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.

There are a number of lessons to be gleaned from the rapidly imploding criminal case against the former head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Beyond the usual, insincere breast-beating and lamentation over the media’s predictable rush to judgement, as well as questions of whether the traditional perp walk is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights, there is a much broader discussion that has yet to be broached. And that discussion entails the morass of fraud that lies at the heart of our country’s immigration system, especially the application process for potential asylum-seekers. 

The New York Post had an extensive analysis of why the credibility of DSK’s accuser has been called into question in yesterday’s edition. Although there are numerous accusations being leveled against the Guinean maid, including charges of tax evasion and lying about the aftermath of the alleged sexual assault by Khan, the allegations that I’d like to explore involve the deception she employed in order to get into this country in the first place.

One of ugly truths that the rah-rah, open borders at any cost crowd refuses to admit-but which is acknowledged by almost anyone else with a shred of integrity-is that political asylees and foreigners applying for refugee status in Western countries, including the United States, lie. They lie in order to gain access to the bounty that is Western Europe, or Australia, or North America-Mexico excluded-and they lie in order to protect their status within these very special places once they have arrived there. So the fact that this woman created an elaborate patchwork of lies, starting with a fictitious gang-rape that allegedly took place within her home country of Guinea, in order to gain political asylum  is not surprising in the least. In fact, those of you with good memories might recall the case of Adelaide Abankwah, a phony Nigerian “princess” whose story of  a potential clitoridectomy gained her the favor of our own esteemed, open borders pinheads, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Senator Chuck Schumer. Interestingly enough, Mr. Strauss-Khan’s accuser also maintains that she was the victim of genital mutilation-and that her daughter in Guinea is under threat of FGM-a claim that might or might not withstand increased media scrutiny in the coming days. The similarities between these two examples of West African immigration scams might strike some as uncanny, until, that is, you remember that this sort of deception is par for the course.

Misrepresenting your circumstances in order to remain in a wealthy, industrialized nation is such a common occurrence that women’s rights activist and Islamic apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali devotes an entire chapter to her own asylum case in her engrossing memoir, Nomad. She readily admits that she lied during the application process in order to avoid an arranged marriage and remain in The Netherlands, and that most asylum-seekers also fudge the facts in their cases, for better or worse. The mendacity of asylum-seekers is so widespread-it can be said to be almost universal-that it was satirized in a Steven Spielberg-directed film called The Terminal, a tedious comedy starring Tom Hanks as a wholesome immigrant who is forced to live inside of an airport because of overly officious Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureaucrats.

And if you think immigration fraud is limited to the United States, then you obviously haven’t been an avid reader of UK tabloids and broadsheets, or a follower of the BBC, which recount cases of fraudulent asylum-seekers gaming the system on a daily basis. The only surprising part of this case, in my opinion, is the shockingly long time it took the mainstream media to investigate the claims lodged by the accuser in this case. Unfortunately, I doubt this will lead the same journalists to question the wisdom of our government’s endorsement of unfettered immigration. To the contrary, the revelation that many of her initial claims were falsehoods was accompanied-at least in the New York Times-by a series of soft focus stories lamenting the potential negative repercussions these new developments will have on Guinean immigrants living in New York City. Leave it to the drive-by media to miss the point yet again. That is why this website exists, my friends.