Makes sense. Non-citizens could be a crucial swing vote in this year’s election.

He says he’s received confidential communications “from within the administration” that plans are afoot (a Goodlatte aide said only that it was “someone in one of the agencies”), but DHS hasn’t replied to his questions yet. Judicial Watch also claimed to have a source in its post about this last week:

If there was any doubt the administration is not setting the right priorities, these can be erased by a source who has informed JW of a secret plan to bring Ebola-infected non-citizens into the U.S. The plan is both illegal and dangerous, the source says. Even so, the administration is pressing ahead with plans to admit Ebola-infected non-citizens into the U.S. for treatment. The general idea is bring these Ebola victims into the U.S. within the first few days of diagnosis. As is so often the case, President Obama has decided not to inform Congress, the source has told us…

There is one way President Obama can carry out this initiative. He can do this by offering foreign nationals a special parole. Under federal regulations, a parolee could be defined as an alien who is inadmissible to an inspection officer, but permitted into the U.S. for humanitarian reasons. Obama has already used this exemption for the illegal alien “minors” who illegally crossed our border.  He could do this again, without notice or announcement, to open the door to foreign nationals carrying the deadly Ebola infection.

Er, why would he do this? Even if O wants an all-out effort by the U.S. to treat new Ebola cases in west Africa, logistically the obvious move is to send doctors and equipment there, not bring the infected here. There’s simply too many of them and not enough isolation units in U.S. hospitals. Maybe the White House is thinking of a particular class of victims, though, e.g., Liberian doctors and nurses who fall ill? The more local medical personnel over there are lost to the disease, the greater the risk that the entire health-care system will collapse and the epidemic will explode. Using first-world facilities to save their lives eases the pressure on western doctors to risk their own by replacing dying Liberian medical staff in the hot zone.

Well, no matter. The politics of bringing infected foreigners to the U.S. for treatment are so radioactive that Obama wouldn’t dream of doing it. It’s “let’s close Gitmo” redux; the NIMBY reaction among Americans will force the White House to abandon this plan soon enough. Or will it?

goodjobconfident

That’s from a CNN poll conducted over the weekend, after the news about Dr. Craig Spencer being hospitalized in New York City broke big. After an initial pang of anxiety following Thomas Duncan’s death in Dallas, it looks like Americans are starting to believe that the feds really do have a handle on this. Grand total, a month after Thomas Duncan was sent to the ER in Dallas: Just two Americans infected domestically, both of whom have now fully recovered. Several other Americans who were infected in the hot zone, from Kent Brantly to Nancy Writebol to Ashoka Mukpo to Rick Sacra, have also recovered, and Spencer looked better last night than he did the day before. There was never an Ebola panic, no matter what our superiors in the media wanted to believe, but I’m not sure there are even many Ebola jitters anymore. In fact, here’s the state of a proposed travel ban per CNN:

travelban

If Obama announced today that, yes, in a few select cases, Liberians will be treated in the U.S. but they’ll be fully quarantined from the public all the way from Liberia to the bed awaiting them in an isolation unit in an American hospital, would U.S. voters tolerate that? Would they tolerate it if, as I theorized, the policy is aimed specifically at saving Liberian doctors and nurses so that they can continue to treat sick people back home? Before you say no, read this. And before you say yes, read this.