Please verify

Watch LIVE

The other gaping security hole: Student visas from the Middle East

Conservative Review

On Saturday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) reminded the media about a very important immigration security measure he introduced—one that was opposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), one of his opponents for the presidential nomination.  On June 19, 2013, Paul introduced an amendment [S.Amdt. 1200 to S. 744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act)] to the Gang of Eight bill requiring DHS to establish a screening system for those who come from 27 predominantly Islamic countries on student visas. Rubio joined with the Democrats to scuttle it.

Rand Paul is absolutely correct to raise the red flag on student visas from the Middle East and take Rubio to task for obstructing the amendment.

In addition to the broader threat of Islamic immigration and refugees, one of the overlooked trends since 9/11 is the massive expansion of foreign students from the Middle East.  As we’ve noted before, the creation of the Saudi King Abdullah Scholarship program a decade ago has resulted in a ten-fold increase in visas from Saudi Arabia.  At 60,000 per year, the program is still growing and can expand infinitely because there are no caps on F-1 visas.

In addition to the broader threat of Islamic immigration and refugees, one of the overlooked trends since 9/11 is the massive expansion of foreign students from the Middle East.

The Institute of International Education recently published its data on student visas for the academic year of 2014/2015.  Here are some highlights:

  • 974,926 foreign students were admitted for this past academic year, almost double the overall level before 9/11.
  • After China, India, and South Korea, the leading country of origin is Saudi Arabia with 59,945 student visas.  In addition, we took in 10,724 from Turkey, 11, 338 from Iran, and 9,034 from Kuwait.
  • Using the 44 predominantly Muslim countries we identified in our piece on green cards from Muslim countries, I counted 156,781 student visas from those same predominantly Muslim countries.  This means that Muslims likely account for 16% of the foreign students, and that doesn’t include India.  Roughly 10% of the Indian population is Muslim and we bring in a whopping 138,000 students from there.

Is there any wonder why U.S. college campuses are replicas of some European countries in terms of the anti-Jewish activity and pro-Palestinian activism?

In many respects, the growing silent threat of foreign students from the Middle East is an even greater threat than the legal permanent residents (LPRs).  These are predominantly young male students who are coming straight from the Middle East and, unlike LPRs, have no plans to establish a family or even attempt to share in the future of this country (to the extent most legal permanent residents ever viably achieve assimilation). We are literally recruiting from the subsection of the world that is most prone to subscribing to strict Sharia and Islamic supremacism, from those that have the zeal and energy to act on callings from ISIS and other terror groups.

As is the case with any other sphere of immigration, there are likely plenty of students who come here to learn and be productive.  But there are clearly many others who bring with them the subversive and often anti-Semitic culture they have been exposed to back home.  Moreover, their constant migration back and forth to their countries of origin throughout their time in U.S. universities makes them prime recruiting targets of professional Jihadist organizations.

This is why Paul’s amendment was so important.  His plan would have reinstated the National Security Exit-Entry Registration System (NSEERS), which was implemented after 9/11 to properly vet and track those who come here from risky countries on a student visa.  Obama unilaterally cancelled that program in 2010.  To the extent we continue to commit cultural suicide and radicalize our college campuses with so many Middle Eastern students, it is certifiable not to properly monitor them.

It is simply unacceptable for a presidential candidate to have opposed such an effort.  Rubio has some explaining to do.  And so do all politicians who blithely ignore our suicidal immigration policies.

Keep reading... Show less
Most recent
All Articles