Action Alert: Amnesty Again

image credit: americanmexorist.wordpress.com

RE: H-2B visas for 2018 and DACA amnesty

NumbersUSA sent this Alert out today:

NumbersUSA has learned that Congressional Leaders may include an H-2B visa increase in the year-end spending bill. The H-2B visa is the low-skilled guest worker program used to fill seasonal or temporary jobs in landscaping, food service, hospitality, and more. This program adds extra job competition for low-skilled American workers and adversely affects the wages for these jobs.

In past year's spending bills, Congress has exempted returning workers from the H-2B program, having the potential impact of quadrupling the number of these guest worker visas issued each year. For FY2017, Congress didn't exempt returning workers, but gave the Department of Homeland Security authority to issue visas beyond the annual cap. DHS ultimately increased the number of visas available by 15,000.

This new threat adds to the continuing threat of a DACA amnesty being part of the spending bill. Despite rhetoric from leaders of both Parties, Congress could still include this amnesty in the must-pass bill.

The ALERT:

Please call your U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose a DACA amnesty and an H-2B visa increase in the must-pass, year-end spending bill.

Sen. Sherrod Brown  ~  (202) 224-2315

Sen. Rob Portman  ~  (202) 224-3353

Rep. Marcia Fudge  ~  (202) 225-7032

If Marcia Fudge is not your Representative, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 255-3121 to reach your Rep.

# # #

Stop Mike DeWine from Suing President Trump over DACA

image credit: discussionist.com

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an American immigration policy that allowed some individuals who entered the country as minors, and had either entered or remained in the country illegally, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for a work permit. As of 2017, approximately 800,000 individuals—referred to as Dreamers after the DREAM Act bill—were enrolled in the program created by DACA. The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 and rescinded by the Trump administration in September 2017.

(from Ralph King, Cleveland Tea Party):

Call Mike DeWine and tell him to put Ohio citizens first - NO MORE Kate Steinle's!

 Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515

To date Ohio Attorney General and candidate for Governor Mike DeWine has REFUSED to come out and support President Trump's ending Obama's DACA program. We must STOP the soft-on-illegal immigration AG DeWine from joining AG's in 15 other states from suing President Trump!

Seeing that Mike DeWine has used Obama's original DACA ruling in allowing illegal immigrants to obtain an Ohio Driver License -- suing President Trump over DACA is not far off! Tell Mike DeWine to put Ohio citizens first and don't be like his buddy John Kasich!

Call Mike DeWine (800-282-0515) and tell him to put Ohio citizens first and respect the rule of law!

# # #

 

More maneuvering on taxes, spending, and immigration ?

art credit: crooksandliars.com

What Is Little Marco Up to?

Sen. Marco Rubio was interviewed yesterday evening on Fox’s Ingraham Angle. Sundance @ ConservativeTreehouse explains why his alarm bells went off:

There’s a big con job just over the horizon.  All of the elements are there.  The timing, the platform, the personalities, the discussion topics, etc., it’s a familiar script.  CTH would like to direct attention to this interview which took place last night on Laura Ingraham’s new Fox News show.  Listen carefully to three elements:

·         On Tax Reform – on one side of Rubio’s ‘full-throated‘ mouth he wants higher taxes on corporations 22% -vs- 20%. In the almost the same breath, inside the same argument, he says “it’s not their (the government’s) money”.  Try to reconcile that.

·         On DACA – [Remember, three months ago President Trump gave congress six months to fix DACA]  Rubio says the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program is not the “Dreamers”.  What? Yes it is. The childhood arrivals ARE the so-called ‘dreamers’.

·         However, much more importantly, listen to what is said on “chain migration“.  Ingraham asks if Rubio supports “chain migration”.   Rubio says no, then immediately says: “I’ve always agreed to limiting chain migration to immediate family members”. WHAT? That is chain migration.

. . .

Something is going on in DC that precipitated this interview.

The rest of Sundance’s analysis is here (includes video).

Here is what may be “going on in DC that precipitated this interview.” NumbersUSA, an immigration & amnesty legislation watchdog, sent out an alert today. It includes the following:

Congress loves to add unpopular provisions to must-pass spending bills, and that's why we're on high alert.

As most of you know, the Trump administration stopped accepting new applications for Pres. Obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty for young illegal aliens (DACA) in September. Since then, both Democrats and Republicans have introduced several proposals that would give a permanent amnesty to DACA recipients. The must-pass December spending bill provides the vehicle to do so.

We've seen this play out before. Congress has used massive spending bills to hide unpopular immigration provisions or tried to pass amnesty when voters were less engaged during the holiday season.

. . .

A handful of high-profile Democratic Senators have announced that they'll withhold support for the spending bill if it doesn't include an amnesty for DACA recipients. To support their efforts, the open-borders lobbying group Partnership for a New American Economy is investing heavily in grassroots lobbying efforts over the next few weeks.

So far, both Pres. Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan have said that they don't want DACA to be included in the December bill.

Which side wins could depend on how much opposition to adding a DACA amnesty to the spending bill lawmakers in Washington hear from their constituents.

And here is a NumbersUSA Action Alert:

Over the next several weeks, Members of Congress need to hear a constant beat of opposition to adding an amnesty for DACA illegal aliens to the must-pass spending bill. Here are two actions you can take to get you started:

1) Call Senate GOP Leaders

While Speaker Ryan has been vocal about his opposition to DACA's inclusion in the spending bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been quiet. However, the third ranking Senate Republican, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) did say over the weekend that he doesn't think DACA should be part of the spending deal, but fell short of saying it won't be part of the final package.

Please call the following GOP Leaders in the Senate and tell them that you oppose adding the DACA amnesty to any must-pass spending bill.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- (202) 224-2541

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn -- (202) 224-2934

Senate GOP Caucus Chair John Thune -- (202) 224-2321

The NumbersUSA website is here. I expect more Alerts over the next couple of weeks.

# # #

 

By the Book: The Strange Death of Europe

Amazon cover

Just finished Douglas Murray’s frightening must-read The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. If America needed another wake-up call, this is it.  This book examines the paramount problem of today: uncontrolled immigration. And from all angles, based on his research and his extensive travels, particularly in Europe. 

Murray covers history, philosophy and religion, Islam and Christianity, demographics, cultural suicide, political correctness, ideologies, political landscapes, corruption, voter preferences vs government “leaders”, humanity, immigration pros and cons, good stories, bad stories, as well as the what-do-we-do-now and current dilemma scenarios. His conclusions about Europe are a preview of coming attractions here in the USA. 

And it's cheap on Kindle.

# # #

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.

# # #

Restatement on The Flight 93 Election

photo credit: cnn.com

A few days ago I posted a link to a think piece entitled The Flight 93 Election, along with a few extracts. The essay, originally published on The Claremont Review of Books website here, generated a significant amount of interest in the blogosphere. It also generated a boatload of responses, much of it critical, to which the author, writing under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus, responded on Sept-13 here.

Like everyone else, I am trying to navigate my way through the run-up to the November election, and I highly recommend both the original think-piece and the follow-up that responds to specific criticisms. Here are a few extracts from the Restatement on Flight 93:

Some also complained about the aptness of the analogy: the plane crashed! Well, yes, and this one might too. Then again, it might not. It depends in part on what action the electorate chooses to take. The passengers of Flight 93 roused themselves. They succeeded insofar as that plane did not hit its intended target.

The temptation not to rouse oneself in a time of great peril is always strong. In another respect, the analogy is even more apt. All of the passengers on Flight 93—and all of the victims at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—died owing in part to a disastrously broken immigration system that didn’t then and still doesn’t serve the interests of the American people. Which also happens to be the core issue at stake in this election.

. . .

[another reason that some conservatives oppose Trump is that] Trump might win. He is not playing his assigned role of gentlemanly loser the way McCain and Romney did, and may well have tapped into some previously untapped sentiment that he can ride to victory. This is a problem for both the Right and the Left.

The professional Right (correctly) fears that a Trump victory will finally make their irrelevance undeniable. The Left knows that so long as Republicans kept playing by the same rules and appealing to the same dwindling base of voters, there was no danger. Even if one of the old breed had won, nothing much would have changed, since their positions on the most decisive issues were effectively the same as the Democrats and because they posed no serious challenge to the administrative state.

. . .

[T]he current governing arrangement of the United States is rule by a transnational managerial class in conjunction with the administrative state. To the extent that the parties are adversarial at the national level, it is merely to determine who gets to run the administrative state for four years. Challenging the administrative state is out of the question [my emphasis]. The Democrats are united on this point. The Republicans are at least nominally divided. But those nominally opposed (to the extent that they even understand the problem, which is: not much) are unwilling or unable to actually do anything about it. Are challenges to the administrative state allowed only if they are guaranteed to be ineffectual? If so, the current conservative movement is tailor-made for the task. Meanwhile, the much stronger Ryan wing of the Party actively abets the administrative state and works to further the managerial class agenda.

Trump is the first candidate since Reagan to threaten this arrangement. 

. . .

If Hillary wins, there will still be a country, in the sense of a geographic territory with a people, a government, and various institutions. Things will mostly look the same, just as—outwardly—Rome changed little on the ascension of Augustus. It will not be tyranny or Caesarism—not yet. But it will represent, in my view, an irreversible triumph for the administrative state. Consider that no president has been denied reelection since 1992. If we can’t beat the Democrats now, what makes anyone think we could in 2020, when they will have all the advantages of incumbency plus four more years of demographic change in their favor? And if we can’t win in 2016 or 2020, what reason is there to hope for 2024? Will the electorate be more Republican? More conservative? Will constitutional norms be stronger?

The country will go on, but it will not be a constitutional republic. It will be a blue state on a national scale. 

The entire article is here. Should be a Must Read.

# # #

More on voter fraud from The Hill

Ramirez cartoon credit: ldjackson.net

More on the potential for voter fraud this year, this from Ian M. Smith at The Hill a couple of days ago:

Illegal aliens have never had more incentives and ability to vote in our elections as they do this cycle. After being told by the globalist elite [their] illegal entry into the country is without consequence, helps rather than hinders American workers, and unites the national culture, any existing moral qualms of further violating the law, such as by voting, have been thoroughly scrubbed away. Former president Bill Clinton all but ensured this in his speech at the DNC Convention last week.

Speaking directly to illegal aliens, Clinton stated to an applauding audience of delegates that “if you love this country, you’re working hard, you’re paying taxes and you’re obeying the law and you’d like to become a citizen, you should choose immigration reform over somebody that wants to send you back.” Unfortunately for Bill, illegal aliens (and non-citizens in general) aren’t supposed to be ‘choosing’ anyone. Like in every other country in the world, here in America only citizens are supposed to vote.

Despite its unprecedented foreign-born population (currently over 40 million), the US protects against illegal voter-registration by relying on an attestation system. Under federal law, provided one can show a driver’s license or social security number, all a non-citizen need to do if they really want to vote is check a box “confirming” they’re an eligible voter. In other words, it’s an honor system. . . . 

Despite the fact that an illegal vote casted is a citizen-vote cancelled, similar defensive measures are apparently not seen as warranted in the area of voting.

On both the state and federal levels, incentives for illegal alien-voting abound. . . .

. . . Meanwhile, amongst illegal aliens in general, the use of fake or stolen SSNs is commonplace. . . .

The record-close election between Al Gore and George W. Bush led to the formation of a federal commission directed by former president Jimmy Carter to study voter reforms. Notably, its final report stated that better identification requirements were essential because, first, “[i]n close or disputed elections…a small amount of fraud could make the margin of difference… [a]nd second, the perception of possible fraud contributes to low confidence in the system.”

In this current election, where American confidence in general and the integrity of our laws has taken center stage, comments like Bill Clinton’s show exactly why the public’s so angry and frustrated. Whether disdaining democratically-enacted laws, such as our voting or immigration laws, is a shrewd or foolhardy campaign strategy, we shall see.

The rest of the article is here.

# # #

Trump endorses Renee Ellmers?

 Trump endorses Renee Ellmers

Not a good development. From Conservative Review:

[Ellmers is] a fighter alright – a fighter for the Boehner K Street political elites.  There is perhaps no sitting member who embodies the source of anger among Republican voters – the anger that has engendered the rise of Trump in the first place – more than Renee Ellmers.  After she was elected as a “Tea Party conservative” in 2010, she immediately became one of the most loyal foots soldiers for Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy and has done more to fight the conservative grassroots on immigration that any sitting House member.

. . .

Check out her CR profile here, and you will discover a more extensive liberal rap sheet than almost any sitting Republican congressman. 

Ellmers (R-NC) was endorsed by Sarah Palin, and upon election in 2010-11, promptly turned to the left. On immigration issues, NumbersUSA gives her a better report card rating than Conservative Review, but Mr. Trump could have sought out any number of congress critters with better track records. 

Ellmers faces a tough primary tomorrow; here's the report from NPR.

# # #

Illegal Immigration in an Obama World

photo credit: rare.us

NumbersUSA tracks legislation, executive orders, developments, and issues concerning immigration laws and enforcement. I thought I would share their lead story from today’s depressing newsletter.

Top Obama official admits executive actions & sanctuary cities to blame for lower deportation numbers

Fri, May 20th

The days of Pres. Obama being called the "Deporter-in-Chief" are long over. Overall removals are way down and removals of illegal aliens from the interior by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) agents are down 70% from the early years of the Administration.

Why such a decline?

A Senate panel heard the answer Thursday from Thomas Homan, Executive Associate Director for ICE's Enforcement And Removal Operations. He said the decline is a result of both the Administration's executive actions issued in 2012 and 2014 and the existence of sanctuary jurisdictions.

"There are a number of reasons why the numbers are down," Homan said and listed them.

"Sanctuary cities"

"Jurisdictions not honoring my detainers"

"The Trust Act [2013 California law limiting holds on illegal aliens]"

"In 2012, John Morton, the Assistant Secretary of ICE, issued a policy in who we issue detainers on. Virtually took Level 3s off the table. This is a law-abiding society, so most crimes are Level 3."

" Executive actions. Executive actions have narrowed my target pool down."

EXECUTIVE ACTIONS RESPONSBILE

Then, there was this exchange between Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Homan.

SESSIONS: Isn't it true that ICE gets calls every single day from police officers all across America that are not Sanctuary Cities and you're not responding to them because they don't meet the guidelines or the priorities established by the President?

HOMAN: That is true.

SESSIONS: So it's not true then that the reason your numbers are down is because you don't have people to deport. You have them to deport, but you have policies that tell you not to deport whole categories that are here unlawfully. Isn't that correct?

HOMAN: That's a factor, yes sir.

Homan made it a point to praise the men and women of ICE, and their commitment to the "mission". Of course, he's not allowed to comment on his opinion of Pres. Obama's policies, so we don't know where he, a career ICE agent stands, but morale among ICE agents is among the lowest of all federal employees, which would lead one to believe that the agents don't necessarily agree with the Administration's policies.

UNION CHIEF SAYS BORDER PATROL RELEASES ALMOST EVERYONE

Border Patrol Union President Brandon Judd also testified and shed further light on the Administration's policies, specifically its catch-and-release policies. According to Judd, the Border Patrol releases almost every illegal alien it comes into contact with -- even if the alien has a criminal history.

"The second part of the catch-and-release program is releasing people without NTAs [Notices to Appear]. This is actually the most disconcerting part. We can actually arrest somebody with an actual criminal arrest record here in the United States, and if it does not meet these priority guidelines, we have to walk them out the door if they've been here since, if they claim to have been here (his emphasis), since January of 2014, we have to walk them out our door. And we don't even issue them an NTA. In effect, we're saying stay in the country as long as you want."

Judd went on to say that anyone caught crossing the border illegally who is not from Mexico is released by the Border Patrol and that approximately 80% of Mexicans who are caught crossing the border illegally are released. Again, all of this is not a reflection on the men and women of the Border Patrol or of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's all under the direction of the Obama Administration.

Civil Rights icon and Chair of the last bipartisan Commission on Immigration, Barbara Jordan, once told Congress, "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

The Obama Administration has sent a message to the world that unless you're convicted of a violent crime, you'll never be required to leave.

 Maybe Rep. Paul Ryan can put a stop to this.s/o Anyway, the NumbersUSA website is here. 

# # #

Governor John Kasich on Immigration, amnesty

Art credit: beforeitsnews.com

Illegal immigration has emerged as one of the most important issues in this primary election season. Fair (Federation for American immigration Reform) summarizes some fiscal and employment impacts of illegal immigration:

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Tomorrow’s Ohio primary is less than 24 hours away, and here’s a report from Julia Hahn at Breitbart:

With Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s presidential hopes diminishing as his personal demons catch up with him—from his relationship with billionaire Norman Braman to his role in pushing Obama’s amnesty—the donor class seems to be turning its eyes to John Kasich’s last stand in Ohio.

The hope seems to be that a Kasich win in Ohio will not only deny GOP frontrunner Donald Trump delegates, but will also create a new vehicle for arriving at a contested convention.

Because the Kasich campaign was largely ignored as a non-factor prior to Rubio’s polling collapse, Kasich went months with virtually no scrutiny of even his most bizarre statements on the campaign trail.

However, in recent days, Trump has increasingly set his sights on Kasich—whether it be Kasich’s role at Lehman Brothers during the time of the economic collapse, as well as Kasich’s support for NAFTA and Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—a deal which Donald Trump and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) have warned would destroy Ohio’s auto industry.

In particular, Trump has zeroed in on Kasich’s heretofore overlooked push for massive amnesty. Though it has transpired without much attention, Kasich has quietly amassed a string of bizarre, peculiar, and extreme statements on immigration that places him to the furthest leftward reaches of not just the Republican President field, but the Democratic Presidential field as well. This perhaps underscores an element of seriousness to Kasich’s previous declaration, which he had intended in jest: “I ought to be running in a Democrat primary.”

Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.  

1) “God Bless” Illegal Immigrants . . .

2) “I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.” . . .

3) Kasich likened deporting the illegal population to Japanese internment camps . . .

4) Illegal immigrants “are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet.” . . .

5) Allowing ICE officers to do their jobs is not “humane” . . .

6) America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord”  . . .

7) Kasich has called for implementing an open borders-style policy where workers can come and go as they please. . . .

8) Kasich would enact amnesty within his first 100 days. . . .

9) America shouldn’t address ending birthright citizenship because it’s “dividing people” . . .

10) Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay because “they’re here” . . .

Read the full report here.

# # #

What's wrong with the GOP?

Art credit: Riehlpolitics.com

Some patriots may want to skip the links to Conservative Treehouse, because the principal blogger, Sundance, has come out in favor of Trump. Having disclosed that, here is the concluding section of a post from yesterday (here), summarizing why some of us are so angry at the GOP. You probably won't agree with every single point, but you will probably agree with most of the issues:  

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO

• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.

• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP

• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who is working against Donald Trump? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

[See yesterday's CTPP blog if you are not yet registered to vote.]

# # #

There will be more out-of-control immigration

Art credit: thepoliticalforums.com

A meaningless bill to put some "safeguards" 

into immigration background checks

From cleveland.com:  

Northeast Ohio Democrats Tim Ryan and Marcy Kaptur were among 47 Democrats who joined with the majority of House Republicans on Thursday to pass a controversial bill that would increase government background checks done before Syrian or Iraqi refugees are admitted to the United States.

All Ohio's Republicans backed the bill, which passed by a veto-proof vote of 289 to 137.

But the bill is toothless. From Conservative Treehouse:

House Votes On Meaningless Refugee Bill – “SAFE Act” Passes With Veto Proof 289-137 Support….

Under the Paul Ryan approved bill -American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015– the FBI director would be required to certify the background investigation of each refugee from Iraq and Syria.  And only refugees from Iraq and Syria.  And if you are Syrian and you walk into Turkey to begin applying for refugee status, presto, the bill doesn’t cover you.

The SAFE ACT requires the FBI, along with the secretary of Homeland Security and the director of National Intelligence, to certify to Congress that each refugee is not a security threat. The legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s Office to independently assess the refugee approvals.

However, the bill is largely meaningless and well beyond toothless. Senator Sessions (R-AL) noted refugees and migrants from nine different countries have been implicated in terrorism incidents over the past year.  “Ignoring this reality, the American SAFE Act allows the president to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world,” Sessions said previously. 

There is nothing in the bill to prevent refujihadis from crossing our borders. Just more Kabuki theater from Congress.

UPDATE Nov-20 4:30 pm: Cleveland.com reports that

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson this week joined dozens of other mayors of major U.S. cities in affirming that Syrians seeking refuge from their war-torn homeland are welcome here.

"The City of Cleveland has always opened her arms to refugees, regardless of where they are from," Jackson wrote Wednesday in an emailed statement.

Jackson joins Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake and Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings -- who all said they would help resettle Syrian refugees in their cities, despite the recent wave of panic among politicians about the perceived connections between Syrians, the Islamic State and last week's terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 129 people.

Mayors of 18 other cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago also signed a letter sent to President Barack Obama in September, pledging to work with the administration to help resettle Syrian refugees in their towns.

But like many of those mayors, Jackson's views on the issue depart from those of his state's governor.

# # #