WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Says Vetting Refugees Is Impossible

omeFrom:,  by Ken Klukowski,  on Oct 11, 2016


Hillary Clinton regards vetting refugees as impossible, according to email released by WikiLeaks.

NOTE by Garnet92: I’m experimenting with a slight change in commentary format – that is, inserting my commentary into the body of the author’s article. It’s just an experiment, so we’ll see how it works out.

For his part, Donald Trump says his immigration plan does not ban Muslims, but instead requires “extreme vetting” for Muslims arriving from countries with documented problems of Islamic terrorism—consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Someone please explain to me why we should be so trusting of Muslims from terrorist-friendly countries? Why do we need them anyway? We aren’t getting their best technicians, doctors or scientists, we’re getting those without marketable skills and who immediately go onto the welfare rolls. Why are we voluntarily adding more to the country’s unemployment and welfare rolls? It makes NO sense.

Regarding policy, Americans will decide between the sharply contrasting visions of Trump and Clinton—one focusing explicitly on security and America’s interests, the other saying behind closed doors that she believes in “open borders” but does not say so publicly, and that national leaders can have a private position that is different from their public positions.

True, Trump is focused on America’s security and what’s good for the country. Contrast that to Hillary’s statement that she believes in “open borders.” If that’s truly what she espouses, why won’t she say so publicly? Are Americans really in favor of “open borders”? I don’t think so.

Apologists for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton say that Trump’s immigration plan is both bad policy and unconstitutional, and that one type of immigrant—Syrian refugees—should be admitted in far greater numbers.

Got that? Hillary believes that we should be encouraging MORE Syrian “refugees.” For what possible purpose? How will the U.S. benefit by importing more Syrian Muslims?

But hacked emails released by Wikileaks show Clinton thinks vetting Syrian refugees is “impossible.” Michael Patrick Leahy reports that Clinton acknowledged this reality for refugees pouring into Jordan.

And now we find that, behind closed doors, even though she admits that it is “impossible” to effectively vet those Syrian “refugees,” she wants to increase their numbers. Why? We have evidence that terrorists have entered European countries disguised as “refugees,” shouldn’t we expect that to be a preferred method of entry here as well?

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper already admitted that the U.S. cannot vet these refugees, so this may be an instance of Clinton telling the public a different position than you take in private.

Emails also show Clinton’s inner circle caught in an echo chamber when it comes to constitutional rights for aliens (legal or illegal, not just refugees). Mandy Grunwald writes of wanting to “whack” a Republican “for trying to change the Constitution to deny babies born here the right to American citizenship if their parents aren’t citizens? (basically get rid of the 14th Amendment).”

To the contrary, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to the children of foreigners, whether they are in the United States legally or not. Congress chooses to grant citizenship very broadly in the Immigration and Nationality Act, but the Constitution does not require it except for the children of American citizens born on American soil.

This is not exclusively a conservative idea; in addition to constitutional conservative stalwarts like Prof. John Eastman, noted judicial activist Judge Richard Posner on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has declared that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship, calling the idea “nonsense.”

Moreover, in 1993 now-Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid introduced a bill (the Immigration Stabilization Act) that would change current law, denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the constitutional contours of this issue have not changed from 1993 through 2016—only the politics of a cynical attempt to create millions of Democratic voters for those who racially stereotype foreigners from certain countries.

All this goes back to the famous line of Justice Robert Jackson that the Constitution is not a “suicide pact.” It is a document that ensures several fundamental principles of fairness and justice—like due process and equal protection—to all persons, whether citizens or not. But for the most part, it is a document predicated upon American exceptionalism, and showcasing an “America First” paradigm. The Constitution frames issues like national security and immigration in terms of what is best for America.

The Supreme Court seemed split on what the Constitution requires when it comes to immigrants, including refugees. Liberal justices refer to constitutional limits on immigration laws, while conservative justices say that the Constitution gives Congress complete discretion and full authority to determine who can cross the U.S. border and who can stay in this country.

On issues of immigration, refugees, and the Constitution, Trump and Clinton are worlds apart—presenting voters with a clear choice.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter@kenklukowski.


A clear choice is an understatement. The choice seems clear even if no other issue is considered. On immigration, Hillary wants more of what we’ve experienced in the past couple of years; more illegal aliens, more Syrians, more Muslims, more “refugees,” etc. Again, please tell me how the United States benefits from those actions? Shouldn’t we be trying to do what’s best for the country?




Categories: Political


4 replies

  1. Hillary said it’s impossible to vet the refugees. The part she left unsaid is ‘so we’re not even going to try, we’ll just let them in anyway.’

    They don’t benefit the country as a whole one iota, but they do benefit the Democrats. Like the illegals pouring over our southern border, they’ll be rewarded with all kinds of benefits and will eventually be able to vote.

    It amazes me that the Supreme Court could be split on the Constitutional requirements, when it’s clearly spelled out. Article 5 of the 14th amendment states: ” The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Only liberals could find a way to interpret that differently.


  2. Great post, Garnet.

    There was time when even the worst anti-American, leftwing radical would not have dared to suggest that the Constitution somehow conveys rights to non-Americans who are in our country illegally, lest he be laughed out of the room. But now you can see them edging their way there, emboldened, no doubt, but the success of Barack Obama in steamrolling over our Constitution. It is only a matter of time, unless the Left is stopped yesterday, that they will get what they want and American citizens will have no more rights than anyone else who sneaks across the border.


    • Thanks CW.

      I fear that eight years of Barack Obama have established the left’s strategy from now on. As you say, his steamrolling over the Constitution and the inaction of our feckless Congress to stop (or even slow) him will haunt us for years to come. He’s created a precedent for dramatically increasing the power of the president and decreasing the safeguards the founders provided – our co-equal branches of government.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: