The answer to the 'Syrian refugee' question requires very few words

Pundits, journalists, politicians, newscasters, and refugee resettlement racketeers have offered up a pile of what I will politely refer to as ideas as to why the United States should admit (more) Syrian refugees.  Leftists (and some on the right) stand on the soapbox of morality, duty, responsibility, and compassion.  They prattle on about all the ways we can make sure we vet each “refugee,” including the use of written questionnaires, interviews, fingerprints, and iris scans.  With so many tools at our disposal, how can we go wrong?

And of course, running in the background is the 24/7 noise about how there’s nothing to worry about with Islam or Muslims, and how dare anyone be concerned about national security.  Because Islamophobia!

But all the yammering about how well we can vet these folks is a farce.  Because we’ve already been told the plain, simple truth by the people who know best.  The FBI has said we can’t vet them because there is no intelligence to use as a reference point.

The end.

(If only.)

The topic of how many refugees to accept and how quickly to do so continues to be presented as if it’s worthy of serious consideration.  Even though FBI director James Comey clearly stated: “We can only query against that which we have collected.  And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our data base, we can query our data base till the cows come home, but we’re not going to, they’ll be nothing to show up because we have no record on that person.”

Even though FBI deputy assistant director Michael Steinbach also confirmed that we can’t conduct adequate background checks of people coming into the country from Syria because we have no “footprint on the ground,” and therefore “databases won’t have the information we need.  So it’s not that we have a lack of process.  It’s there’s a lack of information.”

Even though General John Allen, special envoy, Global Coalition to Counter ISIS went on record saying: “We should be conscious of the potential that Daish may attempt to embed agents within that population.”

(As a quick aside, the use of the word “Daish,” the Arabic word for ISIS, is wrong-headed.  For one thing, removing “Islamic State” from the name misleads the public about what’s going on.  What’s going on = the caliphate, the ever-expanding Islamic State.  So let’s call it what it is.  But I digress.)

While it appears that Obama does not listen to his advisers (save Valerie Jarrett, no doubt), the fact that this discussion about admitting Syrian refugees continues to spin ’round and ’round in the media is absurd.  Does the word of the director of the FBI mean nothing?  His word on this matter should count for everything!

We can’t vet these people.

That’s it.  That’s the end of the line.  That’s the answer to the question.  Would that people would hear it, absorb it, understand it, respect it, and grasp its very simple message.  Instead, we’ve got discussions ad nauseam about all the things we’re going to do to make sure we don’t import terrorists in face of being told that we can’t do so with any acceptable degree of confidence.   

So the next time you’re talking with idiots who refuse to hear this very simple fact, ask them if they’d be okay taking the chance that they, or someone they love, be slaughtered by bullets and knives and bombs because they chose to ignore the warning from the experts, who know best that we can’t adequately screen for terrorists.

Ask them if they think a terrorist would answer interview questions honestly.  Ask them what good fingerprints and iris scans will do if there’s no database to use as a reference.  Tell them such records will be useful only after the bloody fact to identify the jihadist after he slaughters people and we find one of his fingers, as happened in Paris.

Cold comfort, no?

(And as one final aside, I think those from an Islamic country are already vetted, because they embrace an ideology and set of values at odds with our own.  But that’s just me.)

Hat tip: The Right Scoop

Pundits, journalists, politicians, newscasters, and refugee resettlement racketeers have offered up a pile of what I will politely refer to as ideas as to why the United States should admit (more) Syrian refugees.  Leftists (and some on the right) stand on the soapbox of morality, duty, responsibility, and compassion.  They prattle on about all the ways we can make sure we vet each “refugee,” including the use of written questionnaires, interviews, fingerprints, and iris scans.  With so many tools at our disposal, how can we go wrong?

And of course, running in the background is the 24/7 noise about how there’s nothing to worry about with Islam or Muslims, and how dare anyone be concerned about national security.  Because Islamophobia!

But all the yammering about how well we can vet these folks is a farce.  Because we’ve already been told the plain, simple truth by the people who know best.  The FBI has said we can’t vet them because there is no intelligence to use as a reference point.

The end.

(If only.)

The topic of how many refugees to accept and how quickly to do so continues to be presented as if it’s worthy of serious consideration.  Even though FBI director James Comey clearly stated: “We can only query against that which we have collected.  And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our data base, we can query our data base till the cows come home, but we’re not going to, they’ll be nothing to show up because we have no record on that person.”

Even though FBI deputy assistant director Michael Steinbach also confirmed that we can’t conduct adequate background checks of people coming into the country from Syria because we have no “footprint on the ground,” and therefore “databases won’t have the information we need.  So it’s not that we have a lack of process.  It’s there’s a lack of information.”

Even though General John Allen, special envoy, Global Coalition to Counter ISIS went on record saying: “We should be conscious of the potential that Daish may attempt to embed agents within that population.”

(As a quick aside, the use of the word “Daish,” the Arabic word for ISIS, is wrong-headed.  For one thing, removing “Islamic State” from the name misleads the public about what’s going on.  What’s going on = the caliphate, the ever-expanding Islamic State.  So let’s call it what it is.  But I digress.)

While it appears that Obama does not listen to his advisers (save Valerie Jarrett, no doubt), the fact that this discussion about admitting Syrian refugees continues to spin ’round and ’round in the media is absurd.  Does the word of the director of the FBI mean nothing?  His word on this matter should count for everything!

We can’t vet these people.

That’s it.  That’s the end of the line.  That’s the answer to the question.  Would that people would hear it, absorb it, understand it, respect it, and grasp its very simple message.  Instead, we’ve got discussions ad nauseam about all the things we’re going to do to make sure we don’t import terrorists in face of being told that we can’t do so with any acceptable degree of confidence.   

So the next time you’re talking with idiots who refuse to hear this very simple fact, ask them if they’d be okay taking the chance that they, or someone they love, be slaughtered by bullets and knives and bombs because they chose to ignore the warning from the experts, who know best that we can’t adequately screen for terrorists.

Ask them if they think a terrorist would answer interview questions honestly.  Ask them what good fingerprints and iris scans will do if there’s no database to use as a reference.  Tell them such records will be useful only after the bloody fact to identify the jihadist after he slaughters people and we find one of his fingers, as happened in Paris.

Cold comfort, no?

(And as one final aside, I think those from an Islamic country are already vetted, because they embrace an ideology and set of values at odds with our own.  But that’s just me.)

Hat tip: The Right Scoop