Category: Foreign Policies

Six other times the US has banned immigrants

Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ is not the first time specific groups or nationalities have been blocked from the US.

Over the past 200 years, US presidents have placed restrictions on the immigration of certain groups [File: Reuters]

On Friday, Donald Trump barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen – from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days.

He also suspended the US refugee programme for 120 days, specifically banning Syrian refugees until further notice, reduced the number of refugees who would be admitted this year to 50,000 and specified that refugees who were from a religious minority and fleeing religious persecution should be prioritised.

A federal judge has blocked part of Trump’s executive order, ruling that travellers who have already landed in the US with valid visas should not be sent back to their home countries, and protests in response to passport holders from some Arab countries, including US green card holders, being blocked from passing through customs or prevented from boarding US-bound planes, have taken place at airports across the country.

But this is not the first time that the US has banned immigrants from its shores. Over the past 200 years, successive American presidents have placed restrictions on the immigration of certain groups.

Here are six occasions when laws have been passed to restrict some people from entering the country.

READ MORE: Donald Trump’s #MuslimBan sparks outrage and fear

 

Exclusion of the Chinese

President Chester A. Arthur.

Signed on May 6, 1882. 

The Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned “skilled and unskilled labourers and Chinese employed in mining” from entering the US for 10 years, was the first significant law restricting immigration to the country. It came at a time when the US was struggling with high unemployment and, although Chinese made up a very small segment of the country’s workforce, they were nevertheless scapegoated for its social and economic woes.

The law also placed restrictions on Chinese who were already in the US, forcing them to obtain certificates in order to re-enter if they left the country and banning them from securing citizenship.

The act expired in 1892 but was extended for a further 10 years in the form of another – the Geary Act. This placed additional restrictions on Chinese residents of the country, forcing them to register and to obtain a certificate of residence, without which they could be deported.

This changed in 1943 with the Magnuson Act – which allowed some Chinese immigration and for some Chinese already residing in the country to become naturalised citizens, but which maintained the ban on property and business ownership. This came at a time when China was a US ally during World War II.

 

Jewish refugees during World War II

President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

As millions of people became refugees during World War II, US President Franklin D Roosevelt argued that refugees posed a serious threat to the country’s national security. Drawing on fears that Nazi spies could be hiding among them, the country limited the number of German Jews who could be admitted to 26,000 annually. And it is estimated that for most of the Hitler era, less than 25 percent of that quota was actually filled.

In one of the most notorious cases, the US turned away the St Louis ocean liner, which was carrying 937 passengers, almost all of whom are thought to have been Jewish, in June 1939. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where more than a quarter of its passengers are thought to have been killed in the Holocaust.

 

Anarchists banned

President Theodore Roosevelt.

Signed on March 3, 1903.

In 1903, the Anarchist Exclusion Act banned anarchists and others deemed to be political extremists from entering the US.

In 1901, President William McKinley had been fatally shot by Leon Czolgosz, an American anarchist who was the son of Polish immigrants.

The act – which was also known as the Immigration Act of 1903 – codified previous immigration law and, in addition to anarchists, added three other new classes of people who would be banned from entry: those with epilepsy, beggars and importers of prostitutes.

The act marked the first time that individuals were banned for their political beliefs.

READ MORE: EU looks to fund camps in Africa to cut immigration

 

Communists banned

Passed by Congress on August 23, 1950, despite being vetoed by President Harry Truman.

The Internal Security Act of 1950 – also known as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 or the McCarran Act – made it possible to deport any immigrants believed to be members of the Communist Party. Members of communist organisations, which were required to register, were also not allowed to become citizens.

Truman opposed the law, stating that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights”.

Sections of the act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1993. But some parts of the act still stand.

 

Iranians

President Jimmy Carter, April 7, 1980.

Following the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, during which the US embassy in Tehran was stormed and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days, American President Jimmy Carter cut diplomatic relations with and imposed sanctions on Iran. He also banned Iranians from entering the country.

Today, Iranians have again been banned – one of seven Muslim majority countries included in Trump’s executive order.

 

Ban on HIV positive persons

Under President Ronald Reagan, the US Public Health Service added Aids to its list of “dangerous and contagious” diseases. Senator Jesse Helms’ “Helms Amendment” added HIV to the exclusion list.

In 1987, the US banned HIV positive persons from arriving in the US. The laws were influenced by homophobic and xenophobic sentiment towards Africans and minorities at the time, as well as a false belief that the HIV virus could be spread by physical or respiratory contact. Former US President Barack Obama lifted it in 2009, completing a process begun by President George W Bush.

13754631_10153834673217993_8405528933593808375_n

THIS is how you protect citizens… certainly not the way things are done now:

“Even before the operation had ended, President Reagan went on national television to discuss the air strikes. “When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world,” he said, “we will respond in self-defense. Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again.”

READ MORE From the History Channel

Continue reading

UK condemns Muslim Brotherhood in break from Obama administration

1450985951981

A powerful report by the U.K. government accuses the Muslim Brotherhood of being sympathetic to terrorists and a risk to British national security, striking a contrast with the Obama administration’s more conciliatory approach – and fueling criticism that the U.S. government should wake up to the threat.

“I think the report is a damning indictment of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it’s a very realistic assessment of the nature of the Brotherhood itself,” Nile Gardiner, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, told FoxNews.com. “The British government has taken a far more serious approach compared to the Obama administration’s.”

The internal review of the Muslim Brotherhood was ordered by Prime Minister David Cameron in April 2014 and while the report is classified, Cameron ordered the main findings of the report to be made public.

Click here to read the findings of the report.

The report found that supporting Hamas was an important priority for the Brotherhood. It noted that while the group at times has renounced violence, senior figures have repeatedly defended Hamas attacks on Israel and justified attacks against coalition forces in the U.S. and Afghanistan.

Also, while the Muslim Brotherhood has criticized Al Qaeda, leaders have claimed that the 9/11 attacks were fabricated by the U.S. government, and that the war on terror is merely a pretext to attack Muslim countries.

The report concludes that while the Brotherhood has preferred non-violent methods on the grounds of expediency, “they are prepared to countenance violence – including, from time to time, terrorism – where gradualism is ineffective.”

“Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security,” the report says.

Egypt’s military-backed government labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group in December 2013, a matter of months after the military helped topple the government of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi.

Morsi’s overthrow put western countries like the U.S. and Britain in an awkward spot, after having spoken in favor of Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and beyond. But in a written statement to the House of Commons after the release of the report, Cameron told MPs that association with the Brotherhood “should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.”

He also said the U.K. would continue to refuse visas to those associated with the group who have made extremist comments, and would continue to review whether the group should be banned.

The Obama administration, by contrast, often has taken a more neutral stance toward the organization. In January, the State Department met with members of the Egyptian Freedom and Justice Party that was established by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 2011, the Obama administration also had to correct Director of National Intelligence James Clapper after he described the group as “mostly secular” at a Capitol Hill hearing.

“To clarify Director Clapper’s point, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak’s rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation. He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization,” DNI spokesperson Jamie Smith said.

When asked in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly in 2011 if the Brotherhood was a threat to the United States, Obama said “they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S.” but did not call them a threat. Also in 2011, when asked if the U.S. should fear the Muslim Brotherhood, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “the jury is out.”

In a 2013 address to the United Nations, Obama said on the issue of Egypt that America had been both accused of “supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and engineering the removal of power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides.”

In a response to a 2013 petition to call the group a terrorist organization, the White House pushed back. “We have not seen credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence,” the White House said in a statement.

Questions also have long been raised about the group’s connections inside the U.S. While some critics claim the Council on American-Islamic Relations is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR has called such accusations “false and misleading.”

“Undoubtedly this report will embarrass the Obama administration because the White House has gone out of its way to try to appease the Muslim Brotherhood, and so this report I think dramatically undercuts the Obama presidency’s weak-kneed approach on this matter,” Gardiner said of the U.K. findings.

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment by FoxNews.com. A spokesman for 10 Downing Street said they were not prepared to comment on any difference of opinion with the United States.

Other analysts suggest the report shows the fundamental difference in the understanding of the Islamic threat between the two governments.

“The Muslim Brotherhood plays word games, they know how to pretend to be moderate,” Ryan Mauro, national security analyst at The Clarion Project, told FoxNews.com. “If the Obama administration is saying the Muslim Brotherhood is non-violent  and democratic then they do not understand the Muslim Brotherhood and do not understand the overall threat of radical Islam.”

Mauro says this misunderstanding has been present in both the Bush and Obama administrations, and could ultimately drive a wedge between America and European countries.

“We’ve already been seeing this wedge between Europe and the U.S. where our politically correct approach — where we describe the threat as generically violent extremism — is very different from what Europe has been talking about, about striking at the ideology,” Mauro said.

Source

They Didn’t See Sharia Coming Either….

Don’t think it wont happen here…

IRAN    1967                                                                        IRAN 2012

Iran 1970Iran 2012

Afghanistan 1967 / 2011

Afghanistan 1967&2011

Egypt 1959   (Cairo University)                                                         Egypt 2012 (Cairo University)

Egypt 1959Egypt 2012

United Arab Emirates (UAE) Declares Two American Muslim Groups Terrorist Organizations (Hint: CAIR Is One)

United Arab Emirates Designates Two American Muslim Groups As Terrorist Orgs

United Arab Emirates Designates Two American Muslim Groups As Terrorist Orgs

The United Arab Emirates has officially designated 83 groups as terrorist organizations, including two based in the U.S., the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society.

UAE’s cabinet made the announcement following a meeting on Saturday.

Other groups designated as terrorists include al-Qaida, al Nusra, Boko Haram and the Muslim Brotherhood.

CAIR’s designation is interesting given its high profile here in the U.S.

The group was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case in 2007. Leaders of the Holy Land Foundation were found guilty of aiding Hamas, which the U.S. has designated as a terrorist organization.

Starting in 2008, the FBI adopted a strict policy against dealing with CAIR in its investigations. Last year, the Department of Justice inspector general issued a report showing that the FBI had in some instances failed to maintain that arms-length requirement.

Source

U.S. debt balloons to $7 TRILLION more than it was when Obama took office Total federal government debt has increased by 66 per cent since Barack Obama became president Stunning milestone is revealed by Treasury Department website that discloses burgeoning numbers at the end of every business day It took more than 223 years for the US to accumulate its first $7 trillion in debt Obama has repeated the depressing feat in less than 67 months

The United States government’s accumulated debts have grown by more than $7 trillion – with a ‘t’ – since Barack Obama became president on January 20, 2009.

The sad milestone was revealed on July 31 by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on a ‘debt to the penny’ website that calculates the debt at the end of every business day.

On Obama’s first day in office the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Last Thursday it reached $17.687 trillion.

Somber salute to the economy? When Barack Obama came home from Camp David on Sunday, the nation was $7 trillion poorer than it was when he first arrived at the White House on January 20, 2009  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715986/U-S-debt-balloons-7-TRILLION-Obama-took-office.html#ixzz39iYB7IAo  Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Somber salute to the economy? When Barack Obama came home from Camp David on Sunday, the nation was $7 trillion poorer than it was when he first arrived at the White House on January 20, 2009 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715986/U-S-debt-balloons-7-TRILLION-Obama-took-office.html#ixzz39iYB7IAo Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Up, up, up: The national debt has grown steadily during the Obama years, jumping by a total of $7 trillion as of July 31  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715986/U-S-debt-balloons-7-TRILLION-Obama-took-office.html#ixzz39iYOlGS3  Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Up, up, up: The national debt has grown steadily during the Obama years, jumping by a total of $7 trillion as of July 31 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715986/U-S-debt-balloons-7-TRILLION-Obama-took-office.html#ixzz39iYOlGS3 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

America’s first 43 presidents took 223 years to rack up the country’s first $7 trillion in red ink.

Obama has duplicated that dubious achievement in less than five years and seven months.

After the same number of days in office, former President George W. Bush had increased the national debt by a comparatively paltry $2.720 trillion.

Bill Clinton’s debt load at the same point in his presidency had increased by just $1,324 trillion.

The right-leaning Cybercast News Service was first to point out that Obama had cleared the $7 trillion hurdle in added financial obligations.

During a July 2008 campaign speech in North Dakota, then-Senator Obama ripped into the Bush administration for running up the federal debt by a total of $4 billion near the end of his second term.

‘The problem is,’ he said, ‘is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back – $30,000 for every man, woman and child.’

‘That’s irresponsible,’ Obama said then. ‘It’s unpatriotic.’

The Republican Party ripped into the president on Monday with an email blast charging that after ‘[i]gnoring warnings from all corners, Obama has one of the worst records on the federal debt in U.S. history.’

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for a response.

In February the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that ‘federal debt held by the public will equal 74 percent of GDP at the end of this year and 79 percent in 2024.’

At the end of 2008, that number was just 39 per cent. At current rates of spending, by 2019 the debt will be larger than the nation’s annual GDP.

‘Such large and growing federal debt,’ the CBO warns, ‘could have serious negative consequences, including restraining economic growth in the long term, giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually increasing the risk of a fiscal crisis.’

Debt held by the public makes up about 71 per cent of the total federal debt. The rest consists of ‘intragovernmental holdings’ – government-speak for gaps in the Medicare Trust Fund, the Social Security Trust Fund, and other revolving funds.

Those lines on Uncle Sam’s balance sheet totaled $5,036 trillion at the end of last Thursday, a number that represents how far behind the government is in meeting its long-term obligations to retirees and other benefit-takers.

Government spending has skyrocketed during Obama’s time in office due to a combinations of his policies, a spendthrift Congress and recession-related automatic stabilizers like unemployment insurance that can quickly drain the Treasury.

The annual deficit – a single year’s addition to the larger debt – was $1.413 trillion in 2009, Obama’s first year in the White House. He has steadily reduced it year-on-year, and the 2014 deficit is expected to be $492 billion.

That number, however, is still larger than any other annual deficit in the history of the U.S. before he became president.

Source

White House counters Pelosi over claim DC does not have spending problem

Long-past overdue for Nancy Pelosi to step down.  Even the spend-a-holics running the White House admit there is a big spending problem.  White House counters Pelosi over claim DC does not have spending problem.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney countered House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi after she claimed it’s a “false argument” to say the federal government has a spending problem.

“Of course, the president believes that we have a spending problem,” Carney said Monday, adding that the problem is “specifically driven” by health care spending. “And that’s just a fact.”

The gentle reminder of the nation’s bloated entitlement spending came after Pelosi, in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” challenged those calling for more cuts.

“We have to recognize that, which cuts really help us and which cuts hurt our future? And cuts in education, scientific research and the rest are harmful, and they are what are affected by the sequestration,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.” “So, it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.”

Though the White House countered the remark Monday, Pelosi was nevertheless aligning herself with Obama in calling for Washington to avert a looming round of budget cuts — by replacing them with a blend of cuts and tax hikes.
The cuts are set to kick in March 1 and will impact the Pentagon more than any other single department. Republicans want the package replaced with a less arbitrary slate of cuts. But Pelosi argued that more cuts would hurt the economy, and in turn do little to close the deficit.

Few would argue with Pelosi’s claim that the government has a deficit problem. The annual deficit exceeded $1 trillion for each of the past four years, adding $6 trillion total to the national debt during President Obama’s first term.

But Republicans argue that the gaping shortfall cannot be closed with tax increases alone — and that, indeed, Washington has a rather severe spending problem.

Even many in the Democratic Party concede that the growth in entitlement spending — on Medicare and other budget gobblers — needs to be checked.

Some kind of agreement, even a short-term one, needs to be reached in the next few weeks to avoid $85 billion in arbitrary spending cuts next month. Pelosi stressed that Democrats want to increase revenue by closing loopholes, including those for oil companies, as opposed to raising tax rates.
Her argument is similar to the one President Obama is expected to restate Tuesday during his State of the Union address.

However, Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole said fellow House Republicans will “absolutely not” accept tax increases as part of a deal, which would trigger the cuts to federal defense and discretionary spending.

Cole told ABC News’ “This Week” that the president refused to agree to spending cuts during the recent, so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations so Democrats are not getting revenue increases now.

“I think (sequester) is inevitable, quite frankly,” he said.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain also said Sunday that Republicans don’t want tax increases, considering they just agreed to end more than $1 trillion in income tax breaks, but suggested he might be open to closing some tax loopholes.

He also urged both parties to work together to avoid sequester, which will result in big cuts to the defense budget and roughly $1.2 trillion in total cuts over the next decade.

“I’ll take responsibility as a Republican, but we’ve got to avoid it,” said McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The world is a very dangerous place.”

Source