Cruz, Sessions: After Chattanooga, Time To Fix Legal Immigration System
“We are under no obligation to admit anyone to the United States”
Following the Chattanooga terror attack, the media seems confused about what had happened or at least why it had happened.
Ted Cruz, however, experiences no such confusion and issued a powerful statement.
“In the wake of this vicious attack on our nation we need to rid ourselves of two dangerous delusions, first and foremost that a ‘lone gunman’–as President Obama described the shooter–is somehow isolated from the larger threat of radical Islamic terrorism. In the modern world, no one acts in isolation. Through social media ISIS, al Qaida, and other groups are infiltrating our nation with impunity while our government will not even admit that radical Islamic terrorism is a problem.
“The second delusion is that this attack is somehow isolated from previous episodes, notably those in Little Rock, Arkansas and Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009—both of which were attacks on American military facilities. The Obama administration was woefully reluctant to call either an act of radical Islamic terrorism, instead suggesting ‘workplace violence’ as a justification for the killings. Finally, after years of effort, the victims of Fort Hood were properly recognized as victims of attacks by foreign terrorists when they received Purple Hearts on April 15, 2015. Likewise, the victim of the Little Rock attack received a Purple Heart on July 1, 2015.
“We cannot afford to wait six years to recognize what happened in Chattanooga for what it was. We need to see with clarity right now what has happened. We can immediately hold hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee on the need for our enlisted men and women to have the right to be armed in military facilities. Congress can pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act that would allow our government to stop Americans who travel overseas to train with terrorist groups from coming back to attack us at home. We can thoroughly overhaul our broken immigration system that is allowing this type of individual to gain citizenship. And we can accept the reality that while we might wish it otherwise, the forces of radical Islam are at war with us.”
In addition to advocating the arming of our enlisted men and women at military facilities and passing the Expatriate Terrorist Act, Cruz notes that we need to overhaul our broken immigration system.
He’s not alone, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is also advocating changes to an “unwise” immigration system that permits radicalized immigrants to become American citizens. According to Sessions’ statement:
There will be much discussion in the coming days about actions which should be taken to better protect the lives of our military personnel, and all Americans, in this age of terrorism. Many different agencies, committees, and experts will be involved. On the Immigration Subcommittee, our mandate is to look at the issues experts have been raising since 9/11 about how our immigration system is vulnerable to terrorism and those seeking to foster radicalization.
More details will need to be collected in coming days, but from what we know so far the terrorist in question appears to be an Islamist radical who immigrated to the United States from Kuwait, and who reportedly later applied for and received U.S. citizenship.
Sessions goes on to list “individuals below did not hop a border fence or a dig a tunnel: they, like the 9/11 hijackers, applied for entry and were approved”:
- The Boston Bombers were invited in as refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship.
- A Moroccan national who came to the U.S. on a student visa was arrested for plotting to blow up a university and a federal court house.
- 7 Somali-Americans in Minnesota have recently been charged with trying to join ISIS. The Washington Times reported that “the effort [to resettle large groups of Somali refugees in Minnesota] is having the unintended consequence of creating an enclave of immigrants with high unemployment that is both stressing the state’s safety net and creating a rich pool of potential recruiting targets for Islamist terror groups.”
- An Uzbek refugee living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs.
- An American citizen whose family is from Syria was sentenced for plotting to support ISIS and rob a gun store to kill members of the American military.
- An immigrant from Syria, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was accused by federal prosecutors of planning to “go to a military base in Texas and kill three or four American soldiers execution style.”
- A college student who immigrated from Somalia, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.
- An immigrant from Afghanistan, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, and a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, were convicted for “join Al Qaeda and the Taliban in order to kill Americans.”
- An Iraqi immigrant, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was arrested for lying to federal agents about pledging allegiance to ISIS and his travels to Syria.
- Two immigrants from Pakistan, who later applied for and received U.S citizenship, were sentenced to decades-long prison sentences for plotting to detonate a bomb in New York City.
- An immigrant from Yemen, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was arrested for trying to join ISIS. He was also charged with attempting to illegally buy firearms to try to shoot American military personnel.
The list is alarming and underscores the need to review and fix legal immigration procedures in light of global jihad. Sessions lists a series of common sense principles that we’ve abandoned as a nation and need to reaffirm:
Further, the events described above do not occur in isolation, but are often part of broader networks, groups, and pockets of radicalization made possible by unwise immigration policy. It is time to affirm some fundamental but forgotten principles that will enhance not only our security but also our social and economic well-being:
- We are under no obligation to admit anyone to the United States.
- The selection of new immigrants to the United States should be based on what’s in the best interests of the people already living inside the United States.
- Immigrants selected for admission should be expected to be financially self-sufficient and chosen because they are likely to succeed, thrive, and flourish in the United States.
- Assimilation is the best policy to ensure both the success of our country and the success of those who arrive in our country. We do both the country and those seeking to enter our country a disservice by failing to promote our language, our laws, and our political customs.
- We should not admit people in larger numbers than we can reasonably expect to vet, assimilate, and absorb into our schools, communities, and labor markets. It is not compassionate but uncaring to bring in so many people that there are not enough jobs for them or the people already here. As Coolidge said: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Having gone through the immigration system for my wife, I will never believe it to be broken. Extensive background checks are/should be completed. Should these fail, it is the fault of the FBI/CIA/DHS, not the system that requires proper clearances.
OK, being the contrarian I AM, and while loving Senators Cruz and Sessions as I DO…
I don’t see how in the wide world of sports this is something that could work in our pluralistic society consistent with our freedoms and values.
We can no more identify a nut-job killer like the one in question than we could the Charleston killer..
I agree. But we could limit those who come in from countries where this sort of crap is bred like germs in a Petri dish.
Immigration should serve our interests, not the immigrants’. Getting to come here is their big reward and there is no requirement we be PC or “faaaaaaaaaaaaaair” about who we let in.
We owe muslims NOTHING. And, contra the Buffoon-in-Chief, the Crusades were in response to the bloody conquest of the Holy Land by muslim barbarians.
For example, we could allow entrance only to English speakers. Or, we could prohibit entrance to non-English-speakers except for those who speak German, French, and maybe Austrian.
Or whatever other language is spoken by populations that would assimilate and support our culture. We should be in charge of this, after all.
We can easily identify the population pools that nurture most of the world’s ideologically driven terrorists — as distinct from “nut-job killers,” who are a different phenomenon.
We can also admit that those population pools are overwhelmingly, fundamentally opposed to the “assimilation” ideal; on the contrary, most of them want to remake our society in their own image, as they are religiously commanded to do.
We can admit that “terrorism” is not the only means by which Muslims aim to compel submission, though the threat of violence gives weight to other kinds of pressure.
Then we can acknowledge that “pluralism” can be suicidal when it goes to the extend of importing and protecting population groups that reject pluralism and adhere to a profoundly totalitarian ideology. Pluralism is one thing; societal self-destruction is another. It’s tragic that most Western elites either can’t see the difference, or favor the destruction.
‘We can also admit that those population pools are overwhelmingly, fundamentally opposed to the “assimilation” ideal; on the contrary, most of them want to remake our society in their own image…’
This applies to most Hispanic immigrants as well. Real refugees don’t behave this way. Real refugees want to get as far away as possible from the states they’re fleeing – that includes those states’ cultures and political climates that caused them to become sh*tholes in the first place. Most “refugees” coming here today have no interest in escaping their cultures, and they’re happy with any political regime capable of providing them with handouts.
We’re told we can’t profile. We’re told we can’t judge. If we don’t profile, and we don’t judge, we have Chattanooga.
It was Justice Jackson in the 1940s and Justice Goldberg in the 1960s who said that the Constitution is not a “suicide pact”.
Well? Is it? Or isn’t it?
Frank is down for one of those “I believe in the First Amendment, BUTT…” guys.
You either do, or you don’t, right?
Rag-sie, what have I ever done to make you treat me with such disrespect?
Are you sure you didn’t mean to accuse me of ignoring the Fourth Amendment, against unlawful search and seizure, versus the First Amendment, freedom of speech, not to mention the always ignored second half of the “establishment” clause, i.e., “the free exercise thereof”? How does insisting on [intelligent, Israeli style] profiling and/or judging violate the First Amendment [or, for that matter, the Fourth]?
OK, Frank, MAYBE I misread you, too. The article was about Chattanooga and how immigration related to it.
I’ve got no kick with ALLLLLLLL kinds of good, effective screening regarding ANYBODY who wants to come here, even for a short visit.
My comments were directed at the Senators’ statements.
Now, I’ll go you one better… I am not averse to watching people…especially young men…for signs they are about to go tapioca. Just HOW that’s done, by whom, etc. COULD get problematic, I warrant. But I sort of have to observe that the Charleston killer would not have required a “pre-crime” scenario to justify a nice, serious talk from some LEO-types, given all the signals he’d spun off for some time (by all accounts).
Which takes us back to the tension between liberties and public safety, which we’ve kicked around a good bit.
I am neither law enforcement nor psychiatrist. I therefore have no idea how to professionally profile a “future” mass murderer. I have this terrible feeling that whatever profile might be created that included Dylann Roof would also include literally millions of other Americans. Nevertheless, being an eternal optimist, I’d like to see the pros, and not just shrinks but also street wise LEOs, take a crack at it.
One thing is for certain. Declaring anything that has any relevance to Islam not valid for any profiling criteria can only have the result of ignoring rational threats.
With regard to,
” I am not averse to watching people…especially young men…for signs they are about to go tapioca. Just HOW that’s done, by whom, etc. COULD get problematic, I warrant. ”
one must accept that the person doing the profiling/analysis/inspection, however one wants to call the process to distinguish an ordinary John Doe from a terrorist, must have his heart and soul in the game.
Several times Israeli security at the airport picked out the right person because of gut feeling by the men and women on duty.
It is no use having an alien, legal or otherwise on the job because they have no vested interest in keeping the country and community whole.
Today one would have profile for the right qualities an employee needs to do the job, and of course with all the progressive garbage imagine not giving a person the job for lack of “feeling”.
There’s a fundamental error in equating the Charleston killer with the Chattanooga killer and other jihadis. The error is to assume that the latter are just crazy people, motivated by no particular ideology, who decided to take out their personal frustration or anger on innocent people, and then maybe “hid behind” or “exploited” Islam to justify their evil acts.
That is exactly the line that Obama takes, along with virtually every other multiculti leftist (and many alleged conservatives), along with outright Islam-apologists, here and elsewhere. It is a blind and foolish view, when it isn’t actually treacherous.
The way to combat ideologically inspired violence is to acknowledge its ideological inspiration, honestly — and then limit the space for that ideology to grow among us. That means a moratorium on Muslim immigration, for starters.
Does the First Amendment require us to keep giving “freedom of religion” protection to a totalitarian ideology that explicitly rejects both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that explicitly aims to take over the whole world by any means?
Does it require that we keep importing more of the people who adhere to that totalitarian ideology and who think we should be killed if we “blaspheme” their “prophet”?
That seems to be your point in suggesting that a due wariness of Islam — a wariness informed by an understanding of what Islam actually teaches — is somehow a violation of the First Amendment.
My number one rule for reforming LEGAL immigration is this:
Our immigration system should serve the interests of the United States and its people, and no one else.
For instance, the numbers allowed each year should be flexible, being reduced when we have a tough labor market, and increased when it is tight.
The last thing we need with millions who want to immigrate here is to take mostly low-skilled or unskilled people without the means to support themselves.
We should go back to national quotas, end family chain immigration at immediate family, and give precedence to those who can support themselves, or who have a sponsor who will guarantee their support, for five years.
Enforcement must include not only securing the border, but also implementing e-Verify fully, and tracking tourist, student, and other temporary visas (we are one of the very few nations that does not) while in this country.
Not ONE single thing of which applied to this killer.
He was TOTALLY assimilate, from all appearances. He was a flucking electrical engineer! With a JOB! HE was arguable MORE assimilated than the Charleston killer or the Colorado killer.
No. There isn’t any easy handle for this kind of thing. Other examples, sure…perhaps. Not here.
Do I think Islamism played a role here? Sure. But is has nothing apparent to do with immigration or any other EASY modality.
And WHERE did I say it would have stopped this guy? The topic is immigration. My only relevant remark to the shooting was that immigration from muslim nations should not be unlimited, and perhaps even more limited than from non-muslim nations.
We did let in the Boston bombers as refugees. And many of the Somalis who have traveled to the Middle East to answer the call of radicals were also refugees. So far, they haven’t returned to kill anyone. YET.
There is a big difference between religions and death cults. The idea we have to be blind to a cult that cries “death to the infidel!” is ridiculous. Their right to practice their “faith” ends long before their blade hits my neck.
Neither are Hindis permitted to practice the Sati on our shores.
Before the Kennedy reforms of the ’60s, we accepted far more European immigrants, educated people who spoke English and wished to assimilate to our culture.
The idea we “owe” the rest of the world any equal status as immigrants is unfounded. They enjoy our freedoms once we let them in, but before we allow them, they have no rights.
Well, not as I read the “topic”, which quoted extensively from Sen. Cruz on immigration relative to Chattanooga.
I confess to being as apt to misread your comment as anybody, but I didn’t see where you changed horses from the article we’re commenting about.
“He was TOTALLY assimilate, from all appearances. He was a flucking electrical engineer! With a JOB!”
Many a jihad murderer has had a good education, great job, nice home, etc. Some have been in the U.S. military. Some have been physicians. Und so weiter.
And they are still Muslims, motivated by their religion to kill infidels. Maybe they were once only nominal Muslims who then became “radical,” but there’s a lesson there to be learned about “moderate” Islam.
Unfortunately, instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that suggests itself from an accumulation of similar incidents, you’re taking the “see-no-Islam” view and proposing that we have no idea at all where this kind of behavior might pop up.
We do have an idea where it pops up. Pretending it’s a big mystery is just a way to make us increasingly vulnerable.
Okay, you do mention “Islamism,” but apparently you think that’s something different from “Islam,” and you seem to think there’s no problem at all in importing large numbers of Muslims and swaddling them with a perverse notion of First Amendment protection. That’s where you’re wrong.
I’d also make sure the claim to family or sponsor support are as enforceable as court ordered child support payments. .
Get a copy of “9/11 and Terrorist Travel”, see link above. It’s the declassified version of the investigation into how the 9/11 hijackers exploited our immigration system to do what they did. Unfortunately, there’s no epilogue indicating whether the government made any substantive changes, and if there was, it would probably be classified.
I’d like to see an analysis of how the Abdulazeez family qualified for immigration and naturalization. Whatever that process was, it needs to be changed.