Disclosure: Another 41 Foreign-Born Individuals Snagged On Terror Charges


This is from The Washington Free Beacon.

I say no more refugees from any of the Arab countries.

We need to round-up and immediately Muslims.

Obama administration withholds details as more attacks occur.


Image Credit: AP

Following the discovery of a terrorist cell in Texas allegedly operated by an Iraqi who entered the United States as a refugee, theWashington Free Beacon has learned of an additional 41 individuals who have been implicated in terrorist plots in the United States since 2014, bringing the total number of terrorists discovered since that time to 113, according to information provided by Congressional sources.

Since August, however, the Obama administration has stonewalled Congressional efforts to obtain more detailed immigration histories of these individuals, prompting frustration on Capitol Hill and accusation that the administration is covering up these histories to avoid exposing flaws in the U.S. screening process.

The disclosure of these additional 41 individuals linked to terror operations—many already identified as immigrants, others’ immigration histories shrouded in secrecy—has stoked further concerns about flaws in the U.S. screening process and is likely to prompt further congressional inquiry into Obama administration efforts to withhold details about these suspects, sources said.

As the number of legal immigrants connected to terrorism continues to grow, the Obama administration has sought to quash congressional inquiries and rally its allies behind an effort to fund efforts to boost the number of immigrants and refugees from the Middle East.

Many of these immigrants have been caught by authorities planning terrorist attacks on American soil, while others were found to be involved in efforts to provide funding and material to ISIS, according to an internal list of migrant terrorists codified by congressional sources and viewed by the Free Beacon.

“A growing number of foreign-born terrorists are being identified operating within the United States, and yet the Administration will not provide any information about their immigrant histories,” said one senior congressional source apprised of the issue. “And one can only imagine that for every identified terrorist, there are many more individuals around them who are radicalized, extreme or otherwise detracting from American society in ways beyond the threat of terrorism alone.”

As congressional calls for increased screening methods go mostly ignored, local authorities are dealing with an uptick in terror-related crimes committed by legal immigrants.

On Thursday, the Justice Department accused two Iraqi refugees legally in the U.S. of conspiring to provide support to ISIS.

Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a 24-year-old Palestinian born Iraqi refugee who had been living in Texas, was charged with aiding ISIS. The man had been granted legal permanent residence in Houston in 2011, though it was later determined that he “swore untruthfully on his formal application when applying to become a naturalized U.S. citizen,” according to the Justice Department.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, also a Palestinian born Iraqi, allegedly “traveled overseas to fight alongside terrorist organizations and lied to U.S. authorities about his activities,” according to the Justice Department

Al-Jayab entered the U.S. as a refugee in 2012 and later travelled back to Syria, where it is believed that he resumed “fighting with various terrorist organizations,” according to the charges.

Late Thursday, a Philadelphia police officer was reportedly ambushed by an assailant sporting “Muslim garb and wearing a mask,” according to local reports.

Additional information viewed by the Free Beacon outlines another 20 previously unknown individuals brought up on similar terrorism-related charges in 2015 alone.

Those who have been charged were legally residing in the U.S. after entering from countries such as Egypt, Uzbekistan, Albania, Pakistan, and Syria, according to information provided by Congressional sources.

“The terrorism-related arrests of two more Iraqi refugees on American soil proves once again our screening process is weak and needs to be updated,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill,) said in a statement Friday.

With incidents and indictments of this nature continuing to rise, critics of the Obama administration’s immigration policy are expressing concern about a last-minute funding effort in 2015 to fully fund refugee resettlement and visa programs.

These priorities, which were granted full funding as part of a yearly spending bill approved by Congress last year, will permit around 170,000 new migrants from Muslim-majority countries to enter the United States in 2016, according to the Senate’s immigration subcommittee.

“The omnibus gave the green light for the administration to continue this failed immigration policy over the objections of the electorate,” the senior Congressional source quoted above said.

The Senate continues to uncover dozens of cases in which individuals accused of terrorism entered the country legally.

“Preventing and responding to these acts is an effort encompassing thousands of federal agents and attorneys and billions of dollars: In effect, we are voluntarily admitting individuals at risk for terrorism and then, on the back end, trying to stop them from carrying out their violent designs,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) warned last year as Congress considered the spending bill.


If Obama Acts Alone on Immigration, House Judiciary Chairman Vows Court Challenge

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Signal.

This sounds really good the big question is will the GOP pull the trigger to start this fight?

I have my doubts.

Editor’s note this was scheduled at 1600 I screwed up and put the wrong day.


The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says Congress should “go to court very quickly” to stop President Obama if he decides to act alone on immigration by deferring deportations and offering work permits to millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

“If the president were to take further action, I believe it would be very important for Congress to undertake a challenge to that,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, at a Heritage Foundation event about Obama’s use of executive action.

“I would hope we would go to court very quickly and seek an injunction restraining the administration from granting those kind of work authorizations that I don’t think the law in any way provides for,” Goodlatte said.

Obama said last month that he plans to put off executive action on immigration until after the November midterm elections, citing the surge of unaccompanied children who flooded the U.S. border with Mexico this summer—and political concerns—as the reasons for the delay.

Even though the House has rebuffed attempts to revive comprehensive immigration reform during the border crisis this summer, Goodlatte said Obama should work with Congress to make an changes to current policy.


Goodlatte argues that because Obama announced he would act alone, it discouraged Democrats from undertaking serious negotiations in Congress.

“Most people feel immigration reform is needed, but there’s disagreement on what it should be,” Goodlatte said.

But when you try to bring legislative bodies together and you have to work out the differences and in the middle of that the president says, ‘Here is my list of things and if you don’t do it I will,’ those who agree with the president’s policies can sit back and say, ‘Well I don’t need to enter into tough negotiations about what needs to be done to enforce the law or reform the law and instead, I will just wait for the president to act.’

Besides effectively expanding his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which delays deportation for certain immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children, Obama is also expected to pursue changes that would produce more legal visas for people wanting to work in the United States.

No matter the form of action, Goodlatte vowed to fight it.

“The president does not have the authority to act,” Goodlatte said. “We should challenge.”

US Should Follow Immigration Laws of Central and South American Countries


This is from Godfather Politics.

I think this is one case we could learn from another nation on how to deal with immigrants.

We should even take a page out of Mexico’s rulebook about immigration.


President Obama has asked for almost $4 billion to meet our “Moral Obligation” at the border.

As Sen. Tom Coburn said, “That’s $60,000 per child.” Eric Erickson wrote that we could send them all back, providing first-class tickets and accommodations, for about $8 million.


Yet instead, this out-of-control administration, that has developed a habit of enforcing only the laws it likes, will continue to allow the flood of illegals to cross our border, completely unopposed, while feckless Republicans threaten to sue the president, as if that will do any good or in any way deter Obama from his Cloward-Piven strategy purposely to overwhelm the system.

For years, we’ve heard from countless politicians on the left, that we can learn a thing or two from other countries, that America should not only respect but defer to laws of other countries.

I say that’s not a bad idea. Let’s start with immigration.

Shall we see how other countries deal with those who wish to cross their borders? How about the home countries of the great unwashed showing up on our border?

What if I was to show up at the Guatemalan border?

First, I would need a passport, but only if I wish to stay for no more than 90 days. Otherwise, I need a visa. Birth certificates and drivers licenses are not accepted as substitutes.

Okay, what if I want to stay? I would then apply for a visa, along with my valid passport, two recent photographs, a letter of sponsorship from a Guatemalan resident, and proof of financial resources from me and my sponsor.

What? You mean they want me to prove I can support myself?! Where’s the compassion? Don’t they have a “moral obligation” to take care of me? Evidently not.


What about Honduras? I’m sure they’re more compassionate and accommodating.

The first thing I must get is a tourist visa. After I arrive, I can apply for immigration. I will need to hire an attorney.

Surely the government will supply me with one at no charge. Think again.

The attorney will assemble my document package and present it on my behalf to the Honduran authorities. I will have to provide a criminal background check from everywhere I’ve lived and provide a clean health certificate. I also need to provide proof that I have a steady income of at least $2500 per month and said income will continue for as long as I am in Honduras.

That’s a rather heartless country.

El Salvador must need people. I’ve heard many talking heads say that these poor immigrants are showing up in the United States to escape their Civil War that ended in 1992!

Maybe they didn’t get the word like some Japanese holdouts on remote islands after World War II who still thought the war was raging.

Anyway, I’m sad to say that El Salvador also wants me to jump through hoops and provide proof that I will not be a drain on society.

It’s the same with Nicaragua. Mexico is the same or worse.

In a nutshell, there’s not a single country in Central or South America, or I’ll bet anywhere in the world that will allow a single person, much less thousands, simply to show up and say “Here I am, now take care of me and pay for all my needs and wants.


Leave a comment

This is from Human Events.

We need to follow Mexico’s example on how to deal with undesirables.

We need to adopt their positions on holding office and being able to

serving in the military.

Here's how Mexico treats 'undesirable' foreigners

American politicians in both parties are stampeding all over themselves to pander to Mexico and adopt mass illegal alien amnesty schemes. But while the Mexican government lobbies for more “humane” treatment of illegal border crossers from their country into ours, Mexico remains notoriously restrictionist toward “undesirable” foreigners who break their laws or threaten their security.

Despite widely touted immigration “reforms” adopted in 2011, Mexico still puts Mexico first — as any country that is serious about protecting its sovereignty should and would.

Article 33 of Mexico’s constitution establishes the right of the president to detain and deport “any foreigner” and prohibits foreigners from participating “in any way” in the political affairs of the country.

While you read this passage, dwell on the demagogic rhetoric of meddling Mexican consular officials and lobbyists who assail America for its (poorly enforced) detention and deportation policies:

“The President of the Republic shall have the power to expel from national territory any foreigner, according to the law and after a hearing. The law shall establish the administrative procedure for this purpose, as well as the place where the foreigner should be detained and the time for that. Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

Article 32 of Mexico’s constitution unapologetically bans non-native born residents from holding sensitive jobs and joining the country’s military. Preference is given unabashedly to Mexicans over foreigners.

While you read this passage, contemplate the inexorable push by open-borders groups to secure illegal alien “rights” to American jobs, American military assignments, American driver’s licenses, discounted U.S. college tuition and Obamacare:

“Only Mexicans by birth can perform all government employments, positions, or commissions in which the status of citizenship is indispensable. During peacetime, foreigners shall neither serve in the Army nor in the police bodies. During peacetime, only Mexicans by birth can serve in the Army, in the Navy or in the Air Force as well can perform any employment or commission within such corporations.

The same condition applies to captains, pilots, skippers, ship engineers, flight engineers and, in general, to every crew member in a ship or an airplane carrying the Mexican flag. In the same way, only Mexicans by birth can be port harbormasters, steersmen and airport superintendents.

Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners, under equal circumstances, for all kind of concessions, employments, positions or commissions of the government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”

While amnesty advocates and civil liberties zealots in the U.S. decry “police state” tactics against illegal aliens, Mexico fiercely maintains laws against illegal border crossings; “verification visits” to enforce visa conditions; requirements that foreigners produce proof of legal status on demand; and enforcement and cooperation between and among immigration officials and law enforcement authorities at all levels in Mexico. Native-born Mexicans are also empowered to make citizens arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest at any time. And for those seeking permanent residency or naturalization, Mexico requires that they must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

Applicants are assessed based on a point system using factors such as level of education, employment experience, and scientific and technological knowledge. Property acquisition and ownership by foreigners is still severely restricted. Mexican corporations are banned from hiring illegal aliens.

Exit question: If such self-interested “nativism” is right and good for the protection and survival of Mexico, why not for the United States?

Rubio introduces amendment to toughen English requirement for immigrants

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

Marco Rubio has lost any credibility he may have eve had

by teaming up with the Gang of eight.

Then he said that the border security would come after

the pathway to citizenship.

Wrong border security comes first.

Does anyone think the amendment to require English will work?



Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Chuck Schumer during a news conference on immigration reform in April. (Alex Wong/Ge …

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida announced Tuesday he will introduce an amendment to the immigration reform bill that would require all immigrants to prove they were proficient in English before they could receive permanent legal immigration status.

Rubio’s amendment would significantly change the sweeping bill and would make it harder for millions of immigrants to get on the path to citizenship. It would remove language from the bill that would have also allowed immigrants to gain green cards if they enrolled in a government-approved English course, a provision that Rubio called a “loophole.”

“This is one of the bill’s shortcomings that came to light, which we can now fix,” Rubio said in a statement.

A tea party favorite of Cuban descent, Rubio has been key in drawing conservative support to the bill, which he helped draft as part of the bipartisan Gang of Eight. But since then, Rubio has said the bill must be reworked on border security and other issues before he will vote for it.

At least one anti-immigration reform group is running ads targeting senators for the provision, criticizing the bill for having “no requirement” that immigrants learn English before gaining legalization.

The new requirement could mean a significantly longer wait time for citizenship for the country’s estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants. Experts estimate that about 55 percent of adult unauthorized immigrants would not be able to pass the English portion of the U.S. citizenship test if they took it today. It takes about 600 hours of instruction, on average, for someone to move from the bottom levels of English understanding to a conversational level. The bill currently sets aside $100 million in federal funds for English instruction and other programs to help newly legalized immigrants integrate.

Immigrants who speak English well earn on average between 10 and 24 percent more than immigrants who don’t, according to several studies. Currently, immigrants must pass an English test to become citizens, but do not have to prove English proficiency to gain permanent residence, also referred to as a green card. The 1986 immigration legalization bill required immigrants to take 40 hours of English classes before gaining green cards, which critics said was inadequate.

Under the reform bill, immigrants gain temporary legal status for up to 12 years if they passed a background check and paid fines, but then would have to apply for permanent legal status, which would lead to citizenship after five years. It’s unclear what would happen to immigrants who were unable to pass the English test within the 12-year period of temporary legal status.

“This is going to keep millions of people from getting on a path to citizenship,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice. “The Senate bill is carefully negotiated … When you start to mess around with the core elements of it you’re messing around with the whole compromise.”

Max Sevillia, the director of policy and legislative affairs for the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), said the amendment would create a “chilling effect” that would discourage unauthorized immigrants from becoming permanent legal residents. Sevillia said the group’s polling shows that more than 80 percent of unauthorized immigrants say they want to be proficient in English, but that the best way to help them do that is to provide high quality English classes. “They understand that English is really the gateway to improving their lives and the lives of their family,” Sevillia said.

Rubio “should have introduced an amendment to increase the federal support and make that section more robust as opposed to creating obstacles,” Sevillia said


Could you pass a US citizenship test?

1 Comment

I got 96 of 96 right.

You can take the test here.

How did you do?

Leave your score in comments.

In order to become a US citizen, immigrants must pass the Naturalization Test. American citizenship bestows the right to vote, improves the likelihood of family members living in other countries to come and live in the US, gives eligibility for federal jobs, and can be a way to demonstrate loyalty to the US. Applicants must get 6 answers out of 10 in an oral exam to pass the test. According to US Citizenship and Immigration services, 92 percent of applicants pass this test.New citizens recite the Pledge of A

You must get 58 or more of these test questions correct in order to pass.

– Staff

Quiz results

You answered 96 of 96 questions correctly for a total score of 100%.


%d bloggers like this: