Rampell is one of those Ivy-league-educated thirty-somethings who has been elevated to a position as morally superior opinion writer (aren’t they all!) at the Leftwing anti-Trump Washington Post.
Neil Munro of Breitbartchecked in with me to see how I felt about being a bigot for the last decade plus.
This is what Rampell opined in theWashington Postearlier this month.
Trump’s refugee ceiling is bad for everyone but bigots
Frankly I don’t pay any attention to the name-callers, except that they invigorate me to keep going just when I am ready for blogger retirement.
Once they start making charges against me and others who believe we have a right to know about a program that is changing America—a right to talk about it, to understand how a federal program works and a right to object to it—that we are racists, bigots and xenophobes, I know they are know-nothings.
And, they are weak because name-calling is the last refuge of political agitators whose team is losing.
Here is some of what Munro penned at Breitbartafter asking the bigot—me—what I thought of Rampell’s charge.
Washington Post: Only ‘Bigots’ Oppose Large Refugee Inflows
President Donald Trump’s decision to accept 15,000 refugees in 2020 only helps “bigots,” says Catherine Rampell, a pro-migration columnist at the Washington Post.
“The only constituency helped by Trump’s latest cruelty are the bigots and knee-jerk nationalists crafting his policies,” she wrote, under the headline “Trump’s refugee ceiling is bad for everyone but bigots.”
Rampell’s jibe was dismissed by Ann Corcoran, founder of Refugee resettlement Watch, who says the federal importation of refugees expands American poverty, slows technological innovation, and fuels civic conflict. She responded:
There’s no sense trying to argue with [progresives] except to turn it back and say; ‘What about our own poor people? Why aren’t they interested in taking care of our poor Americans? Our homeless? Why are refugees and immigrants somehow cooler and more desirable to take care of than our own poor people? Have we run out of poor Americans to take care of?’ No, clearly, we have not run out of poor Americans.
[….]
Advocates for migration are eager to claim moral superiority over the Americans who want to help Americans, said Corcoran. “They believe we’re bigots — that’s what they’ve been saying for decades — but they know big business uses these refugees to keep wages low,” she said.
[….]
So the hidden agenda for Rampell and many others progressives is political ambition, not charity, Corcoran said. “The bottom line is that these immigrants vote for Democrats,” she said.
“Big business gets the cheap labor, the Democrats get the voters, and Americans get hammered with this humanitarian [B.S.],” she said.
The Left has successfully silenced many good Americans who might speak by effectively deploying the “racist” labeling methodology. Just get over it, laugh it off, speak up and vote for Donald Trump!
If Trump loses they won’t have to bother with name-calling, they will have real power to silence us!
The Open Borders Lobby with its lawyers is not happy with Trump’s “extreme vetting” and with the help of Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollenare prepping their friends in the media and in Congress for the day when they expect Harris/Biden will fling open America’s gates to tens of thousands of new refugees from countries like Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Biden has already signaled that 125,000 is not out of the question beginning in January 2021. Any enhanced security screening would necessarily have to be discarded to facilitate numbers like that.
This report was made possible by the efforts of many people outside of IRAP, particularly our clients and co-counsel in JFS [Jewish Family Service of Seattle] v. Trump and Doe v. Wolf. In litigating JFS v. Trump, we worked with the National Immigration Law Center, HIAS, Perkins Coie LLP, and pro bono attorneys Lauren Aguiar, Mollie M. Kornreich, and Abigail Sheehan Davis.
In addition, we are grateful to the office of Senator Chris Van Hollen for his advocacy on behalf of refugees and for sharing the reports to Congress on refugee admissions and vetting that informed this report.
It really doesn’t matter what the report says, this is about setting the tone for the anticipated return of mass migration to make up for what they will call the ‘lost Trump years.’
The fiscal year ended yesterday and the totals are in at the Refugee Processing Center.
The exact total for the year is 11,814 the lowest number in four decades.
The ceiling for admissions had been set by President Trump at 18,000 and that number likely would have been reached except for the travel restrictions placed by the UN as the Chinese Virus spread around the world.
Of the 11,814, 2,503 (about 20%) are Muslims from mostly Burma, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Sudan. There is NO Muslim ban.
Making up for lost time, the administration admitted 2,626 in the last 30 days, the highest monthly number for any month in the past fiscal year.
However, for me and I expect for many others tracking refugee admissions on a regular basis, you will have a shock when you see this notice at the Refugee Processing Center.
NOTICE
The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) of the U.S. Department of State is building a new IT system to facilitate refugee processing. Effective October 9, 2020 at 5:00pm ET, PRM’s Refugee Processing Center will no longer be able to provide certain previously available reports and interactive reporting will no longer be available.
Interactive reporting has been the most valuable portion of the data available and its removal will put us in the dark about which towns refugees are placed, their demographic makeup, their religions, etc.
Are the deep staters getting ready to expand in a Biden administration and want to keep us in the dark about who is coming into the country?
Do Trump’s people even know!
If you have been using that data base, you have a week to capture information through Interactive reporting. There will be broader data still available, but interactive data allowed for a deeper drill down into information over whatever time period one entered as a parameter, even on a daily basis.
I guess these will be the last maps I will be posting as they are generated at Interactive reporting.
Here is where refugees were placed (11,814) over the last 12 months (the FY runs from October 1 to September 30th of the following year).
Top ten ‘welcoming’ states are California, Washington, Texas, New York, Michigan, Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Ohio.
Interesting that so many of those states are states the Dems want to control once they change enough of the people.
Here is where the refugees arriving in America (2,626) were placed during September:
For those of you who have never used the data at Interactive reporting, I explained how to do it here in ‘Knowledge is Power IV.‘ Better hurry if you want to try it out and capture some data about your state.
No word yet, as far as I know, about the Presidential determination for FY2021 which is usually submitted to Congress for consultation before October first.
See tag FY2021for all of my posts in recent weeks on this coming year’s Presidential determination.
The refugee industry is getting really desperate as they bring out their old ‘bigwigs’ and use the ghost of Ronald Reagan to stick it to ‘orange man’ who is trying to limit the number of diseased people entering the US.
As you most likely know Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden teamed up in 1979 to push through the Refugee Act of 1980which only went into action to change America in Reagan’s first term in office.
James N. Purcellsays he is one of the creators of the Carter Act and became an early head of the program under Reagan.
Reagan admitted hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Southeast Asian refugees escaping Communism during his 8 years in office.
Purcell has been out and about in recent months to fill the elder statesman role in the Open Borders Lefts’ war on Trump.
My question is this: Just because it is now 40 years old, does it mean that somehow the Refugee Act is sacrosanct and can never be changed, or dumped completely?
Reagan refused to allow fear of disease to halt refugee resettlement, and Trump shouldn’t either
We set up protocols and rules to ensure Southeast Asians fleeing communism didn’t spread tuberculosis.
[Before I give you a few snips from what he says, know that we are admitting refugees and have been for decades who have TB and some of those have active TB. I always thought that would be something that would make the general public sit up and take notice of flaws in the supposed ‘health screening’ of refugees, but so far it hasn’t. Obviously Trump has thankfully noticed. See my extensive file on refugee TB by clicking here.]
Now here is some of what Purcell said, but please read it all (emphasis is mine):
Rep. Sam Hall [Democrat!—ed] was relentless as he questioned me about the Indochina refugees we proposed to admit to the United States: Are these refugees free of tuberculosis? Is the American public in danger?I recalled these congressional oversight questions from 40 years ago with great trepidation when I learned recently about the Trump administration’s current attempts to bar refugees and migrants on health grounds.
[….]
It was September 1981 as I pondered questions from the late Democratic congressman from Texas; eight months into the new Reagan administration, I was representing the State Department at these “consultations” hearings as acting director of the Bureau for Refugee Programs. Along with me were acting representatives from the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare and Justice, and the Voice of America. The Refugee Act of 1980 required administration representatives to consult with the judiciary committees of both houses on future admissions. Rep. Ron Mazzoli of Kentucky was in the chair and all members were present, as well as an overflow audience.
[….]
…..my colleague Paul Wolfowitz (assistant secretary for East Asia and the Pacific) and I had agonized for weeks about the deteriorating refugee situation in Asia and the critical importance of these make-or-break hearings. Wolfowitz warned, “Vietnamese refugees continue to flee the new communist regime that took over after the fall of Saigon, and persecuted victims from Laos and Cambodia are also on the move. All are flocking to the non-communist states of Southeast Asia. Our experts warn that refugee flight shows no signs of ending.”
[….]
The State Department’s advance team had alerted us that TB was a major concern. When Hall raised his questions, I described the medical checks we conducted for refugees prior to departure from Asia. Each was carefully screened before departure by the Geneva-based Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, using guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Public Health Service. I described two types of TB, communicable and non-communicable, and emphasized that “no refugee with communicable TB was admitted to the United States; while a few with non-communicable TB had been admitted, they were not a threat and could best be treated here.” [Yep, we took on the role of treating thousands upon thousands of refugees with latent TB and that job went to local health departments in your communities—ed]
[….]
The committee was not satisfied with my testimony, and the notion of an admissions moratorium had arisen.My reaction was clear and unambiguous: a moratorium would lead to disaster and death in Southeast Asia and must be avoided. I realized my explanations had not gotten through when the national news that evening reported, “500,000 ticking time bombs in the U.S.”
An admission moratorium was contemplated by the Hill committee!
Readers, this is quite a revelation. Did the committee think they had the power under the Refuge Act to suggest such a thing? Today “consultations” happen behind closed doors with only the principals involved—the State Department rep and some committee chairmen.
Again, the consultation today is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC!
Later, when the U.S. accepted the protocol to the U.N. Convention Related to the Status of Refugees in 1968, the president accepted that, “deportation of a refugee is a particularly serious measure, and it would not be humanitarian to deport a refugee for reasons of health.” By this action, the United States recognized that it could not expel a refugee for a “contagious disease” when we could offer acceptable treatments. Congress codified the obligation in the Refugee Act of 1980.
It became clear that actions we proposed were consistent with evolving policy and practice. Nevertheless, several members remained unconvinced. When the committee voted several days later, the moratorium was defeated by one vote. This was a narrow and a key victory, as it confirmed the legal and policy precedent for the next 40 years.
That must have been the first and last strong stand Congress ever took on the Carter/Kennedy law that opened the door to impoverished (and sick) people to legally flood into America.
The refugee industry today wants no restrictions for health reasons. Our healthcare system (which you pay for) can just fix their health problems they say.
But, shockingly, the idea is with us again with the Trump administration’s proposed Security Bars and Processing Rule. According to Yael Schacher, historian with Refugees International, this rule would “expand the definition of national security to incorporate public health bars in an unprecedented, unnecessary, and arbitrary way that would enable refoulement, or the return of asylum seekers to persecution.”
As with hundreds of other rules and policy shifts designed to restrict and limit refugee and immigrant admissions to the United States, this rule fails to safeguard public health or uphold laws and treaties protecting people fleeing persecution. Getting a jump-start, the CDC has already put an order in place that closes the border to those without documents on health grounds, regardless of persecution. [“without documents?” means they are not refugees selected through the US Refugee Admissions Program.—ed]
But, especially in this time of a worldwide pandemic, sensible Americans can see that Trump has America first in mind, so let him know that you are grateful for that.
The US Refugee Admissions Program is not dead yet as the refugee industry fears it soon will be—see myprevious post.
For new readers, I’m too lazy to give you a full background report on the subject of Australia’s rejects—migrants who attempted to break into Australia were placed in detention centers on offshore locations. Their fate was, and is, Australia’s responsibility, yet Obama promised Australia we would take hundreds of them to live in your towns and cities.
Trump, much to my shock, agreed to honor the Obama deal. You can go through my “Dumb deal” archive by clicking here.
On Friday we learned that nine more are on the way bringing Trump’s welcome to over 400 so far. By the way, these are mostly young men who have spent years in detention camps.
The fiscal year ended yesterday and the totals are in at the Refugee Processing Center.
