by Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge / 2017-02-11 17:07
The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump’s travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump’s order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks. In fact, as a new report finds, 72 individuals from the seven ‘mostly Muslim countries’ covered by President Trump’s "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism since 9/11.
As AP first reported, during a hearing in Seattle last week, Judge Robartasked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. When the lawyer said she didn’t know, Robart answered his own question:
"Let me tell, you, the answer to that is none, as best I can tell. You’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries and there’s no support for that."
And now, having denied President Trump’s appeal, claiming his policy "would cause irreparable injury," would cause irreparable injury, it seems the entire premise of the seven "mostly muslim" nations’ mostly-peaceful, non-terrorist ways are in doubt as The Center for Immigration Studies shows that…
A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks.
In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.
The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.
The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.
The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:
- Somalia: 20
- Yemen: 19
- Iraq: 19
- Syria: 7
- Iran: 4
- Libya: 2
- Sudan: 1
- Total: 72
According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.
At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.
These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.
Finally, we reminder readers that while Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says his research shows no Americans have been killed in the U.S. at the hands of people from the seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen – since Sept. 11, it’s not quite right to say no one from those nations has been arrested or accused in an extremist-related plot while living in the U.S.
23 percent of Muslim Americans involved with extremist plots since Sept. 11 had family backgrounds from the seven countries.
So Judge claims ZERO but in fact the number is 72… Those darn ‘alternative facts’ are such trouble… or is it racist, sexist, mysoginist, and bogoted when the liberal judiciary is fact-checked?