Supreme Court Decision Could Result in Higher Refugee Admissions to Begin in 18 Days

You are all aware now that the President is about to make a determination for how many refugees from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East will be admitted to the US in FY2020 which begins in less than three weeks.

The Open Borders Left wants 95,000!

There had been talk the President could put the number at zero!

And, you also might have seen the news that the President had a win in the Supreme Court that could limit the number of asylum seekers coming into the country illegally and then requesting asylum which means asking for refugee status.  (There is a backlog of hundreds of thousands yet to be processed!)

Yesterday we learned that USCIS Acting Director.Ken Cuccinelli linked the two and suggested that potentially fewer asylum seekers would allow for more third worlders from elsewhere to gain admission.

Oh joy! More “humanitarian space” said Cuccinelli!

But, heck, we won’t know for weeks or months if the Supreme Court decision will move the needle at all, but the refugees could be arriving beginning in 18 days. 

This is nuts!

I sure hope someone in the White House has already swatted down the asinine idea!

We will not be fooled by this slight of hand!

From Politico:

Cuccinelli: Supreme Court ruling may boost refugee admissions

Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli suggested Thursday that contemplated reductions in refugee admissions might be scaled back following a Supreme Court asylum ruling Wednesday evening.

In a major victory for President Donald Trump, the high court gave his administration permission Wednesday to implement a sweeping ban on asylum seekers who pass through another country en route to the U.S. The third-country asylum ban is expected to choke off claims by Central Americans and other migrants who transit through Mexico.

With a reduction in asylum cases, Cuccinelli suggested, resources might be redirected to processing refugee claims.Asylum applies to migrants who seek refuge at the border or inside the U.S.; refugee status is sought by applicants from their home countries.

Speaking to several reporters after an event hosted by Axios, Cuccinelli said the court’s ruling could become a factor in discussions over where to set the coming year’s refugee ceiling. Trump cut refugee levels down to the 30,000 in the current fiscal year, a steep decrease over the 110,000 proposed by former President Barack Obama*** before he left office. Trump administration officials have considered slashing admissions again in fiscal year 2020 — possibly even reducing levels to zero.

“It hasn’t necessarily been connected yet, but last night’s Supreme Court decision does affect the humanitarian space,” Cuccinelli said Thursday morning.

More here.

***I am so sick of the media reporting that Obama set the ceiling at 110,000 in his final year in office (in late 2016!) as a way of comparing his numbers in the most favorable light in contrast to Trump’s.

Obama never set a ceiling anywhere near that high in his previous 7 years and only came near that ceiling (aka cap) in a few of those years!

From the Refugee Processing Center:

I am so sick of the lazy lying media! Note the ceiling numbers for the last ten years. They cherry-picked the one year that Obama dared to set the ceiling higher than normal in order to show the President’s numbers in the worst light. See the actual admissions column too!

 

The decision must be made in the next few days, but definitely by the end of September. You must contact the White House and let the President know how you are feeling about all of this.

Are we going to simply get more Africans and Middle Easterners when the Central American flow might be curtailed? 

How about keeping the “humanitarian space” limited across the board for awhile!

Playing the Catholic card at the Supreme Court last week

Update April 30th: Jihad Watch: Bishops to Americans: Drop dead!
Did you know that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops filed an amicus brief against the Trump Administration in the travel ban case before the high court?
I didn’t, but it really isn’t a surprise.

trump, obama, pope
You know where this Pope stands!

Of course, they are free to file briefs, but I just wish they would for once admit that they receive millions of your dollars from the US Treasury every year for their Migration Fund (nearly $100 million to the Bishops alone, not including the other millions that go to Catholic Charities to ‘care’ for those migrants).
Just once I wish they would admit they have a pecuniary interest in how the travel ban is resolved.
See Catholics close 20 offices as government revenue dries up.
Do you, my Catholic friends, know that the Bishops want more migrants admitted to the US from terror-producing countries?
Continue reading “Playing the Catholic card at the Supreme Court last week”

Does America have a moral obligation to resettle refugees?

That is the question a young opinion writer asks and answers (in the affirmative of course!) in the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on the President’s travel ban.
The long opinion piece in Deseret News by writer Gillian Friedman evoked a largely negative response by readers.  I especially got a chuckle out of this comment:
 
Screenshot (413)
 
Continue reading “Does America have a moral obligation to resettle refugees?”

Ridiculous comments made on steps of Supreme Court yesterday

Ridiculous and ungrateful I should say….
 

Supreme court props
Setting up their props at the Supreme Court yesterday. Don’t you wonder who pays for stunts like this!

 
(See my post yesterday about the Supreme Court hearing on the travel ban.)
Now, look at this headline from Talking Points Memo:

‘They Bomb Us, Then Ban Us:’ The Scene Outside SCOTUS Before The Travel Ban Case

And, then the reporter goes on to report from migrants to the US who would be better served putting their heads down and working hard to become good and grateful Americans.
Continue reading “Ridiculous comments made on steps of Supreme Court yesterday”

Supremes to hear Trump travel ban case today, fears Trump will win

According the NPR people lined up as early as this past Sunday in order to get a coveted seat for the hearing on the President’s travel ban.
 

muslim ban signs
Photo from a 2017 demonstration:  https://www.timesheadline.com/world/us-supreme-court-cancels-trumps-muslim-ban-hearing-8776.html

 
National Public Radio‘s Nina Totenberg has a lengthy, pretty straightforward, story. Here is a bit of it:

The Supreme Court’s Grand Finale: Trump’s Travel Ban

The Trump administration’s travel ban finally reaches the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, posing enormous questions involving the structure of the American government and the values of the country.

At issue is the third version of the ban — which the president has complained is a “watered down” version. The court allowed it to go into effect while the case was litigated, but the lower courts have ruled all three versions either violate federal law or are unconstitutional.

Like the earlier two bans, version 3.0 bars almost all travelers from six mainly Muslim countries, and it adds a ban on travelers from North Korea and government officials from Venezuela.

supreme-court-2017

The questions in the case are the stuff of history:

~Can the courts even review a presidential order on immigration that invokes national security?

~Did the president violate the immigration law’s command against discrimination based on nationality?

~And does the executive order violate the Constitution’s ban on religious discrimination?

The travel-ban argument will be the last of the term. And the importance of the argument is not lost on the court. For the first time since the same-sex-marriage arguments in 2015, the court is allowing same-day distribution of the session’s audio. Nonetheless, people started lining up at 7 a.m. Sunday in hopes of snagging a seat Wednesday.

The court itself will be under extreme pressure. There are only about two months left in the term and an unusually large number of cases yet to be decided.

One key question is this one:

Can the court consider Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric?

See more of the NPR story here.  Legal beagles will find it interesting.
 
Then see that the Leftwing Slate predicts:

Trump’s Going to Win

Why the Supreme Court will probably uphold the president’s travel ban.

A decision isn’t expected until June.
For more background visit my ‘Supreme Court’ category by clicking here.  Don’t miss my post of two days ago, here.