U.S. visa form asks foreigners if they are terrorists. Seriously.

What is wrong with the following sentences? A Reuters report begins: “San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik denied having any militant sympathies or intentions when she was asked in an application form for a U.S. visa two years ago, documents described to Reuters on Tuesday showed.”

OK. This is nuts, no? We are asking people on their visa applications if they’re terrorists or if they support terrorists. Seriously? Who came up with that idea? A 2-year-old? Please raise your hand if you think a person with evil intentions would answer such a question in the affirmative.

OK. I see no show of hands.

Moving onto the next bit of WTH? The second paragraph in the report reads:

Information in the documents could bolster complaints of critics in Congress who said flaws in the immigration system meant Malik was not thoroughly investigated. The papers also showed that statements by Malik and her husband and fellow shooter Syed Rizwan Farook did not raise any alarms among authorities that they were potential Islamic State militants. (snip)

In other parts of Malik's immigration file, described to Reuters by congressional sources, she denied anything in her background and activities that might have raised suspicions, including answering no when asked if she ever had used or sold weapons or engaged in “"terrorist activity.”

Got it? The good people at Reuters are actually suggesting that because a jihadist didn’t tell us in advance of her murderous plans, no red flags went up, and therefore those who are complaining that our immigration system is flawed have no basis for such complaints.

It’s insane and circular thinking. And that’s putting it mildly.

Does anyone think jihadists will lie when asked such questions and that national security policy based on expecting them to tell the truth is beyond childishly, embarrassingly, dangerously insane?

Witnessing this level of intentional recklessness on a daily, if not hourly basis, challenges one’s ability to have any hope for our future. How we will dig our way out of this level of pervasive and entrenched self-destructiveness, I do not know. Perhaps the ship has sailed and we’re living through the decline of a once great nation. I pray it is not so, but signs of hope are hard to come by.

Thomas Lifson adds:

It gets worse. According to Republican congressman Bob Goodlatte:

“It is clear that immigration officials did not thoroughly vet her application. In order to obtain a fiance visa, it is required to demonstrate proof that the U.S. citizen and foreign national have met in person. However, Malik’s immigration file does not show sufficient evidence for this requirement.”

“Visa security is critical to national security, and it’s unacceptable that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services did not fully vet Malik’s application and instead sloppily approved her visa,” according to the statement posted on Goodlatte’s website. “The House Judiciary Committee is working on a bill to strengthen visa processing security and protect national security.”

“What is worse, the immigration official reviewing Malik’s application requested more evidence to ensure the two met in person, but it was never provided and her visa was approved anyway,” Goodlatte wrote.

“Even if Farook and Malik were in Saudi Arabia at the same time, this does not provide evidence that they met in person,” Goodlatte wrote.

What is wrong with the following sentences? A Reuters report begins: “San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik denied having any militant sympathies or intentions when she was asked in an application form for a U.S. visa two years ago, documents described to Reuters on Tuesday showed.”

OK. This is nuts, no? We are asking people on their visa applications if they’re terrorists or if they support terrorists. Seriously? Who came up with that idea? A 2-year-old? Please raise your hand if you think a person with evil intentions would answer such a question in the affirmative.

OK. I see no show of hands.

Moving onto the next bit of WTH? The second paragraph in the report reads:

Information in the documents could bolster complaints of critics in Congress who said flaws in the immigration system meant Malik was not thoroughly investigated. The papers also showed that statements by Malik and her husband and fellow shooter Syed Rizwan Farook did not raise any alarms among authorities that they were potential Islamic State militants. (snip)

In other parts of Malik's immigration file, described to Reuters by congressional sources, she denied anything in her background and activities that might have raised suspicions, including answering no when asked if she ever had used or sold weapons or engaged in “"terrorist activity.”

Got it? The good people at Reuters are actually suggesting that because a jihadist didn’t tell us in advance of her murderous plans, no red flags went up, and therefore those who are complaining that our immigration system is flawed have no basis for such complaints.

It’s insane and circular thinking. And that’s putting it mildly.

Does anyone think jihadists will lie when asked such questions and that national security policy based on expecting them to tell the truth is beyond childishly, embarrassingly, dangerously insane?

Witnessing this level of intentional recklessness on a daily, if not hourly basis, challenges one’s ability to have any hope for our future. How we will dig our way out of this level of pervasive and entrenched self-destructiveness, I do not know. Perhaps the ship has sailed and we’re living through the decline of a once great nation. I pray it is not so, but signs of hope are hard to come by.

Thomas Lifson adds:

It gets worse. According to Republican congressman Bob Goodlatte:

“It is clear that immigration officials did not thoroughly vet her application. In order to obtain a fiance visa, it is required to demonstrate proof that the U.S. citizen and foreign national have met in person. However, Malik’s immigration file does not show sufficient evidence for this requirement.”

“Visa security is critical to national security, and it’s unacceptable that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services did not fully vet Malik’s application and instead sloppily approved her visa,” according to the statement posted on Goodlatte’s website. “The House Judiciary Committee is working on a bill to strengthen visa processing security and protect national security.”

“What is worse, the immigration official reviewing Malik’s application requested more evidence to ensure the two met in person, but it was never provided and her visa was approved anyway,” Goodlatte wrote.

“Even if Farook and Malik were in Saudi Arabia at the same time, this does not provide evidence that they met in person,” Goodlatte wrote.