Brady Campaign demands elected Oregon sheriff be “immediately removed” for opposing gun control

The only people who can “fire” or remove Hanlin from his office are the people who elected him


Let’s see how many readers passed their basic civics coursework back in high school. Who can fire an elected public official or remove him or her from office? (Those of you who paid attention to the Kim Davis story can read your textbooks quietly for now.) It seems that the Brady campaign and The Hill both need refresher courses on basic civics:

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin ruffled feathers after it came to lightthat he sent Vice President Joe Biden a letter in January 2013, threatening to not enforce stronger gun laws.

According to reports, Hanlin also posted a conspiracy video on his Facebook page suggesting the government was behind the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in a coordinated effort to “disarm the public.” He later distanced himself from the video and denied claims he is a conspiracy theorist.

This has enraged gun-control activists.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said, the “overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want a 9/11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist leading the investigation.”

“We are calling on John Hanlin not only to be replaced as the lead investigator, but also to be immediately removed as sheriff,” Gross told reporters.

“As sheriff, he has shown he has no qualms about putting his ideology over his responsibility to protect his citizens,” Gross added.

The Hill’s headline emphasized the Brady Campaign’s demand


There’s one big problem with this demand: Douglas County Sheriffs are elected to office, as are most sheriffs in the US. John Hanlin is currently serving his second term, having run unopposed in 2012 for re-election. The only people who can “fire” or remove Hanlin from his office are the people who elected him.

That is basic American civics, which the Brady Campaign apparently hasn’t learned, and which The Hill didn’t know enough to question. There is literally no discussion within the article about the fact that Hanlin is an elected official in their story. This is the second time in the last two months that the US media has failed to recognize that elected officials cannot be fired or removed by other elected officials, the Kim Davis story being the first.

The Brady Campaign’s spokesman screeches about putting ideology above public safety as if Hanlin invented selective enforcement. Where has the Brady Campaign been with so-called “sanctuary cities,” which refuse to cooperate in enforcing immigration law? Did they call for the “firings” of mayors and city council members in places like San Francisco after the Steinle murder, among many other examples? What about the selective enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security on immigration under executive orders from Barack Obama? Will they call for Obama’s “firing” for putting politics above public safety?

Furthermore, if Hanlin determines that specific gun-control regulations violate the Constitution, he shouldn’t enforce it. If his constituents disagree, they can vote him out of office in a couple of years. That’s the only way he gets “fired” or “removed” from an elected position, a fact that public activists ought to learn before they make absurd and ignorant public demands.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a recall election, either. This part of Oregon is very conservative; Romney won by nearly 2:1 in Douglas in a state Obama carried by twelve points. Speaking of which, Obama will travel there later this week to meet with the families of the victims of the mass shooting. While the families will certainly appreciate the President’s presence, don’t expect it to change many minds in Douglas about gun control.

Report: 15 of 58 ISIS Terrorist Recruits Were From Minnesota

Getty Images


The House Homeland Security Committee released a report on domestic terrorist recruitment on Tuesday that found the largest number of American ISIS recruits came from Minnesota, with California and New York vying for second place.

Fifteen of the 58 American recruits who have attempted to join ISIS in Syria since 2011 were Minnesotans, according to KMSP News in Minneapolis. All but one of them were between the ages of 18 and 21.

The report found social media to be an indispensable tool for terrorist recruitment. “In almost 80 percent of cases, we found examples of U.S. foreign fighter aspirants downloading extremist propaganda, promoting it online, or engaging with other extremists on social media,” said the report. One example cited by KMSP spotlighted the danger of ISIS recruits reaching into their home countries through social media networks after arriving in Syria, and persuading other impressionable youngsters to follow in their footsteps.

The Homeland Security Committee report, which can be read in full here, states that “we are witnessing the largest global convergence of jihadists in history in Syria, and foreign fighters have taken the lead in recruiting a new generation of terrorists to spread terror back home.”

Among the report’s key findings are that the U.S. government has “largely failed to stop Americans from traveling overseas to join jihadists,” thwarting only a fraction of the efforts by recruits to travel to various conflict zones.

The committee worries that terrorists have mastered the art of using secure Internet websites and apps to communicate with Americans, while also developing “broken travel” techniques that make tracking foreign fighters more difficult.

“The U.S. government lacks a national strategy for combating terrorist travel and has not produced one in nearly a decade,” asserts the report.

The rest of the Western world is not doing much better, as the report warns “gaping security weaknesses overseas” are endangering U.S. homeland security by “making it easier for aspiring foreign fighters to migrate to terrorist hotspots and for jihadists to return to the West.”

The bipartisan report, billed as “one of the most extensive public examinations of U.S. government efforts to counter terrorist travel since the 9/11 Commission’s final report in 2004,” describes jihadi recruits from Western nations as a “triple threat,” because they provide manpower for terrorist groups, incite associates back home to carry out violent attacks, and can return home with combat experience and extremist connections to launch acts of terror.

The committee’s recommendations include creating a comprehensive global database of foreign fighters, which all partner nations can access to quickly and reliably identify extremists. The current state of information sharing between the U.S. and other governments is described as “ad hoc, intermittent, and often incomplete.”

The committee also recommends better coordination between the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies, making certain the latter have the information they need to assist counter-terrorism investigations. Better coordination with local communities to help them identify potential recruits is also advised.

The most difficult challenge offered by the report is developing reliable “off-ramps to radicalization” – in other words, effective early intervention strategies that can help young recruits evade the clutches of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. This idea is often discussed – most recently in a meeting between the State Department and some players in the entertainment industry, including Mark Boal, screenwriter of the film about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Zero Dark Thirty.

The problem is that efforts to design a media strategy that will counter ISIS recruiting efforts tend to focus on form rather than substance, too easily degenerating into absurd nonsense like responding to Boko Haram’s mass kidnappings with Twitter hashtags. ISIS might be using some slick production techniques in its recruitment videos, but the very real beheadings, immolations, and other grisly executions are the big draw. It is the supreme, bloody-minded confidence projected by terrorist recruiters that appeals to disaffected young men and women. Only an equally confident “off-ramp” appeal has much hope of reaching them.

Read More Stories About:

National Security, ISIS, Jihad, Islamic State, Social Media, Minnesota, radicalization,House Homeland Security Committee, recruitment

Blowback: Secret Service knew about leaked info used to smear congressman

The chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform committee, Congressman Jason Chaffetz. © Gary Cameron

The director of the Secret Service admitted that he knew about Congressman Jason Chaffetz’s application to join the Secret Service and the subsequent rejection that was leaked to news media. The admission contradicts a previous statement made to investigators.

Director Joseph Clancy’s admission comes the same week that federal investigators released a report on the agency. The report found that 45 agents and supervisors peeked at Chaffetz’s personnel file, which was stored in an internal Secret Service database and was required by law to be kept private.

The report said that 18 supervisors, including the deputy director and Clancy’s chief of staff, knew that the information had been accessed from within the agency. However, Clancy had never been informed.

The report also found that accessed Chaffetz’s records about 60 times, and the records were accessed by officials from across the country, including at headquarters in Dallas, Boston and Phoenix. One agent even logged in from London.

Congressman Chaffetz, (R-Utah) is a member of the House Oversight Committee, and has been very critical about Secret Service security lapses.


In a statement released on Thursday to the Washington Post, Clancy said he recalled becoming aware in March about a “speculative rumor” that Chaffetz had applied to the service and was rejected. He said he considered at the time that it was “not credible” and “not indicative” of any inappropriate action by employees.

He previously told federal investigators he was unaware of the information about Chaffetz.

“It was not until later that I became aware that this rumor had developed as Agency employees had used an Agency database to gain access to this information,” Clancy said in the statement, according to the Post. “I feel it is extremely important to be as accurate as possible regarding my knowledge of this matter and I have personally spoken to Chairman Chaffetz to advise him of the additional information that I provided to the Inspector General.”


The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), wrote a letter to Clancy on Friday, expressing his deep concern at the effort to use private information to smear a critic. He demanded answers about how Clancy would hold people accountable in the incident.

No one, whether a Member of Congress or a private citizen, should have private information violated in this manner. This incident is precisely why Americans do not trust the federal government with their personal information.”

Goodlatte gave Clancy until Wednesday to detail his plans on how to discipline those responsible for sharing the information.


Investigators from the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general’s office plan to re-interview Clancy about his revised account, according to the Washington Post.

The leak to the news media was published by the Daily Beast in a story on April 2, with the headline: “Congressman Who Overseas Secret Service Was Rejected by Secret Service.”

According to the Daily Beast, Chaffetz said he applied to the Secret Service in 2003 following 9/11, but he added that he was never interviewed and his file was marked to indicate that better qualified candidates existed. Chaffetz had previously said he believes he was too old to apply. He was 36 at the time. The cutoff age for hiring agents is 37.

President Obama picked Clancy as director of the agency despite a recommendation by administration panel of experts that an outsider be hired to improve Secret Service. Clancy is a 27-year veteran of the agency.

The agency has been under intense scrutiny because of a series of high-profile lapses. In March, two top supervisors spent a night drinking at an agent’s retirement party and drove towards the White House complex, through barricades and straight into an investigation of a suspected bomb incident. The two men were allowed to drive off without sobriety testing.


In February, an off-duty defense employee flew a drone that crashed on the White House lawn. Four months prior, a man with a knife climbed over the White House fence and made it deep inside the building before officers tackled him. In 2011, a gunman three-quarters-of-a-mile away from the White House fired shots that hit the building while one of President Obama’s daughters was home.

The Secret Service’s previous director, Julia Pierson, resigned in October 2014 after a number of security lapses. A critical report released in December found the agency was stretched beyond its limits, was too insular, and was“starved for leadership.

Five agency managers were removed from their positions in January as a result.

SECRET SERVICE MEMO: Dump file on critical congressman…

Screen Shot 2015-09-30 at 6.55.14 PM


An assistant director of the Secret Service urged that unflattering information the agency had in its files about a congressman critical of the service be made public, according to a government watchdog report released Wednesday.

“Some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out,” Assistant Director Edward Lowery wrote in an e-mail to a fellow director on March 31, commenting on an internal file that was being widely circulated inside the service. “Just to be fair.”

Two days later, a news Web site reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, had applied to be a Secret Service agent in 2003 and been rejected.

That information was part of Chaffetz’s personnel file stored in a restricted Secret Service database and required by law to be kept private.

The report by John Roth, inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, singled out Lowery, in part because of his senior position at the agency. The report also cited Lowery’s e-mail as the one piece of documentary evidence showing the degree of anger inside the agency at Chaffetz and the desire for the information to be public.

Lowery had been promoted to the post of assistant director for training just a month earlier as part of an effort that Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy said would reform the agency after a series of high-profile security lapses. Clancy had tapped Lowery to join a slate of new leaders he installed after removing more than two-thirds of the previous senior management team.

During the inspector general’s probe, Lowery denied to investigators that he directed anyone to leak the private information about Chaffetz to the press and said his e-mail was simply a vent for his stress and anger.

The Chaffetz file, contained in the restricted database, had been peeked at by about 45 Secret Service agents, some of whom shared it with their colleagues in March and April, the report found. This prying began after a contentious March 24 House hearing at which Chaffetz scolded the director and the agency for its series of security gaffes and misconduct. The hearing sparked anger inside the agency.

The inspector general’s inquiry found the Chaffetz information was spread to nearly every layer of the service.

Staff members in the most senior headquarters offices, the president’s protective detail, the public affairs office, the office of investigations and field offices in Sacramento, Charlotte, Dallas and elsewhere accessed Chaffetz’s file — and many acknowledged sharing it widely, according to the report. The day after the March 24 hearing, one agent who had been sent to New York for the visit of the president of Afghanistan recalled that nearly all of the 70 agents at a briefing were discussing it.

All told, 18 supervisors, including assistant directors, the deputy director and even Clancy’s chief of staff knew the information was being widely shared through agency offices, the report said.

“These agents work for an agency whose motto — ‘Worthy of trust and confidence’ — is engraved in marble in the lobby of their headquarters building,” Roth wrote in his summary report. “Few could credibly argue that the agents involved in this episode lived up to this motto.”

In an e-mailed statement, Clancy said: “I have reviewed the DHS OIG Report and have provided additional information to the DHS IG. The Secret Service takes employee misconduct very seriously, and as I have stated before, any employee, regardless of rank or seniority, who has committed misconduct will be held accountable. This incident will be no different and I will ensure the appropriate disciplinary actions are taken.

“On behalf of the men and women of the United States Secret Service, I again apologize to Representative Chaffetz for this wholly avoidable and embarrassing misconduct. Additionally, I will continue to review policies and practices to address employee misconduct and demand the highest level of integrity of all our employees.”

After reviewing the IG report, the Oversight Committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), said in a statement that he was “deeply troubled” by what Roth’s team uncovered and that staffers who have shown themselves to be “unwilling or unable to meet the highest ethical standards” should leave the agency.

“Chairman Chaffetz and I have worked together to help restore the Secret Service to its standing as the most elite protective agency in the world,” Cummings said. “Today’s findings by the Inspector General go directly against this goal and are completely and utterly unacceptable and indefensible.”

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, whose department includes the Secret Service, urged in a statement that those personnel who had engaged in inappropriate conduct should be held responsible.

Roth said in his report that it was “especially ironic and troubling” that the Chaffetz information circulated so widely inside the agency and yet Clancy did not know about it. Even Clancy chief of staff Michael Biermann and Deputy Director Craig Magaw had been privy to the information, the report said, but did not alert Clancy.

Clancy had previously raised concerns about the failure of his staff to keep him properly informed. At the March 24 hearing, he said he was “infuriated” that he was not alerted by his senior management to an incident earlier that month in which two senior supervisors drove onto the White House complex after a night of drinking and crossed through an active bomb-investigation scene.

“He testified that he was ‘working furiously to try to break down these barriers where people feel that they can’t talk up the chain,’ ” Roth wrote. “Yet the Director himself did not know.”

Roth’s investigation examined not only who accessed Chaffetz’s personnel file inside the service but also who disclosed information about the file to the media. The Daily Beast first reported on April 2 that Chaffetz had once been rejected for a job at the service. The Washington Post reported additional details later that evening.

One official told The Post that the material included a parody poster that pictured Chaffetz leading a hearing on the Secret Service from his congressional dais, with the headline, “Got BQA from the Service in 2003.” Within the Secret Service, “BQA” is an acronym meaning that a “better qualified applicant” was available.

Roth’s report said investigators were unable to pin down how The Post and the Daily Beast obtained their information. “Because of the significant number of individuals who had knowledge of Chairman Chaffetz’s application history, we were unable to conclusively determine the universe of sources of the disclosure . . . to individuals outside of government,” the report said.

Roth himself has faced criticism over his handling of the investigation because he allowed inspectors from the Secret Service’s internal affairs office to sit in on interviews and question some witnesses alongside his investigators. Legal experts and former government investigators have said the service’s involvement was a potential conflict of interest because top officials at the agency had an incentive to embarrass Chaffetz. Experts also expressed concerns that it could deter internal whistleblowers from coming forward with additional allegations of misconduct, for fear of retribution by their bosses.


Screen Shot 2015-09-23 at 7.15.12 PM

Even 40 percent of Democrats reject Obama’s plan to resettle 10,000


A poll conducted by Rasmussen has found that a majority of Americans do not want to allow ANY Syrian refugees into the country, while only one fifth support Obama’s decision to allow 10,000 refugees to resettle in the US.

The survey reveals that 49 percent of Americans believe that not a single Syrian refugee should be allowed into the country, nor should any asylum seekers from any Middle Eastern country.

Just 20 percent support the current plan of integrating 10,000 refugees, while only a further 22 percent believe that even more refugees should be settled in the US. Within that 22 percent, only 7 percent favor resettling 100,000 or more.

The president announced a plan this week to increase the total number of worldwide refugees accepted into the US to 100,000 by 2017, up from 70,000.

Rasmussen notes that 72% of voters have cited a national security risk as a concern regarding taking in Syrian refugees. Indeed, 47% said they are “Very Concerned,” while only 10% are “Not At All Concerned.”

Breaking the figures down by political affiliation, fifty-nine percent of Republicans say they don’t want to welcome any refugees from the Middle East, while 48% of voters not affiliated with either party feel the same way.

Even 40% of Democrats say they do not want to see any refugees admitted to the US. Rasmussen notes that few Democrats agree that more than 25,000 new refugees should be allowed in.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called for 75,000 Syrian refugees to be accepted. A view that is clearly not shared by the majority of her party’s supporters.

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul has been warning for weeksabout the national security threat that unvetted refugees could pose.

McCaul has described it as a “reckless and dangerous policy” to accept at least 10,000 of them, as proposed by the Obama administration.

McCaul, has repeatedly cited senior FBI officials who testified before Congress that the resources are simply not there to effectively vet every refugee coming into the country.

Meanwhile, the White House claims that all refugees will be vetted.

ISIS extremists claimed earlier this year that they would attempt to export 500,000 terrorists under the guise of being refugees.



Project funded by organizations that funded Kiev coup


A new global news fact checking project announced yesterday by the Poynter Institute will be funded by two organizations with close ties to the Obama White House.

The project, which purports to be focused on holding public officials accountable, “is funded by grants from the Omidyar Network and the National Endowment for Democracy, and “it will support and study the work of 64 fact-checking organizations spanning six continents,” according to the Poynter Institute’s website.

The Omidyar Network is headed up by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Visitor logs reveal that Omidyar has visited the White House half a dozen times since 2009, with other members of the organization having also visited an additional seven times.
“To put the numbers in perspective, Omidyar’s six visits compare to four visits during the same period by NBCUniversal chief Stephen Burke, two by Fox News boss Roger Ailes, two by MSNBC’s Phil Griffin, one by New York Times owner Arthur O Sulzberger, and one each by Dow Jones’ Robert Thompson, Gannett/USA Today’s Gracia Martore and Omidyar’s fellow tech billionaire turned media owner, Jeff Bezos,” reports

President Obama also personally appointed Omidyar to sit on the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. Omidyar’s White House visits included conversations focused on the “Omidyar Network’s desire to shape US foreign policy.”

Documents also show how Omidyar, along with the US Agency for International Development (USAID), funded revolutionary groups that were involved in the overthrow of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych last year.

The National Endowment for Democracy, the other group behind the “fact checking” project,” is considered to be the CIA’s “civilian arm” and has been deeply embroiled in innumerable instigated uprisings, attempted coups and acts of regime change since its creation in 1983, including the contrived 2004 “Orange Revolution” that brought US puppet Viktor Yushchenko to power in Ukraine, as well as the more recent uprising in Kiev.

As Ron Paul explains, the NED is a ‘new kind of CIA’ that funds and promotes “regime change” operations worldwide. The notion that a “fact checking” project bankrolled by the NED is in any way independent or impartial is ludicrous.

“The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties worldwide. The NED injects “soft money” into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other,” reports the MassPrivateI blog.

The Poynter Institute is also funded by the Knight Foundation, which is closely affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security. Kawika Riley, a Fellow of the Poynter Institute, has also done volunteer work with the DHS.

Just as the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird sought to secretly influence media from the 1950’s onwards, these connections clearly illustrate how the Poynter Institute’s ‘news fact checking’ project will undoubtedly be an exercise in spin and manipulation.

USA Lets In 280,000 Muslim Migrants — Annually…

A boat transporting migrants arrives in the port of Messina after a rescue operation at see on April 18, 2015 in Sicily.

by Julia Hahn

A Breitbart News review of State Department and Homeland Security data reveals that the United States already admits more than a quarter of a million Muslim migrants each year. President Obama intends to add another 10,000 Syrian migrants on top of that.

In 2013 alone, 117,423 migrants from Muslim-majority countries were permanently resettled within the United States— having been given lawful permanent resident status. Additionally in 2013, the United States voluntarily admitted an extra 122,921 temporary migrants from Muslim countries as foreign students and foreign workers as well as 39,932 refugees and asylees from Muslim countries.

Thus, twelve years after the September 11th hijackers were invited into the country on temporary visas, the U.S. decided to admit 280,276 migrants from Muslim countries within a single fiscal year.

To put these numbers into perspective, this means that every year the U.S. admits a number of Muslim migrants larger in size than the entire population of Des Moines, Iowa; Lincoln, Nebraska; or Dayton, Ohio.

The rate of Muslim immigration has been increasing since September 11. Between 2001 and 2013, the United States permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim immigrants throughout the United States. Unlike illegal immigrants, legal immigrants granted lifetime resettlement privileges will be given automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Experts believe these numbers will only continue to increase.

The Middle East represents the fastest-growing bloc of immigrants admitted into the country on visas, according to a census data-based report authored by the Center for Immigration Studies. Student visas for Middle Eastern countries have similarly grown enormously, including 16-fold increase in Saudi students since 9/11. Arabic is now the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

The large-scale importation of Muslim migrants from nations that do not share Western values has posed a series of assimilation difficulties for the United States. For instance, the importation of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries has now put half a million girls in the United States at risk of enduring a traditional anti-Western, anti-woman practice known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This means that there are more girls in the United States at risk of lifelong sexual disfigurement than there are in Uganda and Cameroon.

Moreover, the importation of Muslim immigrants through the nation’s refugee program has led to the development of pockets of radicalized communities throughout the United States— as evidenced in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Dearborn, Michigan.

A review of recent terror activity– provided by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee– confirms the terror threat posed by our federal immigration policy of issuing large numbers of visas to majority-Muslim countries:

A refugee voluntarily admitted from Uzbekistan and “living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs.”

A college student voluntarily admitted from Somalia, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Kazakhstan “with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Sudan, “who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage jihad on its behalf after having been recruited online.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Bangladesh, “who applied for and received U.S. citizenship,‎ tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Yemen, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was arrested for trying to join ISIS. He was also charged with attempting to illegally buy firearms to try to shoot American military personnel.”

Yet even as the United States struggles to properly screen and assimilate the large numbers brought in each year, many Republican presidential candidates say that number should be even greater. GOP presidential hopefuls John Kasich,

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 47%

Jeb Bush, and

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 80%

have all expressed support for admitting more Syrian migrants.

“I would be open to that if it can be done in a way that allows us to ensure that among them are not people who are part of a terrorist organization who are using this crisis,” Rubio told Boston Herald Radio on September 8th. This proposal could result in the admittance of many refugees. “The vast and overwhelming majority of people who are seeking refuge are not terrorists, of course, but you always are concerned about that,” Rubio said.

By contrast, GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has suggested that Muslim countries should be willing to take in some of the Muslim migrants.

“Look, from a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems.” Trump declared on the September 9 broadcast of Hannity. “We have so many problems that we have to solve… The Gulf states [are] tremendously wealthy. You have five groups of people, six groups, they’re not taking anybody. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, these are tremendously wealthy and powerful from the standpoint of money. They — they’re not taking anybody. Russia’s not taking. Nobody’s taking. [But we’re] supposed to take — we have to straighten out our own problems,” Trump said.

Some presidential hopefuls have objected to the premise of Trump’s America-first immigration proposal— arguing that greater levels of immigration would only serve to benefit America.

For instance, the I-Squared bill currently before Congress introduced by Marco Rubio— whose campaign has declared he will be in first place by February— would import even more immigrants — some Muslim — by lifting green card caps for foreign students and tripling the number of foreign workers admitted on visas. This bill is central to Rubio’s campaign platform of creating “A New American Economy.”

Several of Rubio’s business backers have already begun to implement this policy throughout the nation. In Rubio’s home state of Florida, for instance, the New American Economy is at work at corporations including Disney, which is replacing many of its current American workers with foreign low-salaried workers from developing nations. This “New American Economy” would have multiple benefits for America such as fewer English speakers, more diversity and lower wages that will allow corporations to increase their bottom lines.

Rubio’s effort to create a New American Century is supported by many prominent Republicans and Democrats who say we need to expand our refugee resettlement of Muslim migrants.

For instance, Glenn Beck and Lindsey Graham have both explicitly said that the United States needs to take in more more refugees because a poem written by Emma Lazarus now displayed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The poem, entitled “The New Colossus,” reads in part:

Give me your tired, your poor/ your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/the wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

According to the Pew Research Center, there are nearly 5 billion people world-wide living on $10 or less a day. The globally poor and low-income population is fifteen times larger than the entire population of the United States.

The Statue of Liberty was not given to the United States with any association to immigration. Rather the statue was intended to be a symbol of “Liberty Enlightening the World,” which is why the only text originally included on the statue was the year 1776 written in Roman Numerals.

Yet even when Lazarus’ poem was later added to the statue in the early 1900s, it was understood that the poem was not meant to represent the nation’s federal immigration policy– a detail underscored by the fact that shortly after that poem was added, then-President Calvin Coolidge enacted a nearly five-decades-long immigration pause to allow the influx of European immigrants to better assimilate and allow middle class wages to rise.

Ironically, the Statue of Liberty– so often invoked by advocates for large-scale immigration– was a gift from the nation of France. Yet of the one million green cards handed out last year, very few were given to the Thomas Jefferson’s second favorite nation. About 9 out of 10 of green cards issued last year went to non-European foreign nationals from Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

In 2013, we added more than ten times more immigrants on green cards from the Muslim countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt (48,507) than we did from the nation France (4,425).