Religion in the Immigration Debate – Gregory Noble
Getting Worked Up About Religious Discrimination
in the Immigration Debate?
I have heard a lot of commentary on FB, news, radio, TV, and of course the President and Speaker Ryan. We can’t stop Syrian immigration, discriminating against Muslims! It is UN-American, it is prejudiced, it isn’t right.
While all of that could be true it is nevertheless an interesting side-light I haven’t heard widely commented upon that this religious tolerance seems to work in one direction only.
“(CNSNews.com) – Since the Paris terror attacks on November 13, the State Department has admitted 237 Syrian refugees into the United States – 236 Sunni Muslims and one Christian (0.4 percent), according to data from the State Department Refugee Processing Center.
The Christian, a Greek Orthodox individual, is the sole non-Sunni Muslim admitted to the U.S. since the attack, which fueled concerns that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) may move terrorists into Western nations under the cover of refugee resettlement programs.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Christians accounted for an estimated 10 percent of the Syrian population and Sunni Muslims for an estimated 74 percent when the conflict began in early 2011.
President Obama plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. during fiscal year 2016. Since FY2016 began on October 1, a total of 528 Syrian refugees have been admitted into the U.S. They comprise 522 (98.8 percent) Sunni Muslims and six Christians – three Catholic, one Orthodox, one Greek Orthodox and one simply described as “Christian.”
Since the Syrian civil war began in mid-March 2011, a total of 2,401 Syrian refugees have been admitted into the U.S. Of those, 2,241 (93.3 percent) were Sunni Muslims, an additional 60 were described simply as “Moslem,” and 13 were Shia. Only 54 (2.2 percent) were Christian (including five Orthodox, one Greek Orthodox and four Catholics).”
Non-conclusive I know.
Five other Iraqi Christians will be tried for immigration fraud. Seven detainees have already been deported. The Iraqi Christians told US officials that they were fleeing persecution at home. However, most had already been granted safe haven by Germany, Sweden and other European countries before coming to America.
“Asylum is for emergencies only,” Ginger Jacobs, a San Diego attorney, told the Union-Tribune. “There are many, many people fleeing Iraq for bonafide emergency reasons. But if somebody is able to live as a citizen in a country like Germany or the United Kingdom or Australia, then they don’t necessarily deserve an emergency remedy such as asylum. The Chaldean detainees are being held in a San Diego detention center run by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”
Then there is the Fox News Opinion from 18 Nov 2015: “’We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,’ he (President Obama) told journalists from high atop his soapbox.
But that’s not entirely accurate.
Last year, the Obama administration led a fierce legal battle to have a German Christian family thrown out of the United States. The Romeikes fled their homeland in search of a nation where they could homeschool their children. A judge initially granted them asylum – believing they were escaping from religious persecution.
However, the Obama administration waged a fierce campaign against the Romeike family – demanding they be returned to Germany. The family lost court battle after court battle – but at the eleventh hour the White House relented and decided begrudgingly to let them stay.
So the next time President Obama wants to lecture the nation about religion maybe he could explain why his administration is importing Muslims and deporting Christians.
Turns out it is mostly UN-American to suggest people from an area known to be infiltrated by ISIS, and who happen to be Muslim, should not be allowed to immigrate, even for a period of time, while it is perfectly American to do stop immigration by those from generally the same area who are Christian. People, by the way, who are immediately threatened by ISIS with death.
And it is recently UN-American to suggest immigration should have limits.
As recently as 1979 or so when Democrat President Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating (mostly Muslim people as well) it wasn’t as Hitlerite a policy.
But then what is the hubbub about anyway? After all, the Democrat party carte blanche, especially this President, along with all the notable leadership of the Republican Party, all the media, and most of those evil corporations as represented on left and right, are all in agreement we should do nothing to stop illegal immigration across our Mexican border.
Which means, they are okay with virtually anyone coming into this country, so long as they come via Mexico and hopefully dress like and speak as any Hispanic / Latin American would. Because not all who come from Mexico are from Central or South America.
Most people are furious and frustrated. Common sense dictates there is a reason for a national border. And if one exists it should be controlled according to the rules pertaining to entrance that exist within the country owning those borders. I mean US law should pertain to who / how we allow people inside the country.
That is NOT how the leadership of Washington (and the lapdogs in the media) view this situation.
If you are caught up in the current debate of the week orchestrated by the media / ruling elites, then you might want to ask yourself a question.
Who is dictating what you are upset about this week? Who is doing the bidding of whom? Does your President, your Representative, or your Senator(s) speak of enforcing policy that really represents what the majority of us believe, and that the law actually requires, or are they representing views that enrich themselves with money and power to your (our) detriment?
~by Gregory Noble
