Malkin: No vetting of Afghan "refugees"

At Heartland Daily New, Michelle Malkin reports that “There Is No Vetting of Afghan Refugees.  A few excerpts:

. . .

How much of an illusion is the “multilayered,” “biometric” and “biographic” vetting of Afghan refugees?

Over the holidays, with almost zero news coverage outside the Washington Examiner and New York Post, a Senate Republican memo reported that “almost none of the 82,000 people airlifted from Kabul in August were vetted before being admitted to the United States, despite claims to the contrary from the Biden administration.”

The memo reportedly noted that “Afghans without any identification or records were approved for travel to the United States as long as their fingerprints or other biometrics were not already in a U.S. Government database and connected to derogatory information (e.g., a known terrorist, terrorist affiliate, or criminal). Federal officials relayed that few Afghans know their birthday, which has resulted in a number of evacuees’ date of birth logged as January 1.”

In October, The Wall Street Journal reported that Republican lawmakers had been pressing the Biden administration on “how many Afghans traveled without any paperwork.” No answers yet. . . .

. . .

In early November, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, revealed in a floor speech that “there are at least 10 evacuees who made it past all this screening into the United States prior to the national security concerns being raised and causing them currently to be detained in federal facilities as a national security threat. That’s 10. We don’t know how many more there are.”

Open borders plus bleeding hearts equal a demographic nightmare. Homeland security is a joke. There is no vetting. 

Ms. Malkin’s complete report is here.  And this blog reported last month on Afghans arriving in Cleveland on military transports.

# # #

Temporary ban on immigration: Is It Legal?

image credit: wisegeek

  

The media is going wild. President Trump fired Sally Yates, the Obama-appointed acting Attorney General, because she would not enforce Trump’s temporary suspension of immigration from seven Muslim majority counties known to aid, abet, and finance terrorists. The legality of President Trump’s EO is at issue, and if you are listening to any of the TV news analyses, his temporary ban is not legal, it’s not American, etc., even though it was reviewed and approved by the Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. 

Take a minute or two to read through Andrew McCarthy’s legal analysis at National Review. McCarthy was a federal prosecutor for the case against the Blind Sheik and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The concluding take-away:

One can debate the policy wisdom of the executive order, which is plainly a temporary measure while a more comprehensive and thoughtfully tailored policy is developed. The seven countries the president has singled out are surely hotbeds of radical Islam; but he has omitted other countries – e.g., Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 suicide-hijackers who attacked our country on 9/11 – that are also cauldrons of jihadism.

Furthermore, as I have argued, the real threat to be targeted is sharia-supremacist ideology, which is inherently hostile to the Constitution. Were we to focus our vetting, unapologetically, on that ideology (also known as “radical” or “political” Islam), it would be unnecessary to implement a categorical ban on Muslims or immigrants from majority-Muslim countries. That is critical because non-Islamist Muslims who can demonstrate loyalty to our constitutional principles should not be barred from admission; while Islamists, on the other hand, are not found only in Muslim-majority countries – other things being equal, a sharia supremacist from the banlieues of Paris poses as much of a threat as a sharia supremacist from Raqqa.

Yet, all that can be debated as we go forward. For now, there is no doubt that the executive order temporarily banning entry from specified Muslim-majority countries is both well within President Trump’s constitutional authority and consistent with statutory law.

But read the whole thing here.

# # #