Ok, so now you see what I mean. This law does not say we can impose a religious test to determine if someone is a refugee (i.e. This law does not enable us to say You’re a muslim, sorry!”). This law only says “You can be a refugee if you’re being persecuted for (race, religion, nationality etc...).
So now that we have established that the law cited in the NRO article does not allow us to impose a religious test...you said:
“...the claim that no religious litmus test has ever existed is bogus based on a clear reading of the laws on the books”
Which law? If you know of a law that allows us to impose the test you’re talking about, please cite it because we’re going to need it!
I’m on your side here, I do NOT want any part of these refugees being here as I think it’s suicidal. That’s what the author of that NRO piece tried to do and he’s on our side too but, as we determined, he misread it.
I thought I laid my point out pretty well already. It has been done before (denying refugee status based on claims of religious persecution while also allowing others who make essentially the same claim to be proffered refugee status or asylum if you prefer). Hell, it is happening right now with Coptic Christians from the middle east while we are bending over backwards to accept Islamic Syrians bent on our destruction.
If someone makes the claim of religious persecution, is it not prudent of the person assessing such claims to assure that they (the claimer) are being truthful and to determine such to the best of their ability? In essence, this is a litmus test of the person’s religious claim (are you of the right religion to lay this claim, etc...).
This might be a distinction without a difference to you, which is why we might not be seeing eye to eye on this.
I think that I would preface the whole Syrian refugee status issue with what is right and prudent for the host country and cite the obvious national security issues. We don’t seem to have a president that is interested in such matters though.