Barring terrorists from entering the U.S.? What difference does it make?
President Obama, unencumbered by re-election worries, is taking full advantage of "executive directives" or "end-runs" around that pesky Republican-controlled Congress. This past week, the Obama administration has lessened the rules for would-be asylum-seekers and Middle-Eastern immigrants desiring entry into the United States. A post-Sept. 11 immigrant law basically prohibited anyone considered to have provided any level of support to terror groups from immigrating to America. Through executive privilege, Obama has now ordered that offering "'limited' support to terrorists or terrorist groups" should no longer necessarily preclude entry into these United States of America.
The change is one of President Barack Obama's first actions on immigration since he pledged during his recent State of the Union address to issue more executive directives.
In a recent statement, the Homeland Security Department said that the rule change, which was not sanctioned by Congress, gives the government discretion, but won't expose the country to terrorists or their sympathizers.
Many Republican lawmakers claim the administration is flouting rules designed by them (Congress) to protect the country from terrorists. "President Obama should be protecting U.S. citizens rather than taking a chance on those who are aiding and abetting terrorist activity and putting Americans at greater risk," said Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
Remember that this is also a president who avoids like the plague labeling a terrorist "a terrorist." He is much more likely to rain lawyers upon terrorists than bombs (except, to his credit, when it comes to drones in Afghanistan). He has removed the term "Islamist" from the federal lexicon. He has painfully strained relations with Israel to buy favor with the Arabs. His administration has also promoted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. He has come out in support of the 911 mosque initiative in New York and has confounded Americans with dozens of initiatives and statements of apparent appeasement to Muslims. By any reasonable measure, this president seems much more concerned with the sensibilities of foreigners than he is with those of Americans.
So one must ask: what terrible wrong is the U.S. now perpetrating upon Muslims to warrant crafting such a potentially far-reaching executive order? If only one in a hundred of these "terrorist-connected" individuals is actually a terrorist sympathizer, is this ideological declaration of continued appeasement worth it?