis who assisted the U.S. military, and refugees who had already been screened prior to the order being signed.

The courts usually defer to the executive branch on issues of national security and immigration policy.

Indeed, federal immigration law states that if the president finds “the entry of any aliens” would be “detrimental” to the country’s interests, he can impose restrictions.

But the appeals court asserted in its ruling that there are checks on these powers. The judges said the government had not provided enough evidence to support a need for the travel restrictions.

“The government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches — an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence,” the judges wrote. “Instead, the government has taken the position that the president’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections … There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”

Hans van Spakovksy, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, contended that the court overstepped its bounds.

“This decision has as little basis in the law as the original decision by the district court judge,” van Spakovsky said. “The federal courts are in essence refusing to recognize or acknowledge the authority given to the president by Congress to suspend the entry of aliens into the U.S. The very idea that any foreigner has any constitutional or statutory right to be admitted to the U.S. is absurd. This is just another sign of overbearing federal courts grabbing power from the legislative and executive branches in violation of basic separation of powers principles.”

Other legal experts agreed with the court that Trump’s order went too far.

Lawsuits around the country have alleged that Trump’s order violates the constitution by intentionally punishing Muslims, and many trial courts blocked aspects of the president’s order.

The Trump administration rejected charges of religious intent, noting that most Muslim-majority countries were not included in the order.

The 9th Circuit appeals court was ruling on a decision issued in the broadest of the trial court rulings. On Feb. 3, Judge James Robart, a federal judge in Seattle appointed by President George W. Bush, issued a temporary restraining order requiring a nationwide halt to Trump’s order — prohibiting federal employees from enforcing it — in a decision that contained little reasoning.

The states of Washington and Minnesota had brought the suit, arguing the executive order harms the state’s residents in areas of employment, education, business, and family relations.

Hundreds of travelers who are citizens of the seven targeted countries have come to the U.S. since Robart issued his order, and those that have been screened can continue to travel here at least until the courts rule on the legality of Trump’s order.

Full court proceedings on the legality of Trump’s order are expected to take months, and with multiple appeals it could take more than year before the courts make a final decision. (For more from the author of “Appeals Court Keeps Freeze on Trump’s Refugee Order” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Now Is the Time to Defund Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

“Life is winning in America,” declared Vice President Mike Pence last week as he spoke to the countless thousands of Americans assembled on the National Mall for the annual March for Life.

Pence’s presence at the rally was itself evidence of the momentum behind the pro-life movement in America. Last week marked the March for Life’s 44th consecutive year, but it was the first time that a government official as high ranking as the vice president attended in person to speak to the crowd.

This timing of the vice president’s attendance was fitting, as it came on the heels of President Donald Trump’s momentous decision earlier in the week to reinstate the Mexico City policy, which prevents American taxpayers from financing international organizations that perform or promote abortions abroad.

Established in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, the Mexico City policy was revoked by President Barack Obama and then, in one of his first major actions after taking the oath of office, restored by Trump.

To account for the shifting landscape of today’s global health and foreign aid environment, Trump’s executive order also modernized the Mexico City policy to ensure that it applies to other U.S. foreign aid funding sources beyond simply the U.S. Agency for International Development family planning account.

But despite these successes and reasons for optimism, there is still more work to do.

Life may be winning in America, but it has not yet won. And it won’t ever win so long as the United States Congress permits a dime of taxpayer money to flow to the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t just lead the abortion business in America—it performed nearly 1 million abortions between 2011 and 2013—but abortions lead Planned Parenthood.

Of the “pregnancy services” offered by the organization, 94 percent are abortions, according to its 2013-2014 annual report, while prenatal care and adoption referrals account for only 5 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively.

And what does this horrifying business model earn Planned Parenthood from the federal government? More than $520 million every year in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

This is indefensible and it must stop. Luckily, Congress will have an opportunity in the next several weeks to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood and transfer its subsidies to other women’s and community health clinics.

When the House and Senate vote to repeal Obamacare, as Republican leaders from both chambers have committed to do, we can attach a provision that would eliminate all taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.

The privileged status of the Obamacare repeal measure, which requires only 51 votes to pass the Senate, presents a unique opportunity for Congress, once and for all, to revoke Planned Parenthood’s lavish government subsidies, which have long been a stain on our nation’s great history.

With last week’s March for Life as our inspiration, I can think of no better reason for Congress to move swiftly and boldly to repeal Obamacare as soon as possible. (For more from the author of “Now Is the Time to Defund Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Things Bothering Me About the Response to Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees

/0 Comments/in , /by

Have you ever seen America so ablaze with controversy? Protests in the streets; hysteria in the news rooms; chaos and weeping at the airports; cries for impeachment among political leaders — all because of President Trump’s executive order concerning refugees.

Some have openly called for the president’s murder, drawing swift rebuke from others (the original tweet pictured below from @indiaknight has since been deleted):

tweet-1

A well-educated Christian professor in Canada has dubbed Trump an antichrist:

A progressive Christian leader argues that supporting Trump and following Jesus are incompatible:

The leftwing media elite are indignant, with the New York Times branding Trump’s order a “cowardly and dangerous” act of “unrighteousness,” with a host of others echoing similar claims.

On the flip side, rightwing sites like Breitbart feature bold headlines declaring “Terror-Tied Group CAIR [The Council on American-Islamic Relations] Causing Chaos, Promoting Protests & Lawsuits as Trump Protects Nation.”

On Twitter, I asked my followers, “Is Trump’s executive order on the refugees fundamentally unChristian, or is it being misreported by the media?”

In response, 74 percent answered “misreported by the media,” 16 percent said it was “fundamentally anti-Christian,” and 10 percent chose “Other.”

How do we sort this out?

Wading Through the Confusion

In response to the national (actually, international) outcry, President Trump issued a statement Sunday afternoon, restating the rationale behind his order and defending its particulars. In the statement he emphasized that “America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border.” And, he stated, “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Others, far too numerous to cite here, have disputed his words, and the din on both sides is rising in intensity by the hour. So, rather than try to sort out all the controversies surrounding the executive order, let me share five things that are bothering me about the reaction to Trump’s order.

To be clear, though, we need to separate the executive order itself from the way it was executed, which led to even more chaos, including the momentary banning of green card holders returning to the States and even the alleged detention of a newborn and an 18-month old baby, both American citizens, at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. One can be upset over the initial implementation of the order while still defending the order itself.

Here, then, is what is sticking in my craw.

1.The Left’s Outrage Seems Driven by Hatred Toward Trump

First, I have a hard time believing that suddenly, across America, countless thousands of Americans are upset that Muslim refugees from seven countries will be temporarily banned from entering our country while “extreme vetting” measures are put in place.

Muslims make up about one percent of our population, and many of the Muslims who live here are not from the countries on Trump’s list. Yet suddenly, all across the nation, Americans are outraged that Muslims from countries like Libya and Yemen will be temporarily prohibited from immigrating here.

In my opinion, while some of the outrage is legitimate, much of it is more of an expression of hatred toward Trump than an expression of solidarity with, say, Somali refugees. As to the degree that Islamic groups like CAIR are behind some of the protests, others can decide.

2. Hypocritical Concern: What About Slaughtered Christians in the Middle East?

Second, this massive, loud, national expression of compassion for Muslim refugees strikes me as quite hypocritical when we remember that there have been very few words spoken about the decades-long genocide of Middle Eastern Christians at the hands of radical Muslims. As I tweeted out Saturday night, “Where were all the protests across America as millions of Christians overseas were being slaughtered or sold into slavery or exiled?”

Yet now, we Americans are in a state of frenzy because of the temporary halt on some refugees entering our country. Something is not lining up here.

3. There’s Nothing Wrong With Prioritizing Help for Our Christian Brethren

Third, I don’t understand why some Christian leaders are upset with putting a priority on resettling Christian refugees. (I suggested prioritizing Christian refugees back in November, 2015.) This is the right thing to do scripturally and legally, for at least three reasons.

1) Christians are called to do good to all people, but especially to fellow believers (see Galatian 6:10); so, we continue to help Muslim and other refugees, but as a majority Christian country, we prioritize Christian refugees.

2) Christian refugees really are “the least of these My brethren” in the classic words of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46, being trapped as a tiny, persecuted minority in the midst of Islamic civil wars and surrounded by Islamic countries, with very few making it to our shores. Sadly, as I noted in 2015, “A friend of mine who pastors a large church in Tennessee traveled to Jordan and spoke with Christian refugees there. Their perception was that American Christians had completely abandoned them.”

3) Legally, the issue is not one of Islamophobia but rather, to quote the executive order directly, a call “to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” This could apply to groups like the Yazidis too, and rightly so. (See here for talk of Safe Zones in countries like Saudi Arabia aiming at helping Muslim refugees.)

4. There is No “Muslim Ban”

Fourth, I have no tolerance for the media’s hysteria and their use of inflammatory phrases like “the Muslim ban.” As David French explained on the National Review (note that French was a well-known Never Trumper):

You can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban. It’s not there. Nowhere. At its most draconian, it temporarily halts entry from jihadist regions. In other words, Trump’s executive order is a dramatic climb-down from his worst campaign rhetoric.

Again, French is hardly a defender of Trump, writing that “the ban is deeply problematic as applied to legal residents of the U.S. and to interpreters and other allies seeking refuge in the United States after demonstrated (and courageous) service to the United States.” But he is quite correct in labeling much of the media’s reporting of the order as “false, false, false.”

Similarly, Dan McLaughlin, also posting on the National Review, penned an article titled, “Refugee Madness: Trump Is Wrong, But His Liberal Critics Are Crazy,” stating that the anger at Trump’s new policy “is seriously misplaced.”

I would go as far as saying that some major media players are being downright irresponsible, engaging in the worst type of partisan politics, possibly even endangering lives in the process. I say that because the immigration crisis is volatile enough in itself, as is the presidency of Donald Trump, and some of the media’s irresponsible and inflammatory reporting could easily provoke acts of wanton violence.

5. Evangelicals: Stop Blindly Defending Trump

Fifth and finally, I don’t understand why evangelicals who voted for Trump feel the need to defend everything he does and even how he does it (and I am one who voted for him and who at times has defended him). Not only does this give further fuel to the fire of those critics who claim that we are hurting our Christian witness by supporting him, but it eliminates our high calling to be the president’s “loyal opposition” at times (a phrase used by biblical scholar Yochanan Muffs regarding Israel’s prophets). If we truly care for and support the president, we should demonstrate that by lovingly opposing him when we feel he has done wrong.

In this case, I’m not saying that he has acted wrongly (although, as is self-evident, the implementation of his order was terribly messy and unnecessarily confusing). I’m saying that we can’t simply have a gut level reaction of defending the president against all criticism, even if, in some (many?) cases, he is being unjustly accused.

Let’s put our faith before our politics, lest we make the mistake the religious right made in generations past and become an appendage of the Republican Party.

That said, if you know how to pray, now’s a good time to put those prayers to work. We desperately need God’s gracious intervention to heal our broken land. (For more from the author of “5 Things Bothering Me About the Response to Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let’s Be Real: Obama ‘Barred’ Syrian Christian Refugees

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump said he’s righting a wrong in ordering his administration to prioritize refugee applications from Christian minorities in Muslim countries Friday, but critics are declaring the move unfair and “un-American.” Let’s look at what the numbers have to say about the way Christian refugees were treated under President Obama.

The country admitted about the same number of Christian refugees as Muslim refugees in Fiscal Year 2016, according to Pew Research Center figures cited by The New York Times in an effort to refute Trump’s statement. About 38,000 Christian refugees were admitted compared to about 39,000 Muslims.

But this figure is a sum total of refugees worldwide, when Trump was clearly referring to specific Christian minority populations in the Middle East. The way it’s deployed in The New York Times report is incredibly misleading and entirely misses the point.

Previous administrations made it “almost impossible” for Syrian Christian refugees to gain admission, Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network Friday, although they were “horribly treated” in their country.

“If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible,” he said. “I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.” (Read more from “Let’s Be Real: Obama ‘Barred’ Syrian Christian Refugees” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Refugee Order Balances Security and Compassion

/0 Comments/in , /by

Read any commentary on the just signed executive order on visa and refugee vetting from several countries in the Middle East and odds are the assessment will tell you more about the writer’s politics than be an analysis of the order.

I confess: I have a perspective as well. Mine comes from working on the presidential team on both foreign policy and homeland security from after the Republican convention up to the inauguration. I can’t share the detailed workings of the team. But what I can share, having worked on the issues, is what I believe guided the work.

And it all started with making America safe.

Not campaign promises, anger at any religion, or prejudice of any kind impacted our thinking on the transition team. What we were worried about were future threats.

As the space for the Islamic State, or ISIS, gets squeezed in the Middle East, the remains of the tens of thousands of foreign fighters will have to flow somewhere. Every nation, not just the U.S., believes they are most likely to flow to the countries cited in the order. That fact, and only that fact, is why those countries are included on the list. Indeed, when it comes to visa vetting, that’s why the European Union has restrictions that are comparable to the United States.

The reason why we all worry is because, from those countries, foreign fighters could well try to flow to the West, principally by using visas or posing as refugees. When they get to the West, they could carry out terrorist acts. We know that because they already have—specifically in Western Europe.

They haven’t come to the U.S.—yet. Right now, our primary threat is Islamist-related terror plots that are organized by terrorists who are already here.

What this administration is doing is making sure we are ready for the next wave of terrorism as well—the outflow of terrorists from the countries of conflict where the foreign fighters are likely to go first.

There are already cries that the precautions are unfair—creating hardships. Fair enough, but terrorists attacks (like those at the Bataclan in France by the followers of ISIS) create unbearable hardships as well—and the government has the responsibility to find the right balance between security and compassion for its citizens as well as consider how U.S. actions impact others around the world.

One area where the order tries to get that balance right is to ensure future refugee processing prioritizes addressing the plight of religious minorities. That is particularly crucial in the Middle East where the remnants of the region’s Christian communities are under severe threat.

Worldwide persecutions against Christian minorities have been rising for four straight years. It’s particularly problematic in the Middle East. The administration is making an extra effort to address that crisis.

While critics will continue to demonize the administration’s policies because they don’t fit their politics, Americans who crave a foreign policy that prioritizes American interests, puts a compassionate face on statecraft that reflects our values, and acts responsibly will find much to respect in the order. (For more from the author of “Trump Refugee Order Balances Security and Compassion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why America Needs to Know What Tillerson Thinks about Refugees

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Given that Rex Tillerson is the first secretary of State nominee with absolutely no political or military experience, we have no clue where he stands on many critical geopolitical issues. After this week’s hearing, which was almost completely consumed with Russia and random Democrat priorities, he is still very much a blank slate, including on the all-important issue of refugees.

One of the most important issues within the purview of the secretary of State is refugee resettlement in general and the UN’s Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in particular. Although the secretary of DHS is widely viewed as the point-man on the issue of immigration, the secretary of State is the gatekeeper. The State Department works with the UN to identify the pool of refugees and bring them to our shores.

A secretary of State who has his priorities straight would serve as a positive influence on Trump and urge him to shut down or curtail the program in the face of pressure from the global elites. On the other hand, a secretary of State who subscribes to the views of James Baker, Condi Rice, Bob Corker, and Robert Gates — all strong backers of Tillerson — could serve as a major negative influence on the president-elect.

With all the negative energy that will inevitably swarm Trump on behalf of Islamic refugee resettlement, a secretary of State with anything short of a full-throated opposition to this program will become a problem in the long run.

With the Obama administration working closely with the UN to “expedite” the selection process of Syrian refugees, Obama has flooded our shores with a record number of individuals who are impossible to vet, on top of the thousands of others from Somalia, Iraq, and Burma. Where does Tillerson stand on the surge center set up in Amman, Jordan? Will he shut it down?

Nobody will have more influence on forcing reforms to the UNHCR program or ending it altogether than the secretary of State. And that program must end, or we must withdraw from it. A recent Center for Immigration Studies analysis of a “UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs” report demonstrates that not only is the refugee program a ruse for socially transforming America, but it also doesn’t even address the neediest individuals and is therefore counterintuitive to humanitarian goals. “Contrary to UNCHR and U.S. official claims, it is not necessarily the most vulnerable and urgent cases that are being submitted for resettlement,” writes CIS’ Nayla Rush.

The U.S. has already spent $5.6 billion on humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees, is the largest donor to the UNHCR (which also promotes the Palestinian political jihad), and is by far the largest recipient of refugees under this program in the world:

unhcr table 1

As Nayla Rush observes, despite the tremendous cost, the security risks, and cultural transformation of settling America with the Islamic world, millions of refugees are still left out in the cold anyway. It will never be enough because the entire system is not designed to address the core problem. It would be 12 times cheaper to resettle them in the Arab world — closer to their homes with the goal of eventually returning home. Unfortunately, the UN would rather transform America, even if it is counterintuitive to its own stated goals.

In addition to handling refugee resettlement, the State Department oversees the issuance of most visas. What is particularly concerning is the rapid increase in foreign students from the Middle East. Last year, the State Department admitted roughly 1.2 million foreign students with roughly 157,000 coming from predominantly Muslim countries. This is a gaping security hole because they are predominantly young males who are coming straight from the Middle East and, unlike legal permanent residents, have no plans to establish a family or even attempt to share in the future of this country. We are literally recruiting from the subsection of the world that is most prone to subscribing to strict Sharia and Islamic supremacism, from those that have the zeal and energy to act on callings from ISIS and other terror groups.

Shouldn’t we have some idea as to where Rex Tillerson stands on the refugee program and some of our visa programs? The secretary of State is the most important Cabinet official as it relates to the security aspects of immigration. In addition, Nikki Haley as ambassador to the UN, which is also a Cabinet-level position, will have tremendous influence over our policies related to international migration. There are certainly no signs that she has fundamentally changed her views on mass migration from the Middle East.

The point is we can’t merely hope for change on immigration; we have to ensure and demand it. While repeal of Obamacare has unfortunately turned out to be needlessly complex and uncertain, the repeal of refugee resettlement is very straightforward and does not require any complicated legislation. It would be nice if we had a sense of where this administration is headed. Radio silence on these issues seldom portends a strong change in a conservative direction. (For more from the author of “Why America Needs to Know What Tillerson Thinks about Refugees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

First Two Months of FY2017, 98% of Syrian Refugees Entering the US Are Muslims

/0 Comments/in , /by

Continuing a trend on-going now for several years, the vast majority of Syrian refugees entering the US are Muslims. Of the 2,279 Syrians resettled in October and November, 2,225 are Muslim (2,188 of those are Sunnis). All data from Wrapsnet.org (Refugee Processing Center)

Here are the top states where they were distributed. (15 states got none, so far)

Michigan (313)

California (256)

Pennsylvania (162)

(Read more from “First Two Months of FY2017, 98% of Syrian Refugees Entering the US Are Muslims” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Refugees Are Getting Obamacare Subsidies While Your Premiums Skyrocket

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s been a lot of talk about how many refugees we’re letting into our country; in fiscal year 2016 alone, the Obama administration let in 85,000 refugees into the United States. Almost half of them were Muslim refugees, according to Pew Research. In 2017, the plan is to let in at least 110,000 total refugees.

But, on top of the countless other concerns that come with refugees (assimilation, terrorism, taxpayer dollars, etc.), did you know that these refugees are also eligible for Obamacare?

Well, they are. You don’t need to be a citizen to be eligible to buy Obamacare through a marketplace exchange or to receive tax credits and subsidies. Rather, you just need to be “lawfully present.”

What does that mean? According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the term “lawfully present” generally includes refugees and foreign nationals. But because the ambiguous term means different things to different government agencies, the Department of Health and Human Services had to create a program to determine which “lawfully present” people are eligible for the Affordable Care Act when the health care law took effect.

None of the information the federal government discovers in the course of determining a person’s eligibility is used in any immigration enforcement either. So if someone is illegally in the United States and applies for Obamacare, and the federal government then discovers their illegal status in the process, the government will take no action to deport that person.

Here’s where it gets downright unfair: A lawfully present noncitizen who isn’t eligible for Medicaid can be eligible for Obamacare tax credits and subsidies, while “[s]imilarly situated U.S. citizens and lawfully present noncitizen who are eligible for Medicaid could technically participate in an [Obamacare] exchange, but they would be ineligible for the premium credits and cost-sharing subsidies.”

This means that there are struggling citizens who may not get help with the ever-more expensive health care costs, but certain non-U.S. citizens — in a comparable financial situation — are getting extra help from the federal government to purchase Obamacare.

As Obamacare gets more and more expensive (premiums are shooting through the roof) and refugees come flooding into this country, it would be prudent for policymakers to close this unfair loophole. It’s not right that non-citizens are given preferential treatment, when so many struggling, tax-paying Americans are closed off from the same help.

While we don’t have any numbers yet on how many refugees are on Obamacare, we do know that some cities and states will be disproportionally affected. As The New York Times reported recently, Detroit, Chicago, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, and Philadelphia, among other cities, have each received a few hundred Syrian refugees since 2012. Some smaller cities are also feeling the brunt of the Obama administration’s refugee policies. For example, Boise, Idaho, has accepted more refugees than Los Angeles and New York combined, according to the Times.

In addition to thousands and thousands of refugees becoming eligible for government health care, California recently became the first state to apply for a waiver from the federal government to allow illegal aliens to get ACA coverage. If the waiver is granted, nearly 400,000 illegal aliens in California would be covered through Obamacare — despite President Obama’s 2009 promise that illegal aliens would not be eligible.

Premiums are up, enrollment is down, thousands of refugees are being put on Obamacare, and Obama’s promise to keep illegal aliens off Obamacare looks like another broken promise.

In other words, we’re getting closer and closer to the cliff. (For more from the author of “Refugees Are Getting Obamacare Subsidies While Your Premiums Skyrocket” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Iraqi Refugee Pleads Guilty in ISIS Bomb Plot

/0 Comments/in , /by

No matter how much the other side yaks about screening, you know (and they know) that there is no way to screen the Islamic terrorist wannabes from the huge flow of Syrians, Iraqis, Somalis, Uzbeks, Burmese Muslims etc. being admitted to the US now at an accelerated pace.

Here is a (then) teenager we welcomed to America who hates us and planned to kill many of you who shop in Houston area malls. Before being admitted to the US, I bet this punk was asked by some US State Department worker—do you have any animosity toward America and, like any good Muslim, lied!

From CBS News:

HOUSTON — An Iraqi refugee who authorities say wanted to set off bombs at two Houston malls pleaded guilty Monday to trying to help the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan admitted as part of his plea deal that he pledged his loyalty to ISIS in November 2014 and almost immediately trained to use tactical weapons, including an AK-47. He faces up to 20 years in federal prison when he is sentenced Jan. 17 on a charge of attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

(Read more from “Iraqi Refugee Pleads Guilty in ISIS Bomb Plot” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.