As most of you probably know, a federal judge has blocked portions of President Trump’s executive order pertaining to refugees from 7 Muslim majority nations. Josh Blackman has published a good summary of what this injunction accomplishes, as well as a copy of the temporary restraining order itself. According to reports, it applies to a few hundred foreigners who were either on American soil or on their way to the United States before the EO was issued. Although these individuals have temporary avoided the fate of the character portrayed by Tom Hanks in The Terminal, it’s worth noting that there are much bigger issues at stake in this debate.

The open borders know nothings have deftly exploited the ignorance of large swathes of the American public to score a public relations victory against a man whom they’ve impotently warred against for over a year. Ironically, one of the refugees Democratic partisans claimed to be rescuing was able to succinctly explain why our new President’s immigration policies were in fact pretty reasonable. Beyond the simple observation that this executive order is not a ban on Muslim refugees, we have to confront the truly bizarre notion that our current refugee resettlement policy is somehow beneficial to American citizens. While some armchair analysts on social media have made the assertion that this is not the point of refugee resettlement-a point on which we agree-others have claimed that not importing tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from abroad poses a risk of future terrorism. By this token, Japan-which has a de facto ban on Muslim immigration-should be as unlivable as Afghanistan or Pakistan. Or, at the very least, have as many terrorist attacks as Turkey.

It’s a patently absurd suggestion, yet one which is repeated without shame by open borders apologists who have no rational justification for our country’s bizarre refugee resettlement program. Just as the beliefs of Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande-two European leaders who have presided over an unprecedented spree of Muslim terror within their countries-is a laughable excuse to invite in potential security risks, so to is the misguided notion that we’re creating terrorists by not letting potential terrorists onto American soil. Nearly half of the refugees admitted to the United States, and over 30% of those admitted since the 9/11 attacks, are Muslim. To comprehend why this is such a problem you need only scroll through a week’s worth of posts on Refugee Resettlement Watch.

Leaving aside the potential for terrorism-both domestically and abroad-exploitation of the welfare system, and crime, there’s the fundamental incompatibility of cultures. As the economist Nassim Taleb has pointed out, Americans expect foreigners who come here to accept American values and customs-and at a bare minimum, not to impose their values upon us. Whether or not this is a realistic expectation is another matter, but the idea that every person coming here does so because they want to become part of American society-a notion regurgitated endlessly by open borders advocates-is simply preposterous.

Even those who don’t pose a direct threat to the health and safety of American citizens-who don’t engage in honor killings, as dozens of Muslims families in the United States do each year-hold beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with those which shaped this nation. While those views are normal in Iraq, Somalia, or Syria, they are not in the United States, and we should not attempt to normalize them-to borrow a phrase from the unhinged left. President Trump’s order, however crudely executed, was the right thing to do. Hopefully, it’s just the beginning of a completely new approach to this vital issue.

This month saw the admission of a record number of Syrian refugees to the United States. Nearly 500, according to the State Department Refugee Processing Center. Perhaps unsurprisingly, every single one is a Muslim. 10 Christians, in toto, have been admitted to the U.S. for FY 2016, which saw the importation of over 2,200 Syrian refugees. Although it has gotten little press outside of Christian publications, and what coverage it has received has been deliberately misleading, the fact that our government is turning its back on Christians is an inescapable truth.

Aren’t there some prosperous Gulf Arab states which could support the needs of these desperate Sunni Muslim refugees? Of course there are, but they refuse to take them. They refuse to take them for a number of reasons, but I can’t help but think that one of them is the complete silence North American and European media outlets, i.e. propaganda vehicles, have greeted this stunning lack of generosity on the part of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the like. While we are regularly treated to sickeningly self-righteous homilies on OUR responsibility towards these exiles from Syria, rarely do we hear voices condemning the stunning hypocrisy and venality of wealthy, Sunni Muslim nations who’ve turned their backs on their brothers and sisters.

For honest reports about the State Department’s plans to take a wrecking ball to communities throughout the country, check out the citizen testimony forwarded to Refugee Resettlement Watch, which has been doing what the Fourth Estate adamantly refuses to, i.e. telling the truth. For the record, this is the State Department that actively discriminates against Christians seeking sanctuary, despite the fact that they have nowhere else to turn  within their own region, where they are mercilessly persecuted for their faith. A faith which predates the advent of Islam by 7 centuries.

Unlike those who make it to Germany, the Christians seeking shelter in the United States don’t even have the opportunity to be persecuted by their Muslim antagonists. We’re doing that job for them. Shameful.

Update: Ex Cathedra.

The obliviousness of Europe’s rulers, encapsulated in one tweet.  And the anti-European ruling class is still baffled by the popularity of Alternative for Germany. For a fascinating look at class and immigration-as well as how globalization has reshaped European politics-read Christopher Caldwell’s great essay in The Weekly Standard. Loathe though I am to recommend anything from TWS, Caldwell, once again, nails it.

One of the most frustrating aspects of news coverage of the latest jihadist massacre on French soil is its repetitive quality. Just as with the Charlie Hebdo assassinations and Porte de Vincennes siege, along with other Islamic blood-lettings within Europe, the multicultural messaging service has gone to extraordinary lengths to obscure the rather obvious reasons why this horrific act of war took place.  The Daily Beast is an archetypal example of this species of journalism, ascribing blame to the socio-economic difficulties faced by Muslim immigrants and questioning the efficacy of Belgian intelligence-gathering methods. The cognitive dissonance at work is exemplified by media outlets which have referred to the Muslim invaders who perpetrated this atrocity as Frenchmen, rather than more appropriate terminology, such as invaders. 

While the facts on the ground reporting is valuable-you can find a live blog of the Paris attacks and their aftermath by going to The Guardian website-the analysis of this unprecedented bloodshed by Islamic terrorists on French soil is woefully lacking. Even as milksop, Chamber of Commerce lackeys such as Rick Snyder recognize the inherent danger in welcoming thousands of unverified Syrians to the United States, the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge the elephant-or in this case, jackal-in the room. Just today, I’ve listened to no less than 3 reports lamenting the impact this latest jihadist massacre will have on Europe’s Muslim population, including a segment on what is arguably the most insipid NPR program in existence, The Takeaway, where the interviewee praised Germany’s Dr, Kevorkian, Angela Merkel, for her open door policy, vis-a-vis Middle Eastern and North African refugees.

There are, of course, rational appraisals of what’s currently happening overseas, but you have to scour the Internet in order to find these alternative voices. One of them is David P. Goldman, who accurately evaluates what France should expect-and how its government will respond-in light of these ruthless attacks on its citizens. Contrary to Prime Minister Hollande’s bold declarations in the wake of this unspeakable atrocity, Spengler believes that the ruling class in that country will not have the fortitude to do what is necessary to weed out what is now a domestic base of terror. Of course, there are many men and women in France who yearn to resist the tide of anti-civilization that has encroached upon their nation without their consent, and they are probably going to support Marie Le Pen in the upcoming election.

The fact that millions of voters are willing to defy the consensus of bien-pensant opinion in order to help preserve and maintain what remains of a culture that can only be destroyed but certainly not replicated by the parasites who are living upon its fruits demonstrates that the lights haven’t yet gone out in the West. It’s a welcome and hopeful sign of a future that isn’t shaped by the forces of darkness, where we do not have to repeat the mistakes of the past. A future where the City of Light is not extinguished.

Mark Dayton did his best impression of a pre-metrosexualized Merle Haggard this week, advising anyone who didn’t cotton to the impoverishment of the once great state of Minnesota to get the hell out! Although some analysts have observed the Bush family’s distaste for their fellow Americans, the naked contempt a sitting governor has for the values of his fellow citizens seems to be a new plateau in the treason lobby’s anti-Americanism.

Welcome to the new Democratic Party, and the new America.

h/t Pamela Geller

To the surprise of very few, the Associated Press reports that over an 8 month period Mexico deported more Central Americans than the United States. Take particular note of this passage:

 In most cases, Mexico holds migrants only long enough to verify their nationalities, and quickly bundles them aboard buses to take them back to their home countries.”

That is not the case in the United States, where most who claim “credible fear” can remain pending an asylum court case, as long as the Border Patrol can’t prove the person has a criminal record.

Combined with the Obama administration’s complete abandonment of worksite enforcement, the imminent resettlement of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees, and its omnipresent threat to completely disregard the law, this latest revelation makes it perfectly clear that this White House holds American citizens in contempt and does not care about their thoughts in the slightest.

Is it any wonder that, in addition to having a Congress which is universally loathed, we have a President of staggering unpopularity? Where is Tom Tancredo when we need him?

The resignation of John Kitzhaber should come as no surprise to those of us who’ve been monitoring the career of both he and his inamorata, whose recent past includes the disclosure of immigration fraud. A revelation that dovetailed perfectly with this particular couple’s militant open borders activism, including an ACLU-endorsed campaign to invest illegal aliens with drivers’ licenses. Although the proximate cause of Kitzhaber’s ignominious retirement from public life is the dubious green energy scheme-a hallmark of Obamanomics-which lined the pockets of Oregon’s former first lady, the fact that both of these individuals are trusted members of the treason lobby should not escape notice. 

Granted, the corruption of elected and unelected officials seems to be endemic to American public life, as the police lineup of this state’s criminals, i.e. politicians, attests to. However, it’s worth exploring the connection between officeholders who routinely disparage the law, at least, as it’s applied to their favorite constituency, and the cavalier way these same officials treat the laws they are sworn to uphold in their personal and professional lives. After all, Mr. Kitzhaber is not the first, nor likely the last, open borders apparatchik who will leave office in disgrace.

The past few weeks have been filled with news of dramatic happenings throughout the globe, not the least of which is the rapidly metastasizing ebola epidemic. In order to put things into proper perspective, it’s always useful to have an intelligent, rational guide who’s not captive to multiculturalist dogma and elitist groupthink. Thankfully, the latest edition of Radio Derb has just arrived! 

From the latest political turmoil engulfing Hong Kong-including the Chinese Communist Party’s ham-fisted attempts to crush the Occupy Central democracy movement-to the dubious hiring practices of this city’s Marxist mayor, John Derbyshire covers it all. Definitely worth checking out for those of you who have been enjoying a news sabbatical.

I suggest perusing VDare’s list for yourself and contacting your state refugee coordinator. Assuming you’re able to speak with a human being, ask him or her what the state is doing with regard to the scores of illegals newly welcomed into the United States by our federal government. It should make for an interesting conversation, if nothing else.

Picking up on our previous post, dubious refugee claims tax not only  innocent Americans seeking to avoid becoming the latest victims of international terrorism, they also put an enormous burden upon state and city financial coffers. A perfect illustration of this phenomenon can be found in the state of Tennessee, which has been the unfortunate recipient of thousands of refugees who have been resettled in an environment which is wholly alien to them.

Don Barnett, whose expertise on this subject was gained while working for the U.S. State Department and who now works as a fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies, explored this issue in an illuminating op-ed for the Tennessean, which I highly recommend. The costs of amnesty are potentially astronomical, and looking at the burden placed upon a single state is a good way of crystalizing just how much it will impact the lives of ordinary American citizens.