Senator Lindsey Graham: we need to bring in our "fair share" of Syrian Muslims

If you are looking for answers about how South Carolina has become a target for refugee resettlement where the Governor (Nikki Haley) and even Rep. Trey Gowdy*** are obviously reluctant to stand up and question the choice of the state as fresh territory for third world resettlement (colonization!), look no further than the senior senator of the Palmetto State.

Do Haley and Gowdy jump when Lindsey says jump?

Editor’s note: There will be hundreds of articles in the coming days about the Syrian refugee numbers to be admitted to the US (Obama said 10,000 yesterday, but I suspect that is a trial balloon).  We will post the ones that are the most informative we find.  Like this one! 

Lindsey+Graham+Patrick+Leahy+Senate+Judiciary+yYt1OjAjOPAl
Pals! Leftist Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and SC Senator Lindsey Graham. Will they team up to free emergency funds to bring Syrian Muslims to your towns and cities? Graham was one of 4 Republicans promoting amnesty as part of the infamous ‘Gang of Eight’ Senators in 2013. His position on more immigration has been very clear.

Somehow South Carolina had dodged a bullet over the years as surrounding states of North Carolina, Kentucky and Georgia have been flooded with refugees.
All that is changing (see our archive on the controversy in Spartanburg) and it sure looks like the driver behind that change is none other than SC senior Senator Lindsey Graham.  See his asinine and ill-informed comment about the Statue of Liberty and how America has to take it’s “fair share” of Syrian, mostly Muslim, refugees.   What the hell!  We had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war, why should any be our “fair share.”
(Now, if Graham is talking about Syrian Christians, he better get the backbone to use the word —  Christian!)
The US has long been the leading nation permanently resettling refugees from every continent on the globe—over 100,000 Iraqi Muslims from the Middle East in the last 8 years—-isn’t that enough for the Senator?
From The Fiscal Times in an article entitled, ‘Can the U.S. Handle 100,000 Syrian Refugees?’ (emphasis below is mine):

While much of Washington is occupied with the Iran nuclear deal, another debate is looming about whether the U.S. should open its doors to more refugees from the Syrian civil war.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina raised the possibility on Tuesday that Congress might approve emergency funding to greatly increase the U.S. quota for Syrian refugees in the face of an historic migrant crisis in Europe and the Middle East.

During an appearance before the National Press Club, Graham became the first GOP presidential candidate to urge the Obama administration to accept its “fair share” of Syrian refugees, amid international criticism that the U.S. is grossly shirking its responsibility to the international community. In a fit of melodrama, Graham said that “we should take the Statue of Liberty and tear it down” if the U.S. preserves its current, highly restrictive immigration policies with regards to victims of Syrian violence.

Graham is chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, which means he has some say over the budget for the State Department and other international agencies. He said he would be in favor of “emergency spending” to cover the cost of bringing substantially more Syrian immigrants to the U.S., which would add to the federal deficit. He said he would confer with Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on his subcommittee, to sound him out on a possible bipartisan proposal.

“I don’t just want to pick a number,” Graham said, according to Roll Call. “I don’t know how many we should take, I don’t know how much money we should spend, but I know we should take our fair share and we need to spend more to get ahead of this.”

The U.S. currently allows the immigration of no more than 1,500 Syrians a year [inaccurate information—ed] – a miniscule number in the face of the millions of refugees streaming out of Syria, headed for Germany and other European countries. The United States Committee for Refugee and Immigrants has urged the administration to accept 100,000 Syrians in the coming year. [Dumb reporters quoting, as some sort of authoritative voice, a non-profit resettlement contractor which is being paid by the head to resettle refugees!–ed]

*** Rep. Trey Gowdy is chairman of the House subcommittee responsible for refugees and we will be watching closely to see if he calls for hearings when Obama sends his “Determination Letter” to Congress for consultation sometime in the next week or two.  Fiscal year 2016 begins on October 1, so by law Obama must send it!  The big question is, what can Congress do about it?  The key committees in the House and Senate could at minimum hold hearings.  And, please don’t tell me that Gowdy has too much going on with Benghazi to spend a little time on this infinitely more important issue—how many Syrian Muslims will we drop off in your towns!

US Senators who make immigration policy live in a bubble! Syrians coming?

Sheesh!  Can you believe it!  Senators Rubio and Graham, two chief proponents of ‘COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform,’ had no clue that the US State Department, at the behest of the UN, was contemplating bringing in possibly tens of thousands of Syrian refugees while thousands of their constituents know about it and disapprove.   So much for comprehensive!

Yuk! Yuk! Yuk! Rubio and Graham in a bubble!

From Breitbart:

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), two lawmakers who are part of the gang of eight immigration bill, are unaware of the administration’s willingness to accept thousands of Syrian refugees into the United States.

Rubio, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told Breitbart News, “Well this country has a long history of asylum and taking people who are fleeing oppression. On the other hand, given the nature of the Syrian conflict, like any asylum seeker, that they be carefully vetted. That’s my initial take. It’s the first I’ve heard of it.

[….]

“I don’t think that would go over very well. It’s news to me. I haven’t heard that,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the armed services committee, remarked to Breitbart News. He added, “I think it would be better policy to help the rebels build militarily than to bring them here. I think it would be big backlash [if the administration tried to brings the refugees here.]”

Be sure to visit the Breitbart story with quotes from other clueless Senators, so fixated on the Hispanic vote they haven’t any idea of who else is coming to America.

Readers might want to visit this post in which I discuss the Presidential Determination for FY2013.  Obama set the cap for refugee admissions for 2013 at 70,000.  They are on target to meet that number despite high unemployment rates and high welfare use rates for refugees.  And, btw, the President sends his determination to Congress for approval and it has been reported to us that NO ONE ever challenges it.

I do believe that the Refugee Act of 1980 (Kennedy, Biden, Carter!) has a provision for an ’emergency’ situation that would allow them to go over the cap and admit tens of thousands of Syrians.  I’ll have to do some research on that.

Keep up the pressure on your US Senators against S.744 and tell them NO to Syrians!

LOL! Sarah Palin said in a speech yesterday in Washington—these are all Muslims squabbling in the Middle East, so let Allah solve their problems!

Breaking! Senator Lindsey Graham prevails with stepped-up security amendment to S.744

Just now, I happened to catch the live mark-up proceedings in the US Senate Judiciary Committee and saw Senator Graham make his pitch for his Amendment #1, described here, that is clearly in response to the Boston Bomber Tsarnaev family’s re-visits to the homeland where they supposedly were persecuted.

Dick Durbin leans on Graham at a previous meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Graham sought to amend S.744 with a provision that would revoke refugee or asylum status to anyone who returns to the land of their alleged persecution without “good cause.”

Of course, if S.744 passes there will be much to do about what exactly is “good cause” and how a refugee or asylee might apply to return “home” for a visit.  Going home to a funeral might be a ‘good cause’ but as Graham pointed out going home to learn bomb-making should have a penalty.  Graham’s victory is a symbolic victory for common sense, but likely temporary.

Arguing against Graham (and voting against him) were Senators Leahy and Durbin (no surprise).  Graham was successful by voice vote.   However, cynic that I am, I think Leahy and Durbin just went through the motions of opposing Graham for the sake of making a show for their “humanitarian” lobbyist friends.

Throwing Graham a bone to keep him on board (with the Gang of Eight and Grover) now was probably more important—they can always dump his amendment later in the process.  And, besides, now Graham can say he strengthened security measures in the bill.

The IRC has a lobbying office in Washington and it should be busy today

For some unknown reason information on the International Rescue Committee’s D.C. lobbying office came up in one of my alerts this morning.  Maybe it’s because last week they put out an alert to tell supporters of the refugee resettlement industry to call US Senators working on the Gang of Eight plus Grover bill being marked up in the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

We told you about that here last Thursday.  (Go there to see what you must do!)

You need to call today too!  S.744 will increase the number of refugees and asylees in the US and it provides a slush fund for “non-profits” like the 9 BIG federal refugee contractors and their 300 plus subcontractors.

I recommend that you tell Senators that due to recent refugee-perpetrated terrorism cases that they should strip all references to the refugee program from S.744 and hold separate hearings!

To add insult to injury, the word is that the US State Department helps to fund the lobbying offices for the contractors.  I have written about that before especially as it relates to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (or any of the nine)—it infuriates me to think the Bishops are taking your hard-earned tax dollars to fund their lobbying campaigns!

Here is what the IRC says about their DC shop.  And, btw, they were not at the State Department hearing on Wednesday.  Where were they?  Or did they feel they had an inside track to the State Dept and didn’t need to provide their wishlist for 2014 before their critics in public?

Asst. Secretary of State for PRM, Anne Richard, in Philadelphia recently with an Iranian transgender refugee.

Oh, yeh, they do have an inside track—Anne Richard, the Asst. Secretary of State for the refugee program, just recently left the IRC as one of its 6-figure salaried veeps.   Classic Washington DC case of the revolving door (federal contractors in and out of government jobs)!

The International Rescue Committee office in Washington, DC maintains relations with U.S. government offices, especially those that support some of the IRC’s programs.  This includes the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Migration, and Refugees and the U.S. Agency for International Development.  The IRC meets regularly with decision-makers on both sides of the political aisle, and in both the Executive branch and Congress, to raise issues of concern and advocate for change in U.S. government policies.  The IRC is also active working in coalitions  and with other non-governmental organizations.  Members of IRC’s public policy and advocacy department in Washington, DC also plan and guide IRC’s global advocacy efforts [Like snuggling up to Hamid Karzai?—ed].  The Washington, DC office houses staff from IRC’s International Programs Department and the Women’s Refugee Commission.

Contact Us:

International Rescue Committee
1730 M Street, NW – Suite 505
Washington DC 20036
Tel: 202-822-0166
Fax: (202) 822-0089
e-mail: advocacy@rescue.org

Gang member, Senator Graham, has amendments to S.744 for the purpose of increasing security in the refugee program.

Senator Lindsey Graham still has two amendments pending that are apparently inspired by the Boston refugee bombers ‘success’ in killing and maiming innocent Americans on April 15th.  We told you about them here and here.  It will be interesting to see if those commonsense security enhancements make it through mark-up.  You can bet the IRC is lobbying hard against them today!

Here is our entire archive on the IRC for the ambitious readers among you!  They just hired former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband to step into his $450,000 a year job as its new CEO.

Photo is from Philadelphia Gay News, here.  Muslims persecute gays, so there is a big push to bring in refugees who are LGBTs from Sharia-loving countries.

Lindsey Graham looking for more security screening for certain aliens in S.744

Here is an amendment to S.744 that is probably sending the refugee industry into conniption-fits.  They don’t want any more security screening that slows the flow of third-worlders into the US.  If it fails to pass it will send yet another signal that S.744 will endanger our security.

Graham, Kirk, McCain and Rubio yukking it up in Libya (we did good!) one year before the murder of Americans at Benghazi. Photo perhaps unrelated to this post, but it’s here because it infuriates me!
Photo credit: AP

And, you have to laugh because, should it pass, half the countries we are importing refugees from now would have to be on the list—Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Russia, former Soviet Union countries, even Burma (Rohingya Muslims).

Be sure to see our previous post here about Graham’s other amendment that is clearly in response to the Boston Marathon bomber brothers’ faux asylum claim.

Go here to see the list of all the amendments (hat tip: John).  The list now has a notation about which have passed/failed or been withdrawn.

Here is Graham’s amendment #3:

Purpose: To require additional security screening for certain aliens.

Additional Security Screening

The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall establish and maintain a list of countries or regions that, in the Secretary’s opinion based upon information related to national security, represents a threat, or contains groups or organizations that represent a threat, to the national security of the United States.

Upon determining that any alien or alien dependent  spouse or child is or was a citizen or long-term resident of any such country or region, the Secretary shall conduct an additional security screening to ensure that the alien or alien dependent spouse or child is not a member of or otherwise affiliated with any terrorist or similar group or otherwise presents a threat to the national security of the United States.

We will be watching!