RUSH: As you know, I’m a history buff. I think there are a lot of lessons in history, and I want to share some history with you now. I’ve spoken frequently in recent months about how immigration to the United States was more than curtailed. It was suspended in the early 1920s. From 1924 to 1965 we didn’t have any immigration. You’d be amazed still at the number of people who are hearing that for the first time and don’t know it. That simply is not part of the American education curriculum, especially now. I know I didn’t learn that in school, at any level of school.
But it is particularly relevant today because the left and Obama and the United Nations are all accusing the United States of these horrific acts of bigotry and inhumane treatment and behavior of people and so forth. And they want to try to create this impression that we are reaching new depths, that the United States is sinking to new lows, and it’s a terrible shame what’s happened because of the right wing bigotry and the closed-mindedness and all of that that exists in this country.
So I think it would be very useful and helpful here just to review a little history to let you know that what we propose today and what many Americans support today is actually traditionally American. It is not new. It is not unprecedented. It is historical. No immigration, 1924 to 1965. The reason was that we had seen a flood of immigrants to the country and we had to assimilate them. We took time to assimilate those who had come to America. They wanted to be Americans. They wanted to assimilate. They did not want to establish Balkanized beachheads of their countries. They did not forget their native cultures. They held on to them and they lived in neighborhoods, but they wanted to be Americans. They knew what being an American meant, compared to where they lived and where they were from. They wanted everything about America that they could get and they wanted to work hard for it. You know the drill.
But there was another reason why immigration was curtailed in the early 1920s. And would you be surprised to learn that that reason was terrorist attacks? There were acts of terror committed in the United States, mostly from groups, the so-called anarchist groups. They were really mostly communists. But, for instance, September 6th, 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in Buffalo, New York. And in the early 1900s there were a number of bombings and bombing attempts committed by these anarchists, the majority of whom were from southern and central and eastern Europe. They were part of this massive immigration that took place in the country, the late 1800s into the early 1900s.
I’ll give you a name. Ferdinando Sacco. I’ll give you another name. Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two revolutionary terrorists who were convicted and executed in 1927 for a 1920 double murder carried out during a robbery. Sacco and Vanzetti became communist cause celebre for decades. Liberals argued they had been wrongly convicted. It was exactly what you get in the news today, except it happened back in the early 1920s. And if you read books and you see movies from or about that period anarchist bombings loom large. We had terrorism. It wasn’t Islamic. But they were nevertheless acts of terror.
There was a group. They were known as the anarchists. They have modern descendants to this day, Occupy Wall Street and so forth, all these anarchists that gather various global meetings of the United Nations around the world. The bill, the piece of legislation that limited immigration, the immigration act of 1924 was primarily aimed at further restricting the immigration of southern Europeans and eastern Europeans because those regions were seen as the hotbed for radical terrorists.
It’s not like we haven’t been here and done that before. We have done exactly what is being suggested today. We’ve done it before. We have specified certain people. We targeted certain people for either deportation or imprisonment or just keep them out of the country precisely because of where they came from and because of the acts committed by others who had also come from the same place.
Now, the difference was back in 1924 and the early 1920s everybody was all for it. We didn’t have any terrorists apologists. Well, you did, you had some terrorist apologists, but they weren’t anywhere near. They certainly weren’t in the White House, and they weren’t in the US House of Representatives, and they weren’t in governorships. They were random Hollywood types and others. The literary crowd. But for the most part, my point here is that what’s happening today has precedent. What’s happening today is not the United States descending to new depths never before plundered.
One other thing that you might be shocked to learn, ladies and gentlemen. President Obama, in one of his many harangues — you know, Trump put a message out on Instagram that said: You know, it’s really scary, and it’s really dangerous. Our president is insane.
Okay, Dittocam. Sorry, I thought I had it on; it was off. The Dittocam is now on. (interruption) Because I didn’t turn it on when it was off. It was not a glitch. I forgot to turn it on. It’s on now. But Obama’s out there, I mean, defending acts of terror, downplaying acts of terror, and being hypercritical, and he doesn’t need… By the way, when he starts in on Republicans and conservatives, either generically or by name, he doesn’t need a teleprompter. Have you noticed? He doesn’t need cue cards because that’s when he’s speaking from the heart.
I have told you over and over again that to Obama and many like him in the Democrat Party and the left, we represent their greatest threat. In their eyes, we are far more dangerous to them. We pose a greater threat to them than ISIS or any other terror group, because we are trying to take their power away. We are trying to stop them. Do not doubt me. When Obama gets on these tirades — and they have been tirades, and they’ve been juvenile, and even some Democrats are starting to get worried about it, according to the Drive-By Media.
For example, in his latest rip at Senator Ted Cruz and others opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria… Hey, by the way, can I ask a question about that? We’re “vetting” them, right? Well, that’s what they tell us. They’re vetting them. (paraphrased) “We have an exhaustive vetting process. Right. It takes up to two years. And we got biometrics, and who knows whatever else that we use, magic and technology. But we’ve got the greatest vetting! I mean, we we’re really doing a great job. We’re really vetting these people,” right?
Would somebody tell me: What are the deal-breakers? With our extensive and exhaustive vetting of refugees, what do they have to do to be rejected? Well, it’s a legitimate, isn’t it? Are they just be rubber stamps? Are any rejected? I want to know what deals end up being broken. What are the things that they do, what are the things that we could find out about them that would make us say, “Ah, ah, ah, ah! No way, Sahib. You’re not getting in today”?
Have you ever asked yourself that question? Wait a minute. See, you would assume that if they have any terrorist ties, they wouldn’t get in. I don’t want to assume anything. What if they had terrorist ties but only because they were mad at the pictures from Abu Ghraib? Do we let them in? What if they had terrorist ties because they were upset and made mentally deranged by George W. Bush? The same thing happened to a lot of Democrats.
Would that be a deal breaker, or would we welcome them in as like-minded? (interruption) No, no, no, no, no. I’m serious. What are the deal breakers? What has to be said, what has to happen, what has to be discovered for a refugee to be rejected? I haven’t seen that anywhere. I would just like to know. Anyway, in Obama’s latest diatribe against Senator Cruz and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria, he said:
“When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.” I would venture to say that virtually everybody who hears him say that probably has to nod their head in agreement. “Yeah, yeah, that’s probably right.” Except you’d all be wrong. My friend Andrew McCarthy, National Review Online:
“Under federal law, the executive branch [of the United States of America] is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, US Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that Â… religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” We damn well ask them about religion! We damn well do decide who gets in and who does not based on aspects of religion.
And it is in the federal statutes!
“Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a ‘refugee’ as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , US Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alienÂ’s religion: The term ‘refugee’ means (A) any person who is outside any country of such personÂ’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]”
Well, how can we confirm any of those claims if we don’t know what their religion is? We have to ask them. It’s in federal law. There are religious tests and requirements through the United States law. President Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about. President Obama is pontificating from liberal feel-good bromides. He’s projecting bigotry and racism and all these other things because he is a leftist radical and assumes that everybody opposing him is a bigot, a racist, or what have you.
And he dares to tell some of the most devout and religious people of this country that they are bigots and unqualified and that they are shameful. This country has a record of looking out for itself. This country has statute after statute, historical event after historical event, precedent after precedent. This country has never, ever just opened the doors to anyone on the basis of “humanity” or “compassion” and said, “Come on in!” Never. It’s another first brought to us by Obama. That’s what he now wants to do, while claiming that people opposed to it are a new kind of American.
Despicable, racist jingoistic, all of these negatives that they attach to Neanderthals, is the impression that Obama is trying to leave. So the law requires a religious test, and the reason for the religious test is obvious. The asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal sense of compassion. No matter who that president is. We do not base any of this law on compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion directed by law, not a whim to address persecution.
Nowhere does the law say we must put ourselves at risk in order to exercise this compassion. Nowhere does it say anywhere in American statutory law or in American precedent that we must throw our values overboard in order to be compassionate or to satisfy the whims of a dubiously and questionably all-there president of the United States. There is no right to emigrate to the United States of America. Therefore, us — we — by maintaining our standards as established by law, protecting our national security and sovereignty are not violating anybody’s rights by standing up for our own.
We are not violating anybody’s freedom, rights, or otherwise by acting in a way as to defend and protect the people of this country and the Constitution. The fact that someone might come from a country or territory ravaged by war does not by itself qualify one as an asylum candidate. If it did, we would be overrun already because war is never over. War is a staple in a world governed by the aggressive use of force.