7. Inmates released in Mobile

• Coronavirus cases have continued to rise in Mobile, and some inmates from Mobile Metro Jail have been released under the use of “hurricane protocol.”
• Sheriff Sam Cochran said that the only people released were those facing nonviolent misdemeanor charges. Prison and jail releases have happened throughout the pandemic when certain facilities have seen a large increase in coronavirus cases. 

6. Democrats wasting money on silly billboards ahead of Trump rally (more…)

7. Joe Biden is just “not Trump”

• President Joe Biden continues to wake up and think, “What would Trump do?” and then do the exact opposite. On Thursday, he announced that he will raise the cap on refugees we allow to enter the country in the middle of a global pandemic.
• Biden is not offering just a token increase here either. He is taking former President Donald Trump’s 15,000 this year, the lowest since the creation of the Refugee Act, and increasing it to 125,000 in the next fiscal year.

6. Colorado wants Biden to punish Alabama (more…)

Alabamians have been watching in recent weeks to see how Alabama will handle the question of refugee resettlement. Other Republican governors have been split on the question, with Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee allowing refugees into his state and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ending his state’s participation in the program.

As Gov. Lee pointed out in public comments following his decision, there is a great deal of misunderstanding surrounding the issue.

Many Americans hear the word “refugee” and think of undocumented migrants seeking asylum at our southern border, unvetted and unsorted. In reality, individuals who are termed refugees and thus eligible for resettlement have already gone through an average of two years of vetting, first by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and then by the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). (more…)

Radio talk show host Dale Jackson and political scientist Dr. Waymon Burke take you through this week’s biggest political stories, including:

— Have we finally reached the beginning of the end of this never-ending impeachment circus?

— Why hasn’t Governor Kay Ivey (R) announced that Alabama doesn’t want to accept more refugees?

— Will Alabama legislators really move the issue of expanded gambling in Alabama in the upcoming legislative session?

(more…)

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey is now in the middle of a process where she is deciding whether or not she should open Alabama up to more refugees or if she should follow the lead of Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) who decided he would not take more refugees.

President Donald Trump put this decision in the hands of governors across the country when he signed an executive order giving states and municipalities the ability to opt-out on refugee resettlement.

All 43 who have announced (except Texas) say “bring them on.”

OK, take them. Alabama should not. (more…)

7. Biden leading in the polls

• A new Iowa poll conducted by Monmouth University shows that former Vice President Joe Biden is still polling in first at 24%, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is at 18% and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg is at 17%.
• U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is in fourth with 15%, while several points behind is U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) at 8%. U.S. Sen. Cory Booker and billionaire Tom Steyer are tied at 4%, but Booker has since ended his campaign.

6. Saudi students have been expelled (more…)

Refugee admissions to the United States were down 83 percent in the first two months of fiscal 2018 (October and November) compared to the first two months of fiscal 2017.

A total of only 3,108 refugees were admitted in October and November down from the 18,300 refugees who were admitted in October and November of last year.

Meanwhile, fourteen months after the Obama administration backed a push at the U.N. for global responsibility-sharing for refugees and migrants, the Trump Administration has pulled out of the initiative. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said it “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”

The weekend announcement comes amid a sharp drop in the number of refugees admitted to the United States during the first two months of fiscal year 2018.

The most striking change between the refugee admissions in the initial two-month period of this fiscal year and last fiscal year was the relative differences in size of the contingents from Syria, Somalia and Iraq.

In Oct.-Nov. 2016, 2,259 Syrians (97.6 percent Muslim, 1.7 percent Christian), 2,463 Somalis (99.9 percent Muslim) and 2,262 Iraqis (75 percent Muslim, 17.3 percent Christian, 7.4 percent Yazidi) were resettled.

In Oct.-Nov. 2017 the numbers had dropped to 33 Syrians (66.6 percent Muslim, 33.3 percent Christian), 126 Somalis (100 percent Muslim) and 76 Iraqis (84.2 percent Muslim, 10.5 percent Christian, 3.9 percent Yazidi).

Among the 3,108 refugees admitted since FY 2018 began, the five largest contingents came from Bhutan (805), the Democratic Republic of Congo (627), Burma (347), Ukraine (290) and Eritrea (281).

The religious breakdown of those 3,108 refugees was: 59.6 percent Christian, 15.4 percent Muslim, 9.6 percent Buddhist, 7.6 percent Hindu, 4.7 percent Kirat and 0.9 percent Jewish.

By contrast, the five countries represented most strongly among the 18,300 refugees resettled by the Obama administration in the U.S. during the first two months of FY 2017 were the DRC (4,236), Somalia (2,463), Iraq (2,262), Syria (2,259) and Burma (1,509).

The religious breakdown of those 18,300 refugees was: 48.1 percent Christian, 43.6 percent Muslim, 2.4 percent Buddhist, 1.7 percent Hindu, 0.9 percent Kirat and 0.3 percent Jewish.

The figures reflect clearly the differences in the two administrations’ approach on refugees.

The last full fiscal year of the Obama administration saw 84,994 refugees admitted. President Trump has proposed a refugee admission ceiling of 45,000 for FY 2018, the lowest ceiling set by an administration since the Refugee Act was passed in 1980.

Now the administration is also withdrawing from a U.N. initiative called the Global Compact on Migration.

In a statement Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. would continue to engage at the U.N. but in this case it “simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal.”

In September last year, a summit at the U.N. adopted a consensus declaration – the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants – expressing countries’ political will to protect the rights of refugees and migrants and share the responsibility for doing so.

Although they stopped short of making any binding commitments, the leaders undertook to work by 2018 towards consensus on a global compact on sharing the refugee burden.

Haley said Sunday the New York declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration’s immigration principles.”

She said no country has done more that the U.S. in providing support for migrant and refugee populations across the globe, “and our generosity will continue.”

“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” she said. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”

Miroslav Laják, the president of the U.N. General Assembly – who received the formal notification of withdrawal – said he regretted the decision.

“The role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world,” the Slovak diplomat said in a statement released by his spokesman on Sunday.

“As such, it has the experience and expertise to help ensure that this process leads to a successful outcome.”

The U.S. withdrawal from the initiative came on the eve of a three-day global gathering beginning in Mexico on Monday to take stock of how and where the process is going.

(Courtesy of CNSNews.com)

As reported by WKRG News, Mobile Mayor, Sandy Stimpson, held a press conference earlier today laying out preparations the city is taking to handle the influx of hurricane Irma evacuees it expects in the coming days.

With the Public Safety Director and Fire Chief by his side, Mayor Stimpson asked that all evacuees entering Mobile to call 211 on their phone. This will provide them with the information they need to access the resources the city is providing.

Hurricane Irma is one of the most powerful storms ever recorded, and it’s expected to cause catastrophic damage wherever it makes land fall. The current scientific consensus points to the storm turning East, hitting close to Miami, but anything is possible at this point.

In his press conference, Mayor Stimpson said, “ We will feel the impact of Irma no matter where it goes. If you think of those evacuating from Florida, where will they go? One of the things pointed out in the meeting; they’ll get on Interstate-10 and go westward.”

Mobile Public Safety Director, James Barber, made it clear that Mobile is working with organizations like the Red Cross to ensure that the city has backup resources should it become overwhelmed by large numbers of refugees.

Irma isn’t expected to impact the U.S. mainland until sometime late Sunday. However, necessities like food and water are already disappearing from shelves in Florida.

In the wake of two important executive orders from President Trump this year regarding refugees, Governor Ivey has pulled the plug on a lawsuit filed by her predecessor, Robert Bentley. The suit challenged the federal government’s attempt to resettle refugees against without providing key information to the state.

The President filed one executive order in January and another in March, both aimed at temporarily block immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries like Syria. After hitting roadblocks in federal court with both orders, Trump has now proposed a 25 percent cut in funds for refugee resettlement.

According to an Associated Press report, Ivey’s general counsel, Bryan Taylor, says that the Governor withdrew the lawsuit with confidence that President Trump is addressing the matter on the federal level. “Governor Ivey welcomes the Trump administration’s change in policy to involve the states in the refugee resettlement process,” Taylor said. “Those concerns have now been addressed, and the litigation is ended.”

In January of 2016, former Governor Robert Bentley announced the State of Alabama had filed a suit against the federal government for failing to comply with the Refugee Act of 1980. The law specifically requires the federal government to consult with states before placing refugees within their borders, though the Bentley administration claimed no such consultation had occurred. The lawsuit charged that the U.S government agencies named as defendants failed to provide the state with sufficient information about the refugees who have settled or will be settled in Alabama. The suit was later tossed out by a federal judge.

According to a recent report from the U.S. State Department, only 46 refugees have arrived in Alabama between October 2016 and April of this year.

AUBURN, Ala. — The widespread protests of President Donald J. Trump’s immigration ban have hit Alabama, where approximately 200 people marched in opposition to the restrictions at Auburn University last Thursday.

Students and teachers alike gathered to voice their displeasure with the president’s executive action up and down the University’s Haley Concourse. According to a report from oanow, the protest was organized by Auburn students on Facebook.

Two weeks ago, President Trump signed an executive order placing a ban refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, and a 120-day ban on other refugees. White House Counsel has since issued a clarification indicating the order does not apply to current U.S. Green Card holders.

Several of the state’s public universities, including Auburn and Alabama, have released official statements noting that Trump’s order directly affects their faculty and student bodies. Such issues have left those on campus concerned.

“That’s when I realized that this is really a problem that affects a lot of people that we know,” Christine Cameron, one Auburn protest organizer, told oanow. “The response has been overwhelming.”

On Friday, a Federal Judge from Washington placed a nationwide stay on Trump’s order, halting any further action. The Trump Administration plans to appeal that decision in the near future.

“We are scientists, and we are not terrorists,” Iranian Auburn Student Mohamad Menati told oanow. “We are over here because we thought the United States is great, and we just thought we could have our own contribution to the United States.”

(h/t oanow.com)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senate Democrats effectively delayed the Judiciary Committee’s vote to approve Sen Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), which is the first step required for him to become the next Attorney General of the United States. The latest instance of fallout from President Trump’s refugee and immigration executive order, Session’s nomination has come under increased scrutiny from his liberal colleagues who question his ability to adequately enforce equal justice under the law.

“Not one order idea or pronouncement is meant to bring this country together; they only serve to drive us further apart,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) “It is in this context we are being asked to consider this nomination.”

Sessions, and his Republican colleagues, have vehemently defended his reputation, his record, and his ability to do the job of Attorney General. “He knows the department better than any nominee for attorney general, he’s a man of his word, and most importantly he will enforce the law no matter whether he would have supported that law as a member of the Senate,” Committee chairman Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said.

Last week, President Trump signed an executive order placing a ban refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, and a 120-day ban on other refugees. While cheered by his supporters, the executive order has faced criticism from Democrats, some Republicans, and the international community.

The American Civil Liberties Union called for Democrats to protest Trump’s nominations until the executive order is rolled back. Throughout the day, Democrats failed to show up to approval votes on several of Trump’s selections, including Sessions.

“We’ve got [attorney general nominee] Jeff Sessions, who we’re told was involved somehow in the drafting of these executive orders,” said Faiz Shakir, political director for the ACLU. “If they want to press this through, say: You don’t get an attorney general until you overturn the Muslim ban.”

Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks has been one of Capitol Hill’s most outspoken critics of the President’s refugee resettlement plan. He says local governments deserve to have more control over those who are placed in their state. Now, he’s signed on to a bill that would grant states the power to approve refugee resettlements.

The Allow State Sovereignty Upon Refugee Entry Act (ASSURE) responds to an Obama Administration order that would allow an additional 110,000 new refugees into the country over the next year. Already, the President has reported that 324,000 have been admitted into the United States throughout the past five years.

Rep. Brooks says the President’s action is costing taxpayers billions each year, and believes Congress must push back.

“Unsurprisingly, this Administration has shunned and disregarded as irrelevant all thought to how its dangerous policies impact local communities, threaten American lives, and drive up our nation’s exploding $19 trillion debt,” Rep. Brooks told Yellowhammer.

Pointing to a study from the Center for Immigration Studies, he says that each refugee from the Middle East will costs American taxpayers $64,370 within the first five years of their resettlement.

“That amounts to 12 times what the UN estimates it would cost to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries,” he added.

More than a being a threat to America’s pocketbook, Rep. Brooks believes refugees could also pose a security risk.

“This Administration has shown a pattern and practice of discriminating against peaceful Christian and other non-Muslim immigrants in favor of unvetted and potentially dangerous Muslim immigrants,” Rep. Brooks said. “Remarkably, so far this year more than 99% of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States have been unvetted Muslims.”

If passed, the ASSURE Act would require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to submit a report to each state with detailed information about proposed refugee resettlements, as well as the cost of housing, education, health care, and more.

NEW YORK — The Obama administration has declined to answer questions from a U.S. Senate committee about the president’s plans to drastically increase the number of Syrian refugees being admitted into the country, opting instead to pursue their agenda through United Nations General Assembly currently meeting in New York.

Top Obama administration officials will not be made available for a legally required Senate hearing scheduled for Wednesday, prompting Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, to accuse the the president of subordinating U.S. interests to those of the global community.

“Despite having sufficient notice of a statutorily required hearing regarding its plans for the Refugee Admissions Program in Fiscal Year 2017, the Obama Administration has once again elected to subordinate both its relationship with Congress and the legitimate concerns of the American people to advance the agenda of the United Nations,” Sen. Sessions said in a release. “The Department of State claims that not one official is available to appear at tomorrow’s scheduled hearing due to this week’s United Nations General Assembly and Summit for Refugees and Migrants. The Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services have also refused to attend tomorrow’s hearing in a strange display of bureaucratic solidarity with the Department of State’s indefensible decision. The American people deserve explanations about the Administration’s reckless plans to admit 110,000 refugees beginning on October 1, 2016. They demand that their leaders end the lawlessness and abuses in the Refugee Admissions Program, and that their leaders place the safety and security of this country first.”

RELATED: Sessions: Obama ignores security concerns, plans influx of refugees from terrorist hotbeds

Sessions is the second Alabama lawmaker this year to express concerns about the United Nations and the Obama administration’s support of it.

In the wake of Brexit, the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union (EU), Alabama congressman Mike Rogers (R-AL3) said he hoped it would spur the United States toward exiting the United Nations (UN).

Rep. Rogers recently laid out his major issues with the multi-national organization in the following statement:

“The United States’ participation with the United Nations (U.N.) should end immediately. The U.N. continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars.

“Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack our rights as U.S. citizens.

“To name a few, these initiatives include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would subject our country to internationally-based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels.

“The U.N. has also offered a potential Arms Trade Treaty which would threaten our Second Amendment rights and impose regulations on our gun manufacturers, who are already facing regulations and pressure from the Obama Administration.

“Lastly, the U.N. does not support Israel and voted to grant the Palestinian Authority ‘non-member state’ permanent observer status.”

For some UN officials, the feelings of disdain are mutual.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement late last year blasting the State of Alabama — and the United States more broadly — for its record on women’s and immigrants’ rights.

According to the UN, the organization sent a three-member delegation to Alabama, Oregon and Texas last year at the invitation of the United States government.

The leader of the delegation was feminist college professor Frances Raday, Chair of the Israeli Association of Feminist and Gender Studies and Vice-Chair of the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Discrimination Against Women.

“We acknowledge the United States’ commitment to liberty, so well represented by the Statue of Liberty which symbolizes both womanhood and freedom,” said Raday. “Nevertheless, in global context, US women do not take their rightful place as citizens of the world’s leading economy, which has one of the highest rates of per capita income. In the US, women fall behind international standards as regards their public and political representation, their economic and social rights and their health and safety protections.”

Among the delegation’s specific criticisms of Alabama is the state’s photo voter ID law, which it claims is discriminatory toward women.

“Our group is concerned that changes in voter identification laws, such as those in Alabama, which increase bureaucratic requirements for voter identification, in particular problematic for women who change their name in marriage and reduce the number of voting centers, can make registration and voting less accessible for the poor, of whom a majority are women,” Raday said in a somewhat difficult-to-follow sentence.

The UN delegation also bemoaned the state of “women’s reproductive rights” in Alabama, saying there are a lack of abortion providers and “many of the clinics work in conditions of constant threats, harassment and vandalising (sic), too often without any kind of protection measures by law enforcement officials.” Raday also said Alabama has “a history of severe violence against abortion providers.”

Raday concluded the UN delegation’s criticisms of Alabama by claiming the state discriminates against immigrations by not allowing them to enroll in Medicaid.

“According to various stakeholders we met… Alabama (does) not allow lawfully residing immigrants to enroll in Medicaid even after completion of the federal waiting period of five years,” she said. A spokesperson for Medicaid did not immediately return Yellowhammer’s request for comment. The UN group also criticized the United States a whole for not providing government healthcare to all of its citizens.

The United Nations’ criticisms of the United States are nothing new, but still may come as a surprise considering the US is by far the UN’s largest funder, contributing 22 percent of the organization’s total budget, the maximum allowed under its bylaws. The US also funds over 28 percent of the UN’s “peacekeeping budget,” which has over 80,000 troops deployed worldwide.

Congressman Rogers’ frustrations with the U.N. led him to introduce H.R. 1205, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015, which he said would “end country’s participation in the U.N. and any organizations affiliated with them.”

“Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world?” Rogers asked rhetorically. “The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.”

Despite opposition by the American people, a documented link between terrorism and individuals admitted to the United States as refugees, and over $19 trillion in debt, the Obama Administration has committed the United States to admitting 110,000 refugees during Fiscal Year 2017—a roughly 57 percent increase in the number of refugees the United States admitted as recently as FY 2015, and a roughly 29 percent increase from the Administration’s target for FY 2016.

The common sense concerns of the American people are simply ignored as the Administration expands its reckless and extreme policies.

Terrorists have announced that they will infiltrate the refugee population and have successfully done so multiple times in Europe over the last year. These asylum-seekers are overwhelmingly male who make the journey from hotbeds of terrorism to countries throughout Europe. Earlier this year, General Philip Breedlove, who served as NATO’s top commander, saidthat ISIS was ‘spreading like cancer’ among the refugee population. And unsurprisingly, there have been numerous terror attacks in Europe this year linked to the refugee crisis. Indeed, just this past weekend, Germany’s Interior Minister said that there are more than 500 terrorists inside Germany alone who are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. It is all but certain that many of those potential terrorists exploited the refugee crisis to get to Germany, and that there are likely thousands more all across Europe today.

Here in the United States, we face the same risks. The Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Secretary of Homeland Security have acknowledged that terrorists could infiltrate the refugee population. And for good reason—as it is clear that terrorists have done so successfully in the past. The Director of the FBI has testified that he cannot certify that every refugee admitted to the United States is not a security threat, and recently compared the FBI’s anti-terrorism mission to ‘looking for needles in a nationwide haystack’ while also figuring out ‘which pieces of hay might someday become needles.’ Regardless, President Obama and his Administration are now pushing their extreme policies even further by stubbornly placing the requests of the United Nations above the safety of the American people by surging refugee admissions to 110,000.

The Administration’s claim that the program costs roughly $1.5 billion drastically understates the true costs of initial resettlement—as it does not include costs for programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, or Supplemental Security Income, among others.

In addition to the very serious national security implications and the initial resettlement costs, admitting 110,000 refugees will result in an enormous long-term financial burden on the taxpayers. Robert Rector, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has estimated that the total lifetime cost of admitting 10,000 refugees —which includes all costs at the federal, state, and local level—is $6.5 billion. Using Mr. Rector’s numbers as a baseline, admitting the 110,000 refugees that the Obama Administration proposes to admit beginning on October 1 will result in a total lifetime cost to the taxpayers of $71.5 billion. This would be added every year that these levels are continued.

The simple fact is that it would be safer and more cost-effective to establish safe zones for refugees as close to their homes as possible—particularly for those from the Middle East. One estimate found that resettling one refugee in the United States was nearly 12 times more expensive than providing care for that refugee abroad. With the prospect for a cease-fire in the region, there is even more reason to focus on providing temporary support for displaced persons in the region.

The American people do not support these radical plans, which amount to a complete betrayal from their leaders in Washington.

Jeff Sessions represents Alabama in the United States Senate, where he is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest.

(Video above: Sen. Jeff Sessions appears on CBS’s “Face the Nation”)

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) responded to criticism of Donald J. Trump’s call to conduct “extreme vetting” of anyone seeking to gain entry into the United States, insisting that non-U.S. citizens “do not have a constitutional right to demand entry into the country.”

Mr. Trump told Hispanic leaders late last week he would craft a “humane and efficient” way to deal with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrant workers currently in the country. Sessions, who would likely be on the short-list for Homeland Security Secretary in a Trump administration, said Mr. Trump is “wrestling” with that issue, but reasserted that it would come second to securing the border.

“First and foremost he has made clear that we would end the illegality, fix our border and secure it,” he said. “And then we’ll have to think about what’s the right thing to do. He listened to a lot of people. I don’t think he made any commitments; he’s thinking that through. And that’s the right thing. He is absolutely committed to the first thing that has to be done and that’s to end the lawlessness, to protect Americans from danger and to protect American jobs from excessive flows of labor that pull down wages and job opportunities for Americans.”

Sen. Sessions also told CBS Face the Nation host John Dickerson that the Trump campaign’s National Security Advisory Committee is discussing how to handle refugee and immigration requests from “dangerous areas of the globe.”

“We had a big group of national security experts presided over by Rudy Giuliani and he listened intently to various ideas about this,” Sen. Sessions explained. “Most of these [individuals who have launched recent terrorist attacks on American soil] were either first generation refugees and immigrants, or their children. So it does increase the likelihood of an attack if you bring in more people from those dangerous areas of the globe. The American people clearly support an idea that if you can’t vet somebody from a dangerous area of the globe then they should not be brought into the U.S. You do not have a constitutional right to demand entry into the country. We should admit those who make America a better place and have a chance to flourish here, do well and love America.”

Asked if he has discussed with Mr. Trump “some kind of a test” for refugees or immigrants seeking entry into the country, Sen. Sessions said he had not.

“But [we have discussed] the idea that you ask people about their understanding of what a good government is,” he added. “If you have two people: One that believes in a democratic republic like we have, and one that has the ideology that wants to impose a narrow view of how the government should be run — a theocracy, then why would you not choose the one that’s most harmonious with our values? I think we can ask some of those questions. We have to be careful. We should talk to our lawyers and think it through carefully, but there is no doubt we can ask certain questions, as we have for decades, of people before they are admitted to our country.”

These questions would not, however, apply to U.S. citizens.

“You can’t do that for a citizen,” said Sen. Sessions. “Once you get citizenship you’re just like anybody else and you have every right of an American, no matter how you came here. Once you get that citizenship you have equal rights with every American. But if you’re applying to come then you of course can be evaluated differently.”

(h/t CBS)

Hillary Clinton’s plan to admit 65,000 refugees from Syria next year is radical and places America at great risk. Her goal is disconnected from reality. This surge would be nearly 40 times the number of Syrian refugees entering the country last year, and six times the number President Obama admits this year.

The proof is in.

Terrorists are getting into the United States posing as refugees. Our own government officials tell us there is no way to vet these individuals. Indeed, terrorism charges or convictions against refugees have increased steadily each of the last three years, totaling at least 18. This wipes out the argument that refugees don’t commit terrorism crimes.

The stunning and extreme nature of Hillary Clinton’s planned refugee increases cannot be ignored. These huge increases will result in more terrorism against the United States.

RELATED: Sessions-led committee estimates Hillary’s refugee plan would cost a jaw-dropping $400B

Further, Hillary Clinton ignores or dismisses the large financial cost of these increases. Assuming that her first year refugee increase total remains at that level for a four-year term, that would mean the admission of 620,000 refugees from all sources. These refugees would create a lifetime cost on the United States economy, according to an estimate by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, of over $400 billion.

These numbers do not count asylees, who are like refugees, except they present themselves in the United States requesting asylum. This would add likely another 100,000 to the 620,000 total over her first term.

These are costs that our country will bear for welfare, food stamps, healthcare, housing, schooling, and other entitlement benefits. Refugees and asylees are given access to the various government assistance programs after only one year, while normal immigrants must wait for five years.

It is time for the media to ask Hillary Clinton directly about these issues. She makes promises for short term political gain while ignoring the security risks and the financial costs her irresponsible promises will cause to fall on our country in the future. A full and open discussion of this disastrous policy proposal is an essential part of a healthy political process. It is past time for a diligent media to do its part and demand an explanation.

RELATED: Sessions tees off on CNN: Trump’s taking interviews while Hillary ‘hides from the press’

Jeff Sessions represents the State of Alabama in the United States Senate

Despite a clear nexus between immigration and terrorism, and warnings from top officials in his own Administration about their inability to properly vet refugees, President Obama remains in denial ‎about the dangers that his policies pose to the United States. Instead of taking a sober assessment of the ‎dangers that we face, and analyzing the immigration histories of recent terrorists so that we can more effectively safeguard our immigration system from being infiltrated, the Obama Administration leads the United States down a dangerous path – admitting as many refugees as possible from areas of the world where terrorists roam freely, and granting a temporary amnesty to Syrians living in the United States illegally. And contrary to the assertions made by many, the potential for future terror activity is real.

Our primary effort, and that of our allies, should be to provide support to those who are displaced as close to their homes as possible, and work to return them home as soon as possible. Of course, our foreign policy should always seek to avoid situations where such violence and chaos occur. But instead of pursuing these policies, the Obama Administration continues with its radical plans.

The 10,000 Syrian refugees his Administration will admit this Fiscal Year represent a nearly 500 percent increase over the roughly 1,600 Syrian refugees who were admitted last year. This radical increase places the safety and security of the American people at risk, there will surely be consequences.

Since September 11, 2001, we know that at least 40 individuals who were admitted to the United States as refugees have been convicted for, or implicated in, terrorism or terrorism-related offenses – and the total is likely much higher. Some were admitted as adults, others as children, but these cases refute the false assertion that those admitted to the United States as refugees never engage in terrorism. But because these facts do not fit within his worldview, President Obama rejects them. ‎And in so doing, he rejects his sacred oath for what he perceives as political gain.

Plainly, there is no way to properly vet these refugees. Our intelligence databases are only as good as the information that goes into them – meaning that the absence of derogatory information in our systems about an individual does not ‎mean that admitting that individual carries no risk. Nor do we have an effective method to screen refugees for the possibility of potential post-entry radicalization.

Good public policy puts the safety and security of this country first. There is no doubt that this continuous, dramatic increase in refugees from areas of the world where terrorists roam freely will endanger this nation. We must change course.

Jeff Sessions represents Alabama in the United States Senate.

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Republican National Convention is in full swing and delegates are set to nominate Donald J. Trump for President later this week. But before the big reveal and balloon drop, the convention stage will serve as a pedestal displaying the GOP’s political talent and leadership from across the country. Dozens of high profile leaders will take the stage to advocate for Trump and the GOP, including celebrities, entertainers and members of Trump’s family. But on Monday night, the world will stop to hear from Alabama’s own Jeff Sessions, who became the first U.S. senator to endorse the billionaire real estate mogul back in February.

Sessions will headline Monday’s festivities which are themed, “Make America Safe Again.” Each night of the convention will feature a different focus, but Sessions taking the lead on the law and order portion of the program comes as no surprise.

Here’s how the RNC explained Monday’s “Make America Safe Again” theme:

From attacks on our own soil and overseas to the tragedy in Benghazi, the policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have left us vulnerable. Our immigration system is broken, leaving our country open to security threats and the negative consequences of illegal immigration. A Donald Trump administration will listen to and learn from our nation’s heroes who have put themselves in harm’s way and pursue a national security strategy and foreign policy that will strengthen our military and make America safe again.

Sessions has been instrumental in Trump’s campaign for months. After his endorsement of the New York Billionaire, Alabama’s junior senator was named the head of Trump’s national security advisory committee.

Sessions has long been one of the most outspoken members of Congress on several key national security issues, chiefly immigration. Most recently, Sessions pushed legislation to punish sanctuary cities, which harbor illegal immigrants against federal law.

RELATED: Shelby, Sessions push to defund sanctuary cities

The Senate will soon take a vote on “Kate’s Law” which would guarantee a five-year prison sentence for illegal immigrants who cross back into the U.S. after being deported. If passed, the law would crack down on sanctuary cities like San Francisco that harbor such individuals.

Sessions and others in Alabama’s congressional delegation have fought the Obama Administration’s effort to resettle refugees and immigrants in the Yellowhammer State. A Sessions-led Senate committee recently estimated Mrs. Clinton’s refugee resettlement plan would cost upwards of $400 billion.

RELATED: Sessions-led committee estimates Hillary’s refugee plan would cost a jaw-dropping $400B

In light of the current climate for law enforcement, Sessions has also introduced more legislation to protect those who protect everyday Americans. Senator Sessions has partnered with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to introduce the Thin Blue Line Act, which would enforce harsher penalties on individuals targeting police officers and first responders. Sessions worked closely with federal, state and local law enforcement officials for years as Alabama Attorney General and before that as a U.S. Attorney.

Sessions is likely to talk about all of these topics and more in his national security-related speech this evening.
Sessions will be joined with some other heavy-hitters on Monday, including former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Duck Dynasty star Willie Robertson, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ivanka Trump, and Marcus Luttrell.

After the dismissal of the Texas suit, Alabama’s attorneys argued the differences between their suit and the case that the court decided to toss. Alabama’s suit was filed because state officials believe that the resettlement plan for Syrian refugees violates the Refugee Act of 1980, which requires that states be consulted before refugees are planted there.

“As Governor, the Alabama Constitution gives me the sovereign authority and solemn duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of all citizens of Alabama,” Gov. Bentley (R-Ala.) said in January when the suit was filed. “The process and manner in which the Obama Administration and the federal government are executing the Refugee Reception Program is blatantly excluding the states.”

Late last month, Yellowhammer reported that presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s plan for refugees is expected to come at a significant cost to taxpayers.

RELATED: Sessions-led committee estimates Hillary’s refugee plan would cost a jaw-dropping $400B

The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, headed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), cited statistics calculated by economists at the Heritage Foundation who determined that the lifetime cost of the 10,000 refugees pledged by President Obama is $6.5 billion. Using that number as a baseline, Sessions’ committee determined the cost of Hillary’s plan drawn out over a four year term would be roughly $403 billion.

If elected, Clinton would plan to admit 620,000 refugees over the course of her term. This proposal represents an increase of 55,000 refugees a year over President Obama’s initial target for 2017, and Congress might be helpless to stop her.

“Due to statutory flaws in our Refugee Admissions Program, the number could be as high as Hillary Clinton desires,” the analysis states. Without a congressional mechanism to prevent executive action, it could be possible for Clinton to house some refugees in Alabama.

Just this month, the Obama administration attempted such a move with illegal immigrant minors. The Federal Government considered housing illegal immigrant minors in two Alabama military institutions: the Naval OutLying Fields (NOLF) in Silverhill and Orange Beach.

The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, headed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), cited statistics calculated by economists at the Heritage Foundation who determined that the lifetime cost of the 10,000 refugees pledged by President Obama is $6.5 billion. Using that number as a baseline, Sessions’ committee determined the cost of Hillary’s plan drawn out over a four year term would be roughly $403 billion.

If elected, Clinton would plan to admit 620,000 refugees over the course of her term. This proposal represents an increase of 55,000 refugees a year over President Obama’s initial target for 2017, and Congress might be helpless to stop her.

“Due to statutory flaws in our Refugee Admissions Program, the number could be as high as Hillary Clinton desires,” the analysis states. Without a congressional mechanism to prevent executive action, it could be possible for Clinton to house some refugees in Alabama.

Just this month, the Obama administration attempted such a move with illegal immigrant minors. The Federal Government considered housing illegal immigrant minors in two Alabama military institutions: the Naval OutLying Fields (NOLF) in Silverhill and Orange Beach.

RELATED: Obama angling to house illegal alien minors at Alabama military base

Due to massive public backlash from elected officials and Alabama residents, the effort was ultimately halted. An amendment brought by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL1) also ensured the prohibition of using any money to construct or modify facilities to house unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in Alabama.

This is not the first time that an Alabama military base has been considered as a potential shelter for illegal immigrants. Earlier this year, Maxwell Air force Base in Montgomery was also considered for settlement by HHS, but was ultimately not selected.

(h/t LifeZette)

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, issued the following statement warning that the omnibus funding bill would, among other things, fund Sanctuary Cities, the President’s refugee expansion, and quadruple a controversial foreign worker program replacing Americans – all during a time of increasing concerns about threats to U.S. security and finances:

The more than 2,000 page year-end funding bill contains a dramatic change to federal immigration law that would increase by as much as four-fold the number of low-wage foreign workers provided to employers under the controversial H-2B visa program, beyond what is currently allowed. These foreign workers are brought in exclusively to fill blue collar non-farm jobs in hotels, restaurants, construction, truck driving, and many other occupations sought by millions of Americans.

At a time of record immigration – with a full 83% of the electorate wanting immigration frozen or reduced – the GOP-led Congress is about to deliver Obama a four-fold increase to one of the most controversial foreign worker programs. The result? Higher unemployment and lower wages for Americans.

As the Economic Policy Institute noted, ‘wages were stagnant or declining for workers in all of the top 15 H-2B occupations between 2004 and 2014,’ and ‘unemployment rates increased in all but one of the top 15 H-2B occupations between 2004 and 2014, and all 15 occupations averaged very high unemployment rates…Flat and declining wages coupled with such high unemployment rates over such a long period of time suggest a loose labor market—an over-supply of workers rather than an under-supply.’

The voters put Republicans in a majority in the 2014 midterm elections – a vote which constituted a clear decision to reject the abuse of our immigration system.

That loyalty has been repaid with betrayal.

On top of this provision, the omnibus approves – without conditions – the President’s request for increased refugee admissions, allowing him to bring in as many refugees as he wants, from anywhere he wants, and then allow them to access unlimited amounts of welfare and entitlements at taxpayer expense. This will ensure that at least 170,000 green card, refugee and asylum approvals are issued to migrants from Muslim countries over just the next 12 months.

In March, as Charmain of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, I sent appropriators a list of several dozen provisions for inclusion in our funding bills to improve immigration enforcement and block presidential lawlessness; those provisions were rejected – yet industry’s request for more foreign workers, and the President’s request for refugee funds, were unconditionally approved.

The bill also funds sanctuary cities and illegal alien resettlement, allows the President to continue issuing visas to countries that refuse to repatriate violent criminal aliens, and funds the President’s ongoing lawless immigration actions – including his unimpeded 2012 executive amnesty for alien youth.

As feared, the effect is to fund the President’s entire immigration agenda.

There is a reason that GOP voters are in open rebellion. They have come to believe that their party’s elites are not only uninterested in defending their interests but – as with this legislation, and fast-tracking the President’s international trade pact – openly hostile to them.

This legislation represents a further disenfranchisement of the American voter.

Jeff Sessions represents Alabama in the United States Senate. He is Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley made national headlines Sunday evening by announcing his administration will refuse entry to any Syrian refugees the Obama administration attempts to place in Alabama. But legal experts are split on whether Bentley and other governors have the legal authority to reject refugees.

Immigrant vs. Asylum-seeker vs. Refugee

Immigration is simply the act of a foreign national coming into the United States to live. The United States Supreme Court in 2012 reaffirmed the federal government’s full authority over the issue of immigration, to the frustration of many conservatives who bemoan the Obama Administration’s lack of enforcement.

Asylum-seekers and refugees are identical in the sense that they are fleeing some form of persecution in their home country. The difference is that asylum-seekers have already managed to make it to the United States, while refugees are submitting their request from abroad.

The Process

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services branch of the Department of Homeland Security runs the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). Under this program, individuals seeking refugee status are given a “priority level” determining the urgency of their request.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services explains:

— Priority 1: Cases that are identified and referred to the program by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a United States Embassy, or a designated non-governmental organization (NGO).
— Priority 2: Groups of special humanitarian concern identified by the U.S. refugee program.
— Priority 3: Family reunification cases (spouses, unmarried children under 21, and parents of persons lawfully admitted to the United States as refugees or asylees or permanent residents (green card holders) or U.S. citizens who previously had refugee or asylum status).

Once a refugee is given a priority level, the vetting process begins. The Department of Homeland Security insists that it vets refugees more thoroughly than any other traveler entering the country, harvesting biometric information and checking biographical data against numerous databases (FBI, CIA, State Dept., etc.).

The vetting process can be extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. government. Even Arabic names pose a challenge, as many of them are derived from fathers or grandfathers or the places they are from. In short, there could be dozens, even hundreds, of individuals with the exact same name from the roughly the same area or family lineage.

For these reasons, FBI director James Comey admitted his organization often lacks enough data to identify potential threats among refugees.

Congressman Bradley Byrne (R-AL1) received a classified briefing on the vetting process and walked away unconvinced the federal government can ensure the safety of U.S. citizens.

In the case of the Syrian refugees, once they are approved, the State Department places them in one of roughly 180 cities around the country — including Mobile, Alabama — that have organizations prepared to house them. Catholic Social Services (CSS) is the only organization in Alabama that works with the State Department to house refugees.

Though the CSS is part of the church’s Archdiocese of Mobile, the program is completely funded by the federal government. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the State Department will provide $1,850 per refugee for the first three months of assistance, to be used for reception, initial housing, food, clothing, referrals services and social programs.

If the refugees are not able to find a job in those first three months, or are precluded from doing so due to a disability, they are eligible for many welfare programs, including Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and Supplemental Security Income.

Legal Debate

Gov. Robert Bentley and at least seven other governors have announced they will not receive Syrian refugees in their states. These governors are backed by armies of attorneys who will undoubtedly make the case that they are well within their legal right to do so.

The Obama administration clearly disagrees, as the president has reaffirmed his commitment to bringing roughly 8,500 more refugees into the country during this fiscal year alone.

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner on Monday said he was aware of the governors’ concerns, but added that the Obama administration “disagrees that these individuals, many of them frankly the most vulnerable from Syria and the region, represent any real threat.”

Florida’s Republican governor Rick Scott penned a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asking them to get involved because he “does not have the authority to prevent the federal government from funding the relocation of these Syrian refugees to Florida.”

David Leopold, an immigration attorney who has represented many refugees and asylum-seekers, told the Washington Post “governor(s) (have) no right to block anyone from coming. Resettlement is determined by the Department of State, and immigration is a completely federal matter.”

Leopold’s opinion is also shared by a handful of refugee agencies Yellowhammer reached out Monday.

If the Obama administration continues to push forward, governors could quickly be faced with deciding whether to stick to their guns, or acquiesce to the wishes of the federal government.

MORE ON THE REFUGEE DEBATE:
1. Map shows Alabama has already received hundreds of Middle East refugees in recent years
2. Sessions moves to revoke funding for Syrian refugee resettlement
3. Condoleezza Rice sums up why allowing Syrian refugees into Alabama is a bad idea
4. Byrne demands Obama halt Syrian refugee resettlement in Alabama, U.S.
5. Bentley refuses Syrian refugees relocating to Alabama

The Obama Administration has decided to go around Congress once again and unilaterally make it easier for individuals with incidental or loose ties to terrorism to get into the United States.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., for one, does not think it is a good idea and is voicing his displeasure with the policy change, as well as with President Obama’s decision to work outside the bounds the Constitution places on his office.

“It will lead to increased danger that terrorists will slip by,” Sessions told Fox News. ” And it doesn’t have to be many. It could be 100 applicants and one of them be a terrorist, two or three be connected to terrorism, and we miss them.”

Sessions categorized Obama’s insistence on bypassing Congress as “a threat” to the rule of law that has governed the country since its founding.

“It’s a very great threat to the United States of America and our Constitutional order,” Sessions said. “Under the law, the president is required to execute, carry out and enforce laws passed by congress. He doesn’t get to make laws.”

Democrats, however, praised the rule change, saying the original interpretation of the law had been too broad, resulting in refugees and asylees being barred from the United States for actions or connections that were incidental and did not present any threat to the country.”

A video of a recent Fox News segment featuring Sessions discussing the issue can be seen above.

Follow Cliff on Twitter @Cliff_Sims