Syrian Migrants
Darko Vojinovic AP (Darko Vojinovic/AP)
If elected president, Hillary Clinton could permanently resettle close to one million Muslim migrants during the first term of her presidency alone, according to the latest available data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim migrants on green cards. However, under Hillary Clinton’s stated proposals, Muslim immigration would grow substantially faster, adding nearly one million Muslim migrants to the U.S. during her first term alone.
Based on the most recent available DHS data, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014. Yet Clinton has said that, as President, she would expand Muslim migration by importing an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian immigrant program to one year.
Clinton’s Syrian migrants would come on top of the tens of thousands of “refugees” the U.S. already admits from Muslim countries.
Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian “refugees” to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year, means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as President. If Clinton were to continue her Syrian immigrant program throughout her Presidency, she could potentially resettle as many as 856,000 during her first term alone and they would be allowed to bring in millions more of their relatives.
Analysis from the Senate Immigration Subcommittee found that Clinton’s plan to expand “refugee” resettlement could cost U.S. taxpayers over $400 billion.
Additionally, once Clinton’s Syrian “refugees” are in the U.S. as green card holders, they will have the ability to bring over their family members through chain migration.
With regards to Middle Eastern migration, Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees would be added on top of the roughly 96,000 Middle Eastern migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in a single year. Based on the minimum numbers Clinton has put forth thus far, as President, she could potentially resettle approximately 644,000 Middle Eastern Muslim migrants during her first term alone.
According to a September 2015 Rasmussen survey, women voters oppose Clinton’s Middle Eastern “refugee” plan by a remarkable 21-to-1 margin. Democrat voters oppose Clinton’s refugee plan by a 17-to-1 margin. Most remarkably, 85 percent of black voters oppose Clinton’s “refugee” agenda– with less than one percent of black voters supporting her plan.
Yet Clinton’s expansion to Muslim migration would be in addition to her expansion for immigration overall.
U.S. Census data shows that if a President Hillary Clinton were successful in passing a Gang of Eight-style immigration expansion bill, the U.S. could permanently resettle roughly 9.4 million migrants throughout the nation during her first term alone. This figure does not include the additional 11 million plus illegal immigrants already here to whom Clinton has promised amnesty and U.S. citizenship.
Clinton’s desire to expand immigration is shared by GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan, who leads the pro-Islamic migration wing of the Republican Party.
Ryan has championed policies to expand Muslim migration into the United States. Ryan has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of curbing Muslim migration and has frequently chastised his party’s presumptive nominee for advocating policies to reduce immigration.
At times, Ryan has even echoed Clinton’s rhetoric in his efforts to denounce Trump and Trump’s proposals.
In recent weeks, Ryan has come under fire in his own Wisconsin district for continuing to support Islamic migration, and voting to expand Islamic migration, despite the fact that seven out of ten Wisconsin GOP voters would like a Muslim migration pause.
Paul Ryan has a two-decade long history of supporting open borders immigration policies, even though, according to Pew polling data, 92% of GOP voters and 83% of American voters overall want to see immigration levels frozen or reduced.
In stark contrast to Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton’s support for open borders, Donald Trump has called for a common sense “mainstream immigration policy that promotes American values.”
“That is the choice I put before the American people: a mainstream immigration policy designed to benefit America, or Hillary Clinton’s radical immigration policy designed to benefit politically-correct special interests,” Trump said following the Orlando terrorist attack, carried out by the child of Afghan migrants.
Trump continued:
Clinton wants to allow Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays. I don’t want them in our country. Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities – all of our communities… The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to screen who we are bringing in. The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans. The burden is also on Hillary Clinton to tell us how she will pay for it. Her plan will cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars long-term. Wouldn’t this money be better spent on rebuilding America for our current population, including the many poor people already living here? […]
America has already admitted four times more immigrants than any country on earth, and we continue to admit millions more with no real checks or scrutiny. Not surprisingly, wages for our workers haven’t budged in many years. So whether it’s matter of national security, or financial security, we can’t afford to keep on going like this. We owe $19 trillion in debt, and no longer have options. All our communities, from all backgrounds, are ready for some relief. This is not an act of offense against anyone; it is an act of defense.
[Enough is enough! We cannot endanger the security and safety of American citizens to increase Democratic party's voter base. We do not need to further burden our struggling country with more unemployment and increased government spending for healthcare and education. American citizens deserve better!]
No comments:
Post a Comment