Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Obama admin. to allow immigrants with 'limited' terror contact into U.S.

U.S. President Barack Obama reaches for a pen
U.S. President Barack Obama reaches for a pen
Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images

The Obama administration announced new exemptions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) on Wed.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new INA exceptions in the Federal Register.

The new "rules" will narrow the ban on some immigrants who provided limited material support, no matter how insignificant, to terrorists.

The Obama administration demonstrates, to America again, how it decides unilaterally which U.S. laws will obeyed.

The Daily Caller reported a DHS official told them:

These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure.

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry were responsible for signing the exemptions. They contend: "that the law change is “commonsense” and that immigration procedures will remain the same in other respects."

The official added: "In addition to rigorous background vetting, including checks coordinated across several government agencies, these exemptions will only be applied on a case-by-case basis after careful review and all security checks have cleared.

This exemption process is vital to advancing the U.S. government’s twin goal of protecting the world’s most vulnerable persons while ensuring U.S. national security and public safety.”

A former State Department official and current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies Jessica Vaughan questioned the administration’s right to unilaterally change the law.

In an email to The Daily Caller Vaughan wrote: "[T]here is a very legitimate question as to whether the administration actually has the authority to change the law in this way." She added:

It seems to me that they are announcing that they will be disregarding yet another law written by Congress that they don’t like and are replacing it with their own guidelines, which in this case appear to be extremely broad and vague, and which are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous refugee admissions program.

It's true that some immigrants have been denied entry into the U.S. for giving unintentional aid to terrorists. However, Vaughan sees "the exemptions as likely another opportunity for people to get around the system."

Vaughan said: "If the recent past is any guide, those evaluating these cases will be ordered to ignore red flags in the applications, especially if the applicant is supported by one of the many advocacy groups that have the ear of senior DHS staff."

She explained: “The administration already approves of the admission of gang members as asylees and criminals in the DACA program and grants of prosecutorial discretion, so I don’t expect them to be troubled by the admission of terrorists and garden variety fraudsters in our refugee program.

This is how we end up with families like the Tsarnaev brothers [the Boston marathon bombers], who were originally admitted for political asylum.”

In some cases of those immigrants seeking asylum all officials will have is the word of the person seeking entry into the U.S.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy has been pushing for exemptions to the INA for years. He said:

“The existing interpretation was so broad as to be unworkable. It resulted in deserving refugees and asylees being barred from the United States for actions so tangential and minimal that no rational person would consider them supporters of terrorist activities."

After 9-11 laws were changed to protect our nation from another possible terrorist attack. As a result some of the laws our leaders passed can be considered extreme and should be reviewed. However, the process should include all essential members responsible for changing them.

While the rule changes can possibly be considered "reasonable," what right does the Obama administration have to unilaterally change law? How can they decide which laws will be obeyed and which ones will be ignored?

This seems to be nothing but a glaring end-around Congress, which the current administration continues to do without a second thought. This does nothing but take power away from "we the people" who elected those members of Congress.

Laws should not be unilaterally changed by a select few. There is a proper route to repeal laws or make changes.

Some of the quotes in this article was used from Atlas Shrugs, click here to read their full article.

If you like this article you can follow Joseph on Twitter @cybervoyager62. For hard-hitting conservative commentary, please visit Joseph’s author page at the Conservative Firing Line. You can also find Joseph’s articles at Liberty Unyielding, Dothan Christianity Examiner If you would like to read more Marine Corps Examiner articles click here.

You can also connect with Joseph on Facebook, at Spokane Conservative Examiner, The American Voice, Independent Examiner and The Red Shirt Regiment, a page mostly dedicated to our troops.

To read inspirational works and view photos by Joseph please visit Joseph L. Parker Freelance writer and Nature photographer You can also watch inspirational videos on Joseph's Youtube channel.

Report this ad