Talk about being out of touch with America. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has added an amendment to a bill on Nuclear safety. It’s a “sense of the senate bill” (a collective opinion of the senate) that the U.S. government should be stopped from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion. While on first glance it seems not so bad, Leahy’s amendment is a first possible step toward stopping the government for example, from banning a proven follower of radical Islam from moving to the United States.
The original bill, S-1318 was written to outlaw transporting any WMD material into the country on a ship. So the Leahy amendment has nothing to do with the bill. “Sense of” resolutions can also be added as amendments to regular House or Senate bills. Even when added to regular bills, “sense of” amendments have no force law. But that doesn’t mean that if it gets enough support, after passing, a “sense of” amendment can’t be reintroduced as a regular bill. By the way “sense of” bills only need 50 votes (no filibuster). Also, foreign governments pay close attention to them as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities. So it sends the message to ISIS come on down and visit America.
And because it is an Amendment to a bill which has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, it’s clear that Leahy and his Democratic Party buddies are trying to be sleazy.
As reported by Adam Kredo in the Free Beacon, the “sense” of this amendment is that it is a basic human right to be able to move to the United States:
“This amendment will establish the progressive goal of creating a right to global migration, their solution to global income inequality,” the source said. “This is not simply a slippery slope. This is ripping open Pandora’s box. If you can establish that we have no right to consider religious beliefs, then you could help establish we have no right to consider a candidate’s age, skill, income, or country of origin.”
“(…) It would could lead to rules saying you can’t discriminate against foreign single mothers, or unemployed elderly seniors, or members of religious cults. And if religion cannot be considered, then of course you cannot favor say Australian immigration over Middle East immigration since religion is, of course, a factor in that decision,” the congressional source explained. “It would mean you could not favor a Christian Syrian priest over a fundamentalist Muslim cleric, and that if you denied the cleric you’d be paving the road to them having standing to sue for entry from a foreign country.”
Here’s the bottom line. This is an obvious attempt to slap Donald Trump and his Muslim ban. The problem some have with the Trump “ban all Muslim immigration” suggestion is that it was too broad. He called was a wholesale ban on all Muslims until we learned how to screen people coming into the country. Leahy’s suggestion is the opposite extreme. It says that our country can’t take what is (IMHO) the proper approach, single out and ban individual Muslims who may have been radicalized.
Leahy’s amendment would be wrong at any time–but it’s more it’s even a bigger error today. Americans are more frightened of an impending terrorist attack than any other time since 9/11. Leahy, like most Democrats, is totally disconnected from the American people.