DHS admits we have no screening process for 'Syrian refugees'

Should we screen “Syrian refugees”?  Yes.  And no.

Yes, because this administration will continue to import Muslim invaders.  As such, having a way to vet them would be better than having no way to vet them.  But it turns out we have no way to vet them.  Investor’s Business Daily reports:

… As the White House prepares to dump another 10,000 Syrian refugees on U.S. cities, it assures us these mostly Muslim men undergo a "robust screening" process. Not so, admits the agency responsible for such vetting.

Under grilling from GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.

"Does Syria have any?" Sessions asked. "The government does not, no sir," answered Matthew Emrich, associate director for fraud detection and national security at DHS' U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Sessions further inquired: "You don't have their criminal records, you don't have the computer database that you can check?" Confessed Emrich: "In many countries the U.S. accepts refugees from, the country did not have extensive data holdings."

While a startling admission, it confirms previous reporting. Senior FBI officials recently testified that they have no idea who these people are, and they can't find out what type of backgrounds they have — criminal, terrorist or otherwise — because there are no vetting opportunities in those war-torn countries.

Syria and Iraq, along with Somalia and Sudan, are failed states where police records aren't even kept. Agents can't vet somebody if they don't have documentation and don't even have the criminal databases to screen applicants.

So the truth is, we are not vetting these Muslim refugees at all….

Well how about that?  The “robust screening process” is a fiction.

But screening (or lack thereof) aside, to answer the question I posed at the beginning of the piece, I also say “no,” ideally, we do not need a screening process.

Because (ideally) we would not even consider accepting a single one of these people pouring out of Islamic countries like a plague.

Because we know that their culture and values (such as they are) are diametrically opposed to our own.

Because we know from recent history they do not assimilate.

Because we know that far too many of them want sharia law.

Because we know that jihadists will be among them.

Because we know that many more will become jihadists once they arrive in here.

Because we know they are wreaking havoc in Europe as criminals, rapists, thugs, terrorists, and soon-to-be terrorists swarm across the continent, descending on cities and towns with screaming demands and hate for the very people (idiots) who are welcoming them.

Because we know about hijrah and Muslim conquest.

So here’s the deal: even if we had a good screening mechanism, we still should not be accepting any of these invaders.  Not a single one.  None.  No one.  The accept-not-a-one plan is smart and simple.  It circumvents the need for a screening process and keeps us safe at the same time.

There.  Problem solved.

Hat tip: Jihad Watch