By Tim Dunkin
The battle of the refugees continues in Washington, DC. With 33 state governors (at the time of this writing) refusing to take in any additional refugees, Pres__ent Obama (D-ISIS) has been absolutely flipping his wig, petulantly calling his opponents names while attempting to berate the governors into reversing their decisions. The radical Left has not been negligent to back him up, either. The past couple of days have seen them advance a number of arguments against rejection of the refugees – ranging from the simply wrong to the outright laughable. I’d like to address some of these arguments below.
The most sophisticated argument they have been employing is to rely upon the powers granted to the President to grant entry to refugees under the Refugee Act of 1980. The Act, which revised provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1968 and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, delegates to the President the power to grant entry to 10,000 refugees a year, plus additional though unspecified numbers of refugees on an emergency basis. It is unlikely that this act would survive a challenge on its substance in the courts, considering that the courts have typically a dim view of laws which grant the executive broad and ill-defined power to decide what a law means (as opposed to broad powers to merely execute the law as specifically directed by Congress when it crafted the law). Likewise, the act is unconstitutional due to its blurriness on separation of powers (and hence, rightly nullified by the states in toto). Nevertheless, this is the closest thing to a “slam dunk” that the Left can get on this issue.
Problem is, it’s not at all apparent that the vast bulk of the “refugees” actually qualify as refugees under this law. The Refugee Act specified that refugees eligible for resettlement had to demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin on the basis of a verifiable or well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or because of political opinion. For the Muslim refugees, not a single one of these provisions is met.
Let’s go through the list. Are they in danger on the basis of race? Nope. These refugees are all Levantine Arabs, basically racially identical to everyone else in Syria. What about religion? Again, no. The Muslim refugees are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim, a group which makes up 75% of the population of Syria, which puts them in the large and non-persecuted majority. Indeed, the Muslim “refugees” are the same sect as ISIS itself. Neither have Sunni Muslims been persecuted by the Alawite/secular regime of Assad.
How about nationality? If they’re all Syrians, then they certainly aren’t being “persecuted” by their own nation. Neither is there any particular “social group” to which they belong that has been singled out. Lastly, nobody has adduced any discernible political opinions that would single these “refugees” out for detrimental treatment in Syria. They…