Myths vs. Facts in the Syrian Refugee issue

The recent attacks in Paris have ignited a firestorm of controversy about refugees in the United States.  Based on information that has been released in this still on-going investigation, at least one of the Paris bombers was fingerprinted in Greece and may have posed as a refugee.  This has led to an outcry here in America.  Unfortunately, what has been feeding into this outcry is a massive amount of misreporting on the issue of refugees, both in the United States and elsewhere, and this has been exacerbated by incorrect and misleading comments from elected officials and candidates for office.

This is too important an issue to allow prejudices, nativism and misinformation posing as fact to color our objective policy ideas.  To try to cut through some of the false narratives, here is a list of myths and facts about Syrian refugees, American refugee policy, and other issues in the news lately.

Once we can all agree as to the facts, we can begin determining what, if anything, we need to do here at home on this issue.

Myth #1 – There is a flood of Syrian refugees entering the United States.

This myth has been making the rounds, and was given credence yesterday by Donald Trump.

This just isn’t true.

According to the State Department. 1,869 Syrians have entered the United States since October 2014.  The bulk of those, 1,682, came during FY 2015.  The White House pegs the total number of Syrians who have been relocated to the United States since 2011, the start of the Syrian civil war, at 2,034.

The New York Times used slightly different numbers in this article with a map showing relocations, claiming 1,854 have entered the United States since 2012.

According to the Virginia Department of Social Services, 25 Syrian refugees have been relocated to Virginia in FY 2015, and none so far in FY 2016, which began October 1.

There is no flood of refugees. Given the tens and hundreds of thousands of refugees being accepted in Europe and the Middle East, this is a relative trickle.

Myth #2 – The Obama Administration wants to allow hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to relocate to the United States.

This myth has been all over the place, far longer than the blowback from the Paris Bombings.  As Glenn Kessler notes in his Washington Post Fact Check column, three of the top Republican presidential candidates have repeated this myth in recent days.

“Our president wants to take in 250,000 from Syria. I mean, think of it. 250,000 people. And we all have heart. And we all want people taken care of and all of that. But with the problems our country has, to take in 250,000 people — some of whom are going to have problems, big problems.”

— Donald Trump, Nov. 14

“When the president says things like, you know, through an executive order, ‘I’m going to bring 100,000 people in here from Syria,’ Congress needs to say ‘you do that and we’re going to defund everything including your breakfast.’”

— Ben Carson, quoted in a SuperPac ad released Nov. 17

 “I am angry that President Obama unilaterally decides that we’ll accept up to 100,000 Syrian refugees while his administration admits we cannot determine their ties to terrorism.”

— Carly Fiorina, Nov. 14

There’s nothing accurate about these claims. The Obama Administration, by Congressional authorization and not by executive order, sets the total number of refugees permitted to relocate to the United States each year. That number has hovered around 70,000 total over the past few years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.  The President has been under pressure to increase that number, given the number of refugee creating crises around the globe, including in Syria, Africa and Iraq.  He has pledged to increase the number we accept gradually, from 70,000 to 85,000 in FY 2016, and 100,000 in FY 2017.

As the Post noted here in a September article, the President has ordered an increase in the total number of refugees from any country, and has set a goal of allowing 10,000 Syrians to relocate here in the next fiscal year.

10,000 is a smaller number than 200,000.

Myth #3 – We don’t vet Syrian refugees before they come here and the FBI Director says we can’t vet them.

A variety of elected officials have claimed that we don’t vet or can’t vet Syrian refugees before they come here, including Congressman Louie Gohmert.

Not only is that false, it flies in the face of other facts – namely, that the reason we have accepted so few Syrian refugees since 2011 is because of the intense and time consuming vetting process to screen out possible insurgents.  From the Post article from last September: “So far, the United States has lagged far behind several European countries in its refu­gee aid efforts, largely due to the time-consuming screening procedure to block Islamist militants and criminals from entering the United States under the guise of being legitimate refugees.”

The process for a refugee to be resettled is a long and arduous one, with multiple vettings and screenings throughout.  The following is based on the White House website, the State Department’s website and an exhaustive article done by CQ Roll Call.

Once a refugee is displaced, the process to become relocated to the United States begins with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.  The UNHCR serves as the liaison between the United States and the refugee, although there are other NGOs and private voluntary organizations who also work with refugees and serve as go-betweens.  Refugees generally apply through the UNHCR for resettlement, although about a quarter of refugees apply to the United States directly.  Applications are made before the refugee ever sets foot in the United States.  The UNHCR does the initial screening, verifying identity and other basic information.  All refugees are urged to be registered with UNHCR to be considered refugees under international law.

Once completed, they are passed on to the State Department.  Immediately, any Syrian refugee is subject to additional screening through the Department of Homeland Security, called the “Syria Enhanced Review.”  Once complete, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official reviews the paperwork.  If approved, an interview is scheduled. The U.S. uses the International Organization for Migration for its vetting interviews.

At that point, if any of the vetting of these refugees raises any red flags, the case can be forwarded to the Fraud Detection and National Security Division of USCIS.

If cleared, at that point, the State Department conducts a field interview – the refugee is still in a camp or other location, and not on U.S. soil – to determine whether they fit the legal definitions of a refugee.  They are fingerprinted and photographed, and then all of their information goes through the FBI criminal database, and DHS’s terrorist and criminal watch-list, as well as USCIS and ICE’s databases for those who have had contact with immigration officials in the past.

Once that’s complete, they go through another round of security screenings, including vetting through the Department of Defense, the State Department’s Consular Lookout and Support System, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the National Counterterrorism Center and others.  This part of the process is classified, but it’s likely that they go through Intelligence Community reviews as well. At the same time, the refugees are given health screenings for diseases that could prevent them from relocating.

At that point, if they pass everything and are approved for relocation, they are flown to the United States.  They have to get through TSA and Customs, take a three-day class on basic information about the United States and then they’re relocated to a permanent home.

Refugees lose their status after a year and they must apply for permanent resident status. After five years, they can become citizens.

The entire point of this process is to screen out potential radical Islamists and criminals from this program.

The White House has an outline of these steps here.  The process can take anywhere from one and three years to complete.  They have put together a video that goes through the details, and you can watch it here.

And if you want to hear what it’s like from a refugee who has gone through the process, you can read one woman’s story here.

Does this sound like “no vetting?” Does it sound like this system is not well thought out and logical, or a system that is not sufficiently mature that it needs a “time out” for review?  Given the miniscule numbers of refugees relocated, it seems as if this program is working. And it’s completely different from the refugee process that those making their way to Greece and the other EU countries have gone through.

This vetting has culled the vast majority of potential refugees out.  The White House confirmed that of the 23,092 Syrian refugees who have been referred to the United States for potential relocation, only 7,014 of them reached the interview process.  Of that 7,014, only 2,034 have been resettled.  Syrian refugees have less than a 1 in 10 chance of being accepted into the U.S. refugee program.  This is more evidence of the rigor of the process.

As for FBI Director Comey’s oft paraphrased concerns with gaps in the vetting process, the frequent claim – as noted by Congressman Gohmert – is that he claimed it was impossible to vet them because we don’t have the data.  That’s not exactly what he said.  His quote was:

“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 database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing showing up because we have no record of them…”

That’s true – but that’s true in any kind of vetting situation.  It’s the same refrain we hear when someone who has never committed a crime picks up a gun and shoots up a school.  If no one has shown any evidence of radicalization, they will be hard to vet.  That doesn’t mean impossible, however, and it doesn’t mean that no vetting occurs because of it.  We have intelligence on that area of the world, but not as much as we could have.  Using the FBI Director’s correct statement out of context here is inappropriate.  The reality, based on the numbers who are referred versus the numbers admitted makes it pretty clear – if we can’t vet someone properly, they don’t get allowed to relocate here.

Myth #4 – Most of the refugees are men of military age.

You’ll see this myth most often on social media, but it was reported on blogs and elsewhere.  The claim is that this figure was proven by the United Nations, but the data they are referring to is based solely on the numbers of refugees who are trying to enter Europe, doesn’t include any age ranges besides “men” and “children” and isn’t restricted to Syrians, either

This is another one of those situations where social media and the blogs misread a chart and then run with the idea.  The facts are more in line with what you would expect – based on the UNHCR’s registration data, 22% of the total number of refugees are military aged males (18-45).  Over half the total are women, and more than half of the males are either younger than 18 or older than 60.  There is evidence that many young men in Syria don’t want to fight, but they aren’t constituting anything close to a majority of refugees.

In the United States, the numbers are strikingly different – of those admitted for resettlement in America, only 2% were men of military age unattached to a family or with no family (which I take to mean, unmarried).  That’s a far cry from the claims of some that we’re letting in loads of unattached men in their early 20s, ripe for radicalization.

Myth #5 – Posing as a refugee is an easy way to get into the United States.

If the facts provided in Myth #3 didn’t make it clear that posing as a refugee is not an easy way to enter America, let’s look at the alternatives.

Of the confirmed identities of the Paris bombers, we know that three have been identified as French nationals and one as a Belgian national.  If they had wanted to carry out these attacks in the United States, they could have easily gotten here through the Visa Waiver program.

38 countries participate in the United States Visa Waiver program, which is designed to allow for expedited processing of tourists and travelers to the United States.  Most of the EU nations are on there, including France and Belgium.  The only other step is paying a fee and an online screening through a DHS database.  That’s a far easier process than waiting the year or two required to get into the United States as a refugee.

Myth #6 – Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States aren’t taking in any refugees.

This is another common myth, often paired with questions regarding why the U.S. should be accepting any refugees at all if their own neighbors aren’t doing so.  This one is all over social media, and in the conservative press.

As usual, this is not true.  The bulk of the estimated 4 million refugees from Syria have been settled in the surrounding states.  Nearly 2 million in Turkey, another million in Lebanon, 600,000 in Jordan and over 100,000 in Egypt and Iraq each.

On Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, that claim at least, has a rational explanation. The primary reason for this myth is that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States are not signatories of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees.  Thus, their refugee relocations are not handled by the UNHCR, and their statistics aren’t compiled by the UNHCR.  So if you go looking for stats on Saudi Arabia or UAE through the UNHCR’s website, you’re not going to find anything.

Saudi Arabia claims to have relocated over 2.5 million refugees within it’s territory.  And they’re tired of people disbelieving them.  Even though the UN doesn’t count them, they acknowledge that at least 500,000 refugees have ended up in Saudi Arabia.

Myth #7 – The Boston Bombers were refugees.

This one has started to make the rounds because of a Washington Post article with some misleading reporting.

There’s a big difference between refugees and those who are granted asylum, not the least of which is asylum is granted to those already physically present in the United States, whereas refugees are waiting outside to be let in.  The Tsarnaev brothers were both granted derivative asylum through their parents, all who traveled to the U.S. on tourist visas.  They were not refugees and did not go through the refugee screening process.

The asylum process is similar to the refugee process with a major distinction – the asylee is present in the United States throughout the entire process, even if his asylum request is denied.  Refugees aren’t.  That’s a big difference.

Regardless, at the time of their entering the United States – more than a decade prior to the Boston Bombings, neither of the Tsarnaev brothers were on anybody’s radar, which makes sense, as they were both 15 and 8 at the time.  That didn’t happen until in 2013.

Myth #8 – Governors can bar refugees from being placed in their states.

A quick reading of the Constitution, which vests all of the immigration and naturalization powers in the Federal Government and makes Federal law the supreme law of the land, should blow up this argument.  Unfortunately Governors from a variety of states, both Democrat and Republican, have claimed that they will prevent Syrian refugees from being located within their states.

They don’t have the authority to do this.  They know they don’t have the authority to do this.  But it makes for a good headline.

The Refugee Act of 1980 authorizes that “the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section . . .  shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”  Once admitted to the United States, they are free to move about the country, just like any other legal resident alien or citizen.

Even Breitbart acknowledges that the Governors can’t overrule the President.

What the Governors can do is refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities to ease the placement of these individuals, which is commonly what happens today.  State and local governments work with the State Department to ensure placements that make sense – placements in areas where there are support networks, native language speakers or family members who can assist with transition.  Governors could refuse to work with the Federal government in that regard, which would simply run up the costs and force the Federal government to bring on more staff to handle these locations.  Not exactly the most fiscally conservative solution, but it’s within their power.  Fortunately, most of the efforts to relocate and ease transition for refugees are handled by voluntary organizations.  There’s a great article about one family’s journey in National Geographic from last February.

Conclusions

Draw your own.  While some will continue to claim that even one bad apple could cause a major attack here in the U.S., it’s important to note that no refugees admitted as refugees have ever committed an act of terror in the United States.  Yes, a few have been involved in crime, terror plots (a total of 3 have been convicted of plotting attacks outside the U.S.) and some have been arrested, but to date, not one American has been killed in America by a refugee.  Not allowing in refugees has security risks associated with it too, namely the propaganda victory ISIS and others can use as leverage, demonstrating their ability to influence our foreign policy through terror.  This is what they want us to do.  A number of evangelical groups and the U.S. Conference of Bishops are pushing back on calls to limit refugee relocation, given their traditional support and assistance for supporting refugees.  When it comes down to it, barring refugees is fundamentally unAmerican.  As Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address:

“And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one—a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, “Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.”

A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn’t get out of his mind. And, when I saw it, neither could I. Because that’s what it was to be an American in the 1980’s. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again—and in a way, we ourselves—rediscovered it.”

We stand for freedom in the world.  We shouldn’t let terrorists – here or in Europe – change that.

But that’s just my take.  Draw your own conclusions, and let them be based on facts, not fear.

UDPATE: French President Francois Hollande has said that France will increase the number of refugees it accepts to 30,000.  These guys just got hit by major terrorist attacks and they’re letting more refugees in.  We haven’t been hit at all, and we are debating whether we should let in any.  For all those Francophobes who mock the French for surrendering, this is the opposite of that.  If the French are willing to do this less than a week after these attacks, we should stop and think about how we’ve addressed this issue at home.

  • Brian, the Cicilline letter dated 9/11 of this year states unequivocally (and in bold for that matter) that “We agree with the Refugee Council USA’s recent recommendation that the United States resettle a minimum of 200,000 refugees by the end of 2016, including 100,000 Syrian Refugees.”

    To be even more clear, they recommend the U.S. take 65,000 additional refugees from Syria and go on to say, “Allowing an additional 130,000 refugees into our country would make up less than a quarter of one percent of our population.”

    This letter is in the context of Syria and signed by our own Reps. Connolly and Scott.

    This is also a fact and a serious proposal.

    • That’s not the Obama Administration. That’s a letter written by some members of Congress, who do not have the final decision on the numbers of refugees settled by the President. I quoted the law in this article, directly from the U.S. Code. Congress has given that authority to the President, and the President has agreed to increase the total number of refugees from any country from 70,000 to 85,000 for FY 16, and 100,000 in FY 17. The total number of Syrians to be accepted is 10,000.

      The problem with some of these elected officials talking, as we have seen, is they have their facts wrong too.

      • To be clear, in my post I said it was a letter to the Obama administration. And I never said the administration was considering it, just that it’s a proposal under consideration. And it should be noted our Democratic congressional delegation supports it.

    • Warmac9999

      Here is the problem in a nutshell. You have all kinds of numbers floating around and all kinds of timeframes involved. If, for example, you talked about 200,000 additional refugees over a 50 year period, a timeframe similar to the immigration hiatus we had between 1924 and 1965, you could handle the influx and even do a decent job of vetting. However, when you talk 75,000 over a three year period it is pretty obvious that reasonable vetting cannot be done – the resources just don’t exist to do anything in depth.

      To me, the numbers have little meaning. The issue is that there are enemies at the gate, they have said they will strike, they are embedded in the refugee populations, we can’t sort them out easily, – and thus the risk is simply too great. You want to be stupid about this and risk your life and family then that is your business. However, when you put me at risk while you are being stupid, then I have a stake in the game.

      • We can debate all you want on whether the numbers are appropriate or not. That’s not my point. I’m simply trying to correct the record and make sure everybody is debating with the same set of facts.

        • Biscuit

          Your points are laid down quite well and worthy of consideration. But, before looking at this issue too much like a specimen in a petri dish, consider the context.

          You cite Reagan’s “Farewell Address.” It is great American speech and worthy of being cited and considered. But,
          remember at that time Reagan had the implicit trust of the majority of the American public. He was loved by the country and feared by the perpetrators of terrorism, such as Iran, In addition, the current realities transnational radical terrorism were nascent in his time. An American citizen would never consider a major-or even minor- terrorism plot occurring here.

          The landscape has totally changed since Reagan’s time. There are multiple issues current that feed into this distrust: Thousands of people moving across the Southern boarder and
          thousands overstaying their visas, September 11, 2001, foiled terrorism plots, record distrust in the US government, constant threats against the public.

          With these realities as a backdrop the apprehension
          of the American public should be expected. Add to this Obama’s defensive rhetoric and ham-handed way of dealing with this issue it adds up to one thing: Fear.

    • James Shaw

      Word for word straight from Obama’s twitter feed @Potus 10:01am 28 Sep 2015 “We’re also increasing the number of Syrian and other refugees we admit to the U.S. to 100,000 per year for the next two years.” 100,000+100,000=200,000

      • Stephen Spiker

        Where do you live? Does the word “other” mean something different there?

        • James Shaw

          Virginia. But you are missing the bigger point. This is typical Obamaspeak. He can bring in 99,999 Syrians and 1 Afghani and claim that he did not bring in 100,000 Syrians. These words and phrases can be massaged and redefined as he deems fit. He can never lie for his minions in the MSM will always defend him and claim the chattel were too dumb to catch his kingly orations.

          • Stephen Spiker

            He’s already said the number of Syrian refugees we’ll accept is 10,000. So, you’re missing the bigger point of reality existing.

  • Stephen Spiker

    This is the type of public service that Bearing Drift plays for the conservative movement. Kudos, Brian, and thank you.

  • LTucker

    So in the middle of this quagmire the average person has to shift through all the data wondering which is right. Thanks for the pre-shift. At least we see the documentation. Now we wait for the ISIS attacks already scheduled hoping the chatter is heard and carnage is averted.

    • Warmac9999

      You have to distinguish what is from what will be. This article focuses largely on what is. I don’t care one farthing about that. If we get 10,000, 50,00 or 200,000 Syrians plus other muslims from war torn or economically depressed regions, we will import a statistically significant number of Islamic terrorists – ISIS, al Queda, Al Shabab, Taliban, and who knows what else.

      There is a lot of discussion about the distinction between refugee, migrant, and invader. This is legalistic mumbo-jumbo to the American citizen who want reasonable assurance that we aren’t doing something really stupid – like Germany is.

      • I’m inclined to agree with you, but let’s not go to extremes. Not every refugee is a terrorist. By that logic, every immigrant during the red scare of the early 20th century when labor was lighting bombs would be considered unwelcome. I still say we take the fight to the enemy and not make outrageous comments about jihadists being the new normal, as our president said.

        • Warmac9999

          I don’t know what extreme is. That is a qualitative statement. Was it extreme to bomb Hiroshima or extreme to firebomb Dresden? In Hindsight, that is an intellectual argument over upwards of 300,000 deaths of men, women and children.

          And, by the way, we did both deport and ban refugees from certain areas of the world during the anarchist uprising and up through the 1960s.

          Finally, I am with you about taking the fight to the enemy. Unfortunately, we have a president who will not do so and is also bent on importing large numbers of people from the mid-East who contain a statistical certainty of enemies.

          What obama has done is left the American populace defenseless on an individual basis, police and other authorities not withstanding. If you say that I can carry a gun without fear of being treated like a criminal, I feel much better as I at least have some real hope here. At this point, I and many others feel neutered by a government who doesn’t appear to give a rats about me or any other citizen.

  • Jeff Hunter

    Agree that there’s a lot of hysteria and misinformation floating around, but . . .

    1. If we really wanted to help the refugees wouldn’t it be better to fix the situation at their home instead allowing it to become necessary for them to become refugees in the first place?

    2. Regarding Myth #3 – Who here believes that a UN agency and the US State Department under Obama are going to get it right 100% of the time? A success rate of %99.9 means that there’s still a chance that 10 out of 10,000 could slip through.

    3. And in regards to Myth #7 – This just shows that they don’t have to be part of ISIS when they get here. Radicalization can occur over years after they’ve settled and supposedly assimilated.

    • 1. I agree, which is why we need to work with France and Russia on plans to end the civil war for good.

      2. I don’t believe anybody gets it right 100% of the time, but the chances of them getting it wrong are remote, especially given the easier ways to get here than through the refugee program. I think the ocean coupled with this vetting process is as good as we can get.

      3. The same thing can be said about American citizens or anybody else. That’s not a good argument against refugees. And given the history, you’d be playing the odds correctly to bet that if you get hit by a terrorist attack, it wasn’t one committed by a refugee.

      • mpolito

        Yeah, because an ordinary Christian or Jew in America is as likely to become radicalized as a Muslim who moved here. Whatever. Bring them in, and when the slaughter happens, you can answer to the voters.

        • Nungwa

          Yes, an ordinary Christian or Jew in America is as likely to become radicalized as a Muslim who moved here.

          • Warmac9999

            Funny! By the way, do you have anything other than assertion to back this up. Say a statistic or two.

          • Nungwa

            There have been over 300 mass shootings in the United States this year alone. There have been 45 school shooting incidents. Then there are these:

            1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012.

            2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009.

            3. Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008.

            4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994.

            5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996

            6. The murder of Barnett Slepian by James Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998.

            7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994

            8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010

            9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984

            10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.

          • LissaKay

            Your research skills suck. Try again.

          • Nungwa

            Ad hominem is unproductive. What was wrong with the list I provided?

          • LissaKay

            Ad hominem would be if I said YOU suck as a refutation to your assertions.

            What I said is your so-called proof of your assertions sucks. So, try again. Start with showing how each of the actors on your list are, in fact, Christian. Then show that they were acting in accordance with Christian doctrine.

            We’ll wait.

          • Warmac9999

            Your answer is more than adequate. Most of these murders were not done in accordance with any Christian principles – unlike the muslims who kill in accordance with their principles.

          • Nungwa

            Shall I start posting sections of biblical text that advocate genocide? Rape? Stoning recalcitrant children? Adulterers?

            Read your bible again. Start in Deuteronomy. Heck, start in Genesis.

          • LissaKay

            Sure, go right ahead. But you might want to make sure you are very clear on the context and meaning. Otherwise, it will prove to be quite embarrassing and will make you look very foolish indeed. Your move, sparky.

          • Nungwa

            The context then is the same as the context now. Genocide is still genocide and most of the OT is political rhetoric designed to unify a people.

            ISIS is doing the same thing and for virtually the same reasons.

            Neither side is right.

            http://calltolight.org/2015/11/16/people-are-demanding-non-pc-comments-on-terrorism-so-heres-the-mother-of-them-all/

          • LissaKay

            Oh dear. Your source is a self-proclaimed psychic medium and spiritualist??? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

            SERIOUSLY???

            Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

            Here’s the facts, the theology, and context: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html

            It’s nice and short, easy to understand, but with plenty of citations and references.

            Still don’t like it? You will, one day, have your chance to argue with God, and tell Him that your way is better than His. Good luck with that.

          • Nungwa

            I bet you think that Jesus was born in December too. The source I used was simply stating the obvious: We have become a nation of cowards. We should dismantle the Statue of Liberty (whose name is actually The Mother of Exiles) and return her to whence she came (France).

            Sorry, but I cut my teeth on biblical debate. Using the Bible to support the bible is called circular logic. It’s still political rhetoric and most of it didn’t actually happen anyway. At least not the way the story goes.

          • LissaKay

            I bet you think you know far more than you actually do. Do you enjoy making yourself look foolish? If so, you’ve had a very good day.

            Oh, and the Christ child was probably born in the spring of what we reference now as 3 B.C. The event that occurred on December 25 is when the Magi arrived to visit Him, a couple years later.

          • Nungwa

            ROFL.

          • LissaKay

            Heh … you laugh, while science is constantly confirming Biblical events. Yes, you must really enjoy looking like a fool.

          • Nungwa

            I’m sure you think so.

            It’s interesting talking to folks outside Utah. They’re hung up on their mythology too.

          • JLPMiner

            Actually, at the time Christianity was on the rise and was competing with pagan gods/religions, the Roman Catholic Church chose the date of December 25th to compete with a pagan holiday that was like a day or two before that.

          • Warmac9999

            There are a lot of folks on this thread that are nothing but antagonists. They have nothing to offer but bile. You take a position, they take the opposite. Of course, if a muslim terrorist attacks in their city, they become like Geraldo Rivera – scared to death and demanding something be done by someone.

          • JLPMiner

            Your interpretation of the Bible is through Western eyes. That’s how extremism within any religion gets started. The Bible has to be put into cultural context. Example, at the time the stories were passed down and eventually written about God flooding the Earth and Noah building an ark, the ‘world’ to them was the area in which they knew. The authors of the Bible were not world travelers. The flood was literally not the entire world.

          • Nungwa

            No, my interpretation of the Bible is through anthropological eyes.

            I know the flood wasn’t the ‘entire world,’ but you would be amazed at how many people still think so. Or how many people think that Noah was a real person. Or that Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. Or that Adam and Eve is a literal origin story.

          • Three-Toed Sloth
          • Steve Palmer

            Would you like to compare that with the 28,000 Jihadist attacks around the world since 2001?

          • heatherGirl

            Those things maybe in the bible…… but no church teaches doing those things today!

            Please cite the last time any Christian church had a woman stoned for adultery……. then go and find the last time a follower of Islam was beheaded for leaving Islam.

            I think you will find that one has not happened for maybe a thousand years and the other is happening today!

          • Nungwa

            Which is exactly my point. Today’s ‘christians’ cherry pick the passages they like and ignore (or rationalize away) the parts they don’t. Creating an ‘us vs. them’ mentality is the absolute mission of any religion.

          • Steve Palmer

            No they don’t. Today’s infants try to argue that is the case while today’s Christians, just as they did since the apostles understand the New Covenant and what it means. No one who has even the first clue about Christianity thinks otherwise. So that means they are either being disingenuous or stupid. Which is it?

          • Nungwa

            Infants? Seriously?

          • Steve Palmer

            My guess would be never. The last time someone may have tried to stone a woman for adultery was when Christ stopped it. Which means that no Christian church following ever stoned women for adultery.

          • Warmac9999

            So you think these are all Christian terrorists. I can’t see anything in Christianity that justifies this unlike what exists in the Koran.

          • Nungwa

            Quran – and I guess you haven’t read your bible lately. Heck according to the Bible, God drowned the entire Earth (except for Noah and fam).

            In Chronicles, God helped Judah kill half a million Jews.

            God slaughtered 14,000 people in Numbers because they complained He was killing too many people.

          • Warmac9999

            First of all, I’ll call it what I want. Second, you apparently can’t distinguish between the New Testament Jesus and the Old Testament Jew. Third, you apparently haven’t a clue how many people the muslims killed during their crusades and up till today.

          • Nungwa

            1. I called it what it is. You can call it something different if you choose, certainly.
            2. Jesus practiced a form of reformed Judaism. He was considered a radical by his peers.
            3. The christians gave as good as they got during the Crusades. After all, they pretty much instigated them (or more to the point the Pope(s) did). It was the Church’s way of finding something to do for the 3rd and 4th (and bastard) sons of noblemen. I took a class on the Crusades. Fascinating period.

          • Warmac9999

            Have you ever studied the Islamic Crusades that led to the Christian Crusades? You apparently think the entirety of the Christian Crusades were focused on the Holy Land, they were not. You also miss the fact that muslims invaded Europe and occupied areas in Spain and Italy prior to the first Christian Crusade. Later Christians Crusades were no where near as successful as the first but at least the defense against the islamic invaders began to be organized.

          • Nungwa

            Yes actually. I’m also married to a former military history professor.

            No, I don’t think the Crusades were fought entirely in the Near East. If you check a map, you’ll see that Spain and Italy are very close to N. Africa. It is a trade route used for millennia.

            If you want to take a really interesting course load, try the Silk Road.

          • wowlikewow

            former history professor? what happened, he find facts to change his whole world?

          • Nungwa

            He is disabled. He had to retire from the military as well.

          • wowlikewow

            weren’t the crusades started by invading muslims into europe? yeah, thats what I thought.

          • Nungwa

            No. Actually. Quite the opposite. On November 27, 1095, the Pope (Urban II, I believe) called for a crusade to help free the city of Jerusalem. The First Crusade officially started August 15, 1096.

          • heatherGirl

            To help free……… which implies someone took them over and they had to be freed. Do you even read what you write?

            If the Pope called for crusades to free Jerusalem, free them from what? I think that would be from Muslim who took it over right?

            So the Crusades were started by invading Muslims.

          • Nungwa

            You’ve been misinformed. The Pope needed an excuse to send the 4th sons of nobles who had been causing trouble away to foreign lands.

            The history of the crusades are fascinating. I’ve really enjoyed my studies of this period.

          • DocD

            He killed evil. God is the only one who can. He saw the world was too evil and tried to start again.

            But even God was shocked and humbled by human suffering. Unlike ISIS. they couldn’t care less.

            God waits until you die now to make Justice. He tried to remake the world a couple times but realized sin had made it a hopeless venture…even for God…

          • Nungwa

            Interesting that your ‘god’ always seems to have the same ‘enemies’ as you do.

          • DocD

            Well…I sure hope you feel that way when you die…

            Or are you looking for a bunch of virgins?

            What God rewards a killer with sex?

          • Nungwa

            Yours. Allah and Jehovah are the same fella.

            Why on earth would I care about virgins?

          • Peter_FairMarket

            But if God knows everything that is going to happen, then why did he create imperfect man in the first place, only to destroy him when he didn’t (as God himself could foresee, if he is truly all-knowing) toe the line? And don’t tell me free will, unless you are saying that God is unable to know what man is going to do because of free will, because that invalidates the omniscient power.

          • wowlikewow

            and Noah brought pigs onto the ark!!!

          • Nungwa

            Apparently the unicorns didn’t get the memo.

          • PaulV

            It is ridiculous to assert that Christianity is comparable to radical Islam. You have no basis for that comparison and it is offensive. Radical muslims are CURRENTLY killing thousands, raping women and children, and have displaced entire societies – 100s of thousands of people. As far as Christianity is concerned – “No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done. Its shortcomings, clearly conceded by this author, are nevertheless heavily outweighed by its benefits to all mankind” (Schmidt 9).

            Contrary to the history texts treatment of the subject, Christian influence on values, beliefs, and practices in Western culture are abundant and well ingrained into the flourishing society of today (Schmidt 12). In the Old Testament book of Hosea the writer states: “my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” a statement that can well be applied to those today who are forgetful of the past (The Reformation Study Bible, Hosea 4.6a).

          • Nungwa

            It is ridiculous to assert that radical christianity isn’t comparable to radical Islam.

          • PaulV

            You have no basis for such an absurd statement. So it’s Christians and not ISLAMIST EXTREMIST TERRORISTS that are right NOW murdering innocent people across the middle east just as they have done in France recently?

          • Nungwa

            History disagrees.

          • PaulV

            History disagrees with what? You didn’t answer the question.

          • heatherGirl

            When you ask that question………. a liberal goes all the way back a few thousand years to the holy Crusades. But oddly they tell us the attack in Benghazi was “so long ago”.

            I think it’s that new math they teach in schools.

          • Get to Work People

            Love it… great response.

          • Steve Palmer

            History does not disagree when Jihadists kill more people in one year than the entire history of the crusades. Only apologists disagree.

          • Nungwa
          • Steve Palmer

            Oh so you move the goalposts? You might want to look into what the obama administration classifies as terrorism these days since a lot of it as you know is actually workplace violence. As far as the comparison there is less than 1% muslim population in this country. Take a look at the number of jihadi attacks when the number gets to 5% anywhere in the world.
            Either way your argument is only that we should allow a dangerous plac to become more dangerous.

          • Nungwa

            Nope. Not moving the goalposts. Just rendering context.

            You should try it.

          • Steve Palmer

            And then following it with a childish response. I did try it, In fact I did. I gave you context. There are less than 3 million muslims in this country and most of them are prison converts in the process of a 20 year bid. So if you break it down percentage wise, it’s not good. Especially when you factor in the dozen beheadings that are not in their little meme or the 2 dozen plots to blow things up or the execution of cops or a whole bunch of things. Or the fact that at no point was I referring to only the United States. So worldwide 5,000 people are killed by jihad attacks globally every year. Since 9/11 there have 28,000 jihad attacks worldwide. So yes moving the goalposts because that’s your damn context.

          • heatherGirl

            So please show us all the radical Christians. We can look on the news any day of the week to see the radical Muslims by the thousands.

            The best you see able to do is point at acts of violence by people who happen to be Christians…… then assume that they did what they did because they were Christians. But none actually claim their acts were totally based on their religion. Islamist openly state their actions are based on their view of Islam – the person who leads ISIS is an Islamic scholar!

            I do not see any vast areas of the world being attacked by the radical Christians. You can not even support that claim without going all the way back the Holy Crusades!

          • Nungwa

            You mean like our militarized police forces?

          • Rob

            Look at Little Nungwa trying to educate everyone on the Christian God. You’re vomiting the proggie talking points that tries to make Christianity appear like Islam. First off, you have no context for your biblical statement. Yes, those things happened. Deal with it. God had his reasons. There is no context acceptable on Earth for Muzzies killing people just because they aren’t Muzzie, period. Well, you might find some amongst the voices in your head, but that’s mental illness not intelligence. Your history professor spouse referenced below is meaningless as a credible source. The proggie agenda present there makes it irrelevant. For someone who tries to come across as o-so-smart, you have a lot of hate in your heart. You need to work on that. Christianity has done more positive for this world than you will know. Muzzies have done zero good.

          • Nungwa

            Thanks for providing such a stunning example as to why we’re considered ‘Ugly Americans’ in Europe.

            God and Allah are the same deity.

          • heatherGirl

            I think you consider us ugly Americans……. I am sure your one of those “citizen of the world” liberals.

          • Nungwa

            Nope. I’m a Republican moderate.

          • Bobby Chayka

            that was then,,,we’re taking today,,the cathoilc church has modernized and become more open,,,islamic extremists and jihadist still follow the barbaric ways of the koran

          • Nungwa

            Could you perhaps try again in legible English?

          • Guy Daley

            Bible is a book of fiction idiot. However, I can cite numerous mass incidents IN RECENT HISTORY where the fanatics are yelling Allah Akhbar before committing mass mayhem.

          • Nungwa

            So are the Ranch Stupidians.
            This is a dead thread. Have fun talking to yourself.

          • Peter_FairMarket

            “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

          • Warmac9999

            You apparently don’t see the difference between Islam’s daily violence and Christ’s future as assumed. Islam is a constant threat to the world. Christ only suggests that he will fight when he comes back – and he isn’t back yet.

          • Steve Palmer

            Stop being a child. He said but a sword, not take up the sword and cut their limbs off and hack at their necks until it severs their head because they believe differently than you. There is also the fact that there are passages that precede it and follow it. He’s clearly explaining that he is a radical and will divide. The only thing though about him being a radical is that the radicalism is about not killing people who don’t follow the old laws, r even judging them for that matter.

          • gamegetter II

            There have been nowhere near 300 “mass shootings” in the U.S. this year-that’s nothing more than regurgitated Bloomberg propaganda. As is the 45 “school shootings” BS.
            Try the FBI’s UCR,expanded homicide tables for some factual information.
            There were nowhere near 300 “mass shootings” maybe 50,and that’s pushing it.
            The school shootings horsepucky was debunked for the propaganda that it is the day the absurd claim was made-sorry,but gang bangers getting in a gun battle at 2am in a school parking lot is NOT a school shooting,nor is a report of gunshots near school property a school shooting.

          • Nungwa
          • Nungwa

            BTW – I know all about UCR.

          • Adam Mygrants

            TLDR VERSION: ISIS is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity.
            For the record: The Muslim religion is NO a violent one. They teach much the same as every other religion. I’m sure you’ll quote something out of context, but if you actually read the Quran, it repeats that you can not be the transgressor annoyingly often. Every “violent” quote is certainly both preceded and followed by that sentiment. The scriptures (Bible) is filled with even more violent laws and rules that demand a “Christian” kill people (IE: if you are not a virgin when married) of course, any sane person has overlooked those holy laws.
            Any religion can be twisted though. ISIS is twisting the Muslim religion to justify killing innocent people. Some twist Christianity to justify firebombing abortion clinics. The KKK twisted Christianity to justify racism. Consider ISIS to be the Muslim KKK. Honestly, there are people who say Jesus existed at the same time as dinosaurs, or that dinosaurs are a giant hoax because they are not in the bible. People take holy scripture the wrong way all the time. (Pro tip: if your religion makes you hate someone… you’re doing it wrong) And religion is the best motivator to convince someone to do something horrible. After all, the worst atrocities were done with the best of intentions. Heck, even Hitler was actually trying to unite the world as one nation (sortof Lenon of him really) and only picked out the Jewish people because at the time and in that area, they were rather isolated communities that did not really join in with the whole. His thinking was that they would never join the one nation of unified humanity. They used Christianity as well.
            Your religion does not matter. They all teach peace and they all have a version of “do unto others as you would have done to you”. They are all also open to misinterpretation and corruption. I’m rather certain that most religious followers have not actually read the holy books they claim to follow. Forget faith in God, they sure have faith in the guy who tells them what God wants from them. And THAT would be the problem. Again, if your religion is telling you to hate someone, you’ve read it wrong.

          • heatherGirl

            Really? Can you please send us photo’s of the cities that the KKK is occupying with tanks and military vehicles……. I mean seeing they are the same. Can you show us the KKK amry moving across any country slaughter people and take over towns……….

            Please enlighten us with your brilliance.

          • Adam Mygrants

            https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_8dr_Biv4Z0/hqdefault.jpg

            There ya go. Unlike ISIS, the KKK had little opposition from their own government, but they had rifles and pistols. The KKK WERE the country, ISIS is a terrorist rebellion group. If all Muslims were like ISIS, they would already control the world. They are an extremist group, like the westboro Baptists only more violent. You know what gets them recruits? Foreign nations occupying their country and shooting everyone because they think all Muslims are terrorists. If you act with bigotry and ignorance, you only make them stronger; because then you actually oppress all Muslims instead of fighting terrorists. Then any Muslim would have a JUST cause to fight back. What if we started arresting all Christians because some of them like to shoot up abortion clinics? Does that shooting mean that all Christians are murderers? No? Then why does a pack of crazy people condemn the entire Muslim religion?

          • Steve Palmer

            Shouldn’t you say just plain violent instead of more violent when comparing ISIS to Westboro? Or do you think that being a dick at a funeral is the same as cutting off people’s heads because they are unbelievers?
            You’re argument is basically if we don’t bend over and accept islam then we piss off the people who believe islam is superior. So who exactly is the bigot?

          • renegadesix

            It is an utter lie to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Here are all the verses of violence and an explanation that destroys your context claim for each one.

            http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

          • Adam Mygrants

            Every one of those refers to responses to being attacked. They are not pacifists. I’m quite certain that every one of the quotes is both preceded and followed by “you must not be the transgressor” and whatnot. I could comprise a far worse list of all the horrors of the bible and scripture. I’ll spare you the list because it would be far too long, here is a far more entertaining version if less complete. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPjWd4MUXs
            You could try READING the Quran instead of judging the entire religion based on some bias internet bashing site. We don’t judge Christianity based on the action of Westboro, the kkk, or a few people who firebomb abortion clinics. A Muslim must twist the meaning of the book to make it violent; A Christian must twist the meaning of the book to make it NOT violent.

          • renegadesix

            No they do not as the comments accompanying each verse demonstrates. For example:

            “Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…

            but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were notunder attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, “fitna”, can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.”

            I’ll worry about Bible verses and Christians when they commit 27K plus deadly terror attacks in 14 years. So spare me your false equivalency arguments, particularly when you demonstrate that you are willing to ignore both the actual text of the Koran and its historical context in order to excuse the tens of thousands of murders that have been committed in its name over the last fifteen years.

          • Adam Mygrants

            So if you twist the meanings of words and take them out of context and use whatever definition you want to make out of the words… you can make the Quran look violent. But if I quote the script directly from your own book, then I am being unfair. That was the double standard I was pointing out to you by doing that. The ACTUAL truth is that ALL religions are peaceful and every single one of them has their own version of “do unto others as you would have done unto you” “Wish for your brother, what you wish for yourself”. Any anyone who uses religion to hate anyone has already twisted it to their own ends, thus they have betrayed the intent of the religion.
            Though I’m sure you would insist that when THEY say it, it only means Muslims… unlike your own text that surely includes everyone… (that would be a double standard) One might also note that they list Jesus as a Muslim, and “Muslim” actually means “one who follows the will of god” and does not technically exclude Jews and Christians… though it sure discourages disbelief in the Quran just like the Bible does of the scriptures.
            The FACTS are that the OVERWELMING MAJORITY of Muslims are not violent in ANY WAY. The FACTS are that these are terrorists that just happen to (claim to) be Muslims, not terrorists BECAUSE they are Muslims. Christians performed tons of terrorist acts. These are terrorist acts from a foreign nation… and the entire nation happens to be Muslims. Strange you blame the religion and not the nation. Attitudes like yours are actually rational reason for them to consider a Jihad, because you ARE declaring war on the entire religion. Lucky for the entire world, not everyone is as ignorant as you are being right now. You should go back to church and pray for some peace, wisdom and understanding; because it’s not Muslims who are persecuting people who don’t share their religion, it’s YOU who is doing that. You are using a few extremist crazies as an excuse to hate MILLIONS of peaceful people. I’m pretty sure Jesus would not approve of what you are doing and how you are thinking.

          • renegadesix

            YOU are the one taking the statements out of context as the historical background that is listed demonstrates. How do you get “defensive” out of a speech in which the speaker is attempting to get his followers to attack caravans? What in the heck is the least bit defensive about that?

            Second, nice assumption, but FAIL. I’m not a Christian, I’m a Deist. No Christian has ever tried to kill me or people I care about to further their religion, but I cannot say the same about muslims. So the standard is not doubled. You say there are tons of Christians committing terror in the name of their religion, NAME THEM. You can’t. There are not TENS OF MILLIONS of Christians trying to wipe out anyone who isn’t Christian. Too bad the same cannot be said of muslims. You can say the vast majority are peaceful, but if even 10% of them are radicalized (and the polls show the numbers who at least support acts of jihad are three to four times higher than that), that’s 160 MILLION people bent (or at least supporting those who are willing to kill) on killing anyone who will not convert to their religion.

            Third, I have no problem holding muslim nations responsible either — when the nation is responsible. The problem is the terrorists do NOT come from a single country or even a couple of countries whose governments are hostile to the US. The 9/11 attackers were Saudis — a nation whose government is a US ally.

          • Adam Mygrants

            No Muslim has ever tried to kill you either. You bias is here: “160 MILLION”… that is not accurate. Jihad is clearly defined as a defensive call to action. You never read the book, so excuse me if I don’t take your word for what the intended meaning is for the words in it. You asked me to name a Christian terrorist, how about Hitler. If the Jewish people called all Jewish people to fight the Nazis, would you call that “supporting terrorism”? Because that is what those Muslim people are doing. Their nation is being attacked by a superior military power (yet again) that they are attempting to repel it. When it was the Russians they were repelling (with our backing) we called it a heroic act. Now that it is US forces doing it, it’s “terrorism”. There are certainly some terrorists doing it, but they are a tiny fraction of desperate extremists that do not represent the religion itself. They are not “killing anyone who will not convert”, that would be a handful of psychopaths. Most of them are trying to kick foreign powers out of their nation and get them to stop effectively taking over their nation. When people with view like yours (kill all Muslims) are seen as the ones killing them, they are quite justified in calling for a jihad to defend themselves and their religion from persecution. You might see a Christian try to kill you or someone you care about if they say, work at a clinic that performs abortions. Or if they were dark skinned. Don’t pretend Christians have never performed horrible acts if you want to appear rational. You are a radical anti-Muslim. Your theories here on the “true” meaning behind the book are irrelevant. Even if the original intent of the text WERE violent, it does not mean that those people practicing it are violent. I don’t see Christians or Jews murdering women for having sex before marriage, thus I don’t accuse them ALL of being violent for having that law in their holy scriptures. This is called “being a rational human being”. It’s not the most common trait in humanity, but it serves those who use it well.

          • Steve Palmer

            This Adam Mygrants guy appears to be some islamist apologist posing under a fake account.

          • Adam Mygrants

            FACT: of the billions of Muslim people, only a handful are extremists.
            You can spout whatever you want to support your bigot view about the entire religion, but it will never be correct. It will never be rational. The Muslim religion is no different from any other religion including atheism. People are people, and their religious beliefs or lack thereof does not change human nature. Some people are violent and behave in irrational ways. If those people are of ANY religion, then they will use their deity to justify their actions. It has nothing to do with the religion at all. The will of the deity of any religion has virtually nothing to do with the religion; it bends to suit the will of the person themselves. Your god is only as good or evil as yourself. This is why you see so many “bad” people of any other religion. If their morality is different then your own, and their god supports their view, then you view it as the fault of their religion. If they claim your own religion, then you view them as having an incorrect view of your religion. If they have no religion and you have one, it is because they lack the morality your god has provided you with.
            It doesn’t matter what your religion is or even if you have one or not. It all comes down to your own moral code. The entire basis of “FREEDOM” (in it’s true sense) is that you accept that your own moral code may not be perfect or best for everyone. You accept that you do not want others to force their morals on you, thus you agree not to force your morals on others. We make exceptions when the morality is universal and when one freedom outweighs another. Many Americans have forgotten this basic tenant and attempt to force their will on others. Or simply do not care to protect freedoms unless they intend to exercise it themselves… a horrible oversight where they forget that freedom itself must be protected should be protected, not simply the freedoms they wish to enjoy, lest those they enjoy be threatened if they should fall below the majority preference. Not to mention the recent trend to abandon freedom in exchange for the illusion of security.
            You have taken the results of some POLLS to be discerning facts. They took polls and it showed a huge support for the firebombing of an abortion clinic… does that mean all Americans are terrorists? Take a more objective view and don’t rely on media polls to obtain your “facts”. I’ve seen Muslims who are absolutely not violent. Why is it that if a Christian goes nuts, they are a crazy person who happens to be Christian… but when a Muslim does it, it’s BECAUSE they are Muslim!? that is absurd.
            That Christian lady violated the civil rights of every homosexual in her district when she refused to issue marriage licenses. She herself was in violation of Christian law, thus a “true Christian” could have denied HER any of her what… 3 or 4 marriage licenses? the laws meant nothing to her when she violated them, but once it was homosexuals, suddenly her holy conscience could not be ignored. She had WAY too much support for my comfort as a freedom loving American. I’m not a homosexual, but she’s still trying to take away MY freedom with that crap. I don’t blame Christianity for her nut job ideas. My point is: Imagine if a Muslim did that. Denied someone their marriage license for reasons of religion. That person would have been murdered by the end of the week. I’m not a Muslim! I’m a friggin’ Atheist. I’m just sick and tired of everyone acting like the entire religion is violent and persecuting the holy hell out of the entire religion over it. Then they point at the most violent part of the world and say “see, it’s violent there and it’s all Muslims!” Really!? It’s the friggin middle east! Africa is violent as hell, are you going to make THAT leap of logic as well or have you learned already how stupid and racist and wrong that would be? Apparently that lesson needs to be taught for ever single group and race and physical trait and nationality and form of government or economic system before anyone comes to the rational, obvious, SIMPLE conclusion that everyone is the friggin’ same. We’re all stupid barbarian violent idiots doing the same stupid crap everywhere and everyone. If you think that is wrong, then you are a bigot/racist/moron and you are the type of person who is going to go pull some terrorist crap because you think it’s the “right thing to do”. You are the terrorist, regardless of your race/religion/everything else.

          • Steve Palmer

            For the record you have not read the quran in it’s entirety. Any passages against transgressing are abbregated by later passages.
            These arguments are just boresome at this point. The old testament is part of Christianity to provide historical reference. As in what NOT to do anymore. So that is the direct opposite of islam which teaches later passages are to be followed even if they contradict earlier ones. It also does not teach that the Bible and Torah were for a specific time and people but that those people perverted them and so while they are not as bad as polytheists or atheists for that matter and should not be slaughtered or forced to convert, Christians and Jews are not to be trusted and are second class citizens.
            Jihadists kill more people in a month than the KKK did in a century. Hitler despised Christianity as flabby and weak, he admired islam as a religion of conquest, which it is. He had no desire to unify humanity, he had every desire to conquer it. Just like mohammed. ISIS is exactly what mohammed said is a good muslim. They do exactly what it is told they should do in the quran, and those who do not are called hypocrites by mohammed. You would know this if you actually read the quran and not the cair talking points on on tell the infidel about islam.

          • Drew Page

            You make an excellent point. We already have enough psychopaths, sociopaths, serial killers and assorted crazies here in America. why import more?

          • Nungwa

            Importing refugees doesn’t import more ‘psychopaths, sociopaths, serial killers, and assorted crazies.’ That’s just what ISIS wants you to believe.

            We turned away millions in 1938 and incarcerated AMERICAN CITIZENS just because they were Japanese citizens. The rhetoric wasn’t much different then than it now. How many Anne Franks do we turn our backs on this time because we are acting like cowards?

          • PaulV

            Extremist muslims make up about 15%-20% of the Muslim population. Those 20% manage to make up around 270 MILLION people of the world that are intent on the destruction of Western civilization and what it stands for. I think it is appropriate to be slightly apprehensive about importing refugees that we really have no meaningful information on.

          • Nungwa

            We aren’t ‘slightly apprehensive.’ What I’m seeing is downright abject paranoia.

          • PaulV

            What I’m seeing is willful ignorance and denial of the facts.

          • Nungwa

            You must be looking in a mirror.

          • PaulV

            No just your childish intellectually bankrupt posts

          • there is no factual basis for your 15-20% claim, in reality it is far less than 1% of Muslims “at risk of becoming radicalized” http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2015/0113/How-many-Muslim-extremists-are-there-Just-the-facts-please

          • PaulV

            The Christian Science Monitor and the statement of 1 individual from the Rand corporation citing unnamed “Western European intelligence agencies” does not by any logical rationale outweigh the research conducted by the Pew Research Center of 21 densely populated Muslim countries. Unless you too believe the advocation of “Attacks against civilians in defense of Islam” is not extremism.

          • Do you have any links to these polls? I can’t find any other than some polls done more than 7 years ago.

          • PaulV

            Yes I’ve provided. See post below.

          • heatherGirl

            Seven years ago seems recent enough to me…….. coming from people who cite the holy crusades as proof of violent Christian extremism!

          • Adam Mygrants

            104%-107% of statistics were made up on the spot and are not related to reality in any way. 212% of Christians are extremists that are intent on the destruction of the sun. That statement is only more crazy than yours because it exceeds mathematical possibility.

          • Steve Palmer

            Does pew research make up statistics on the spot? Maybe you should alert the media about it then so they stop using them as an accurate source.

          • Adam Mygrants

            PaulV’s research. “Extremist muslims make up about 15%-20% of the Muslim population” That would be around 50 million terrorists by his report. ISIS wishes he was correct, but my farts pronounce more accurate facts about the state of the world.

          • Steve Palmer

            No it would mean 50 million people who support it and sharia law which there are. Like I said are your farts more trusted than pew research since that’s where he got the data?

          • Adam Mygrants

            yes, apparently they are then. There are most definitely not 50 million intent on the destruction of the western civilization and what it stands for or it would be destroyed. That is of course, unless you count the freedom hating Americans that are not Muslims like the Trump supporter bigots, or the freedom hating socialist Sanders supporters, and everyone else who uses their vote to promote their own preferences rather than maintain the personal freedoms of all. THAT is what our nation stands for. Democracy does not ensure freedom, as it can easily become a “fascism by majority” when people believe the law should enforce their own desires instead of protect the freedoms of all. Your “kick out the Muslims” thinking is no less a threat to our nation than the most extreme versions of Sharia law. Those demanding a more Christian or Catholic influence on law are the exact same thing. Add those freedom hating fools in and you’ll easily hit your 50million. Maybe you are simply counting those who accept the Muslim law in their own land and are assuming that means they oppose the west in some manor other than “get out of our nation”? because opposing an occupying military force is a pretty rational response for anyone really, especially one that appreciates freedom (What our nation stands for). My farts would like to remind you that it was US that armed al Qaeda and other terrorist factions so they could repel the Soviets. We helped make them.

          • Steve Palmer

            See I was tempted to agree with your farts for a second there and then I realized that they are just making facile arguments. For starters your farts seem to have the bad habit of making leaps in logic and applying statements to myself and Trump that we did not make. No one said kick out the muslims. A smart immigration policy in no way infringes on freedom. Since you stated yourself a large enough percentage of the population could vote away their liberties entirely a smart immigration policy is necessary to ensure those liberties.
            Then there is the argument that if there were 50 million muslims intent on destroying western society it would be destroyed. The United States invaded 2 countries and destroyed any organized military resistance within weeks and if you believe the estimates killed 600,000 people based on one attack. The one thing even Jihadists fear is the death of their family. Western civilization could kill 50 million people in 10 minutes. If western civilization were actually in danger my guess it would use nuclear strikes on some nation or several to make it clear that no Jhadist’s family would live if they didn’t stand down. The idea was always that they could break the US by turning the left against any war. Which they did of course and now things are worse but the left still blames Bush. But I digress, my point is it seems like a silly argument. The number is not the number who would actually do jihad anyway it’s the number who support it. That’s troubling.
            So had I actually argued for kicking out all the muslims and it wasn’t just an overreach on your part I would ironically enough agree with you that it is a threat. I do agree with you that fundamentalism is also a threat in any form, except maybe Buddhism but I’m not sure about that. Although a true Christian fundamentalist wouldn’t be concerned about the actions of others they would just go around tending to the poor and needy. Humanist secularists are just a big a threat since they are your Bernie people.
            Since there was plenty of Jihad prior to any invasion it would stand to reason it isn’t about get out of our nation. It’s about a whole host of things, and according to Bin Laden himself very few had anything to do with US military presence in any muslim nation. That’s just some Noam Chomsky style disinformation.
            Arming people doesn’t mean they get an inexhaustible supply of ammunition so I don’t really get your point about arming the mujahideen in a situation where zealots were fighting zealots and a choice had to be made between the lesser of two evils. It just again sounds pretty Chomskyesque.
            So perhaps your farts should do a little further reading, maybe even take a course in logic.

          • Adam Mygrants

            Well put. Some might say when it comes to logic, my farts stink.

          • Steve Palmer

            Actually it was not just because they were Japanese. It was because of shintoism. One of the 2 religions Hitler admired most, along with islam, because it allowed people to kill with zealotry by making the Emperor’s will all mighty. Meanwhile the Emperor was calling on them to commit sabotage.
            And which was it were they American citizens or Japanese citizens? The correct answer is the first generation were Japanese citizens and could not get US citizenship. As far as the second and third generations, since being born on US soil to foreign parents does not make one a citizen I do not know what their status was. I do know what revisionists claim it was however.

          • Nungwa

            No one stopped to question Japanese citizens as to how many generations they had been here. They simply rounded up the Asians and shipped them off to internment camps. It didn’t even matter if they weren’t Japanese.

          • Steve Palmer

            That’s nonsense. There are detailed records. Not only of the internment but of the Japanese immigration that preceded it. Your husband’s a history professor you say?

          • Nungwa

            My husband taught military history. Filipinos and Chinese were included in the roundup.

            Look it up.

          • Steve Palmer

            I have looked it up ever since it was presented to me in college as an example of how horrible the US is. There is no first person account and no primary source that says Filipinos or Chinese were in any “Roundup.” Since the Issei could not gain citizenship in the US there was very good records of the Japanese people who were here. They and their descendants were the people ordered to report, not rounded up. There was special focus on the Japanese because the first generation were not citizens and, like I said, because of Shintoism and the devastating effect it had at Pearl Harbor.
            Meanwhile Japan did the same thing to British and Americans in Japan. The only difference being they ended up killing most of them.
            There has never been a nation on earth that has been more accommodating and welcoming to immigrants and gotten less credit for it. Islam is a political ideology that has it’s roots in warfare. Year one of the muslim calendar is the year Mohammed conquered Mecca. It has always been about warfare, dominance and power. The church had passage paid for Assyrian and Coptic Christians as well as placement and jobs all lined up and ready. These are the people being slaughtered and in the most danger as they can’t even stay in the refugee camps for fear of violence from muslims. Instead of fast tracking the visas Obama got on TV and preached to us about a religion test. If people were so appalled about a baker refusing to bake a gay cake those people might be safe right now.

          • DocD

            These are individual wack jobs, not a small group of Islamists who despise the whole way of life here. Including women’s right, gay rights, etc….

            Not the same. Evil and violence will always use excuse. But the scale is not even close…come on…

          • Nungwa

            And they’re still mass shootings. What about the violence done against Muslims?

          • heatherGirl

            I do not recall anyone shouting anything while committing any of these crimes that link their actions to their religion.
            You seem to confuse a violent act by someone who happens to be of particular religion, with someone who self identifies that they committed the act in the name of the religion!
            No one in any of the cases you identified was yelling anything like “Allah is Great”.
            But hey, it was a nice try. You get a few points for being a devote liberal loon.

          • Nungwa

            Thank you for making my point.

          • Guy Daley

            Individual murders do not count. EXTREMELY dishonest to say that. It would be very easy to counter with actual mass murders going back to the Munich Olympics.

            What is this notion that it is 100% necessary to import Islam, at taxpayers expense, when we are broke and 19 trillion in debt? WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THAT?

          • Nungwa

            Read what I wrote again. Go ahead and have the last word, I won’t respond.

          • BJMoose666

            Speaking of last word you got any info on Taco or Logic. They seem to have disappeared. I did FB msg you earlier on this. Ta. Vermont here we come!!

          • Nungwa

            No idea. I think I’ve seen Logic recently, but I can’t remember when I last saw Taco.

          • BJMoose666

            Thanks

          • wowlikewow

            yeah, the boston bombers…..

          • PaulV

            Nonsense.

          • Nungwa

            You’re wrong.

          • PaulV

            Prove this! What evidence do you have? How do you make a such an ignorant statement when there are thousands being killed by radical Islamists right now. 11 of them killed 3000 in America on 9/11.

          • Steve Palmer

            If you are so disgusted that you live in a nation of cowards then why not travel to Nigeria to minister to the refugees instead of sitting on a keyboard extolling your own virtue and demanding that others put their families at greater risk? You’re opinions are meaningless, your facts are manufactured and your bravery is limited to talking big on the internet. So keep it to yourself.

          • Nungwa

            Pot meet kettle. I suggest you take your own advice.

          • Steve Palmer

            After that reply you wonder why I use the word infant.

          • Nungwa

            I don’t wonder why you use the term. I just find it interesting that you don’t think that’s ad hominem.

            But that’s on you. Have a nice day.

          • Steve Palmer

            I suppose you have to present the rules to people then in advanced. If you have issue with what you perceive to be ad hominem but are perfectly fine with continuously attempting to impugn others intelligence and knowledge you need to make it clear in advance, especially when you continuously present falsehood as fact.

          • Nungwa

            It was presented to you in advance. It’s called the Terms of Service Agreement.

            So you should probably stop presenting falsehood as fact.

          • Steve Palmer

            So is this the tactic when calling someone a bigot fails to shut down the debate? You go to the old standby of a variation of “I’m rubber, you’re glue?” You know adults called that projection.

          • Nungwa

            Yes we do. What do you call it?

            You’ve been attempting to resurrect a thread that is two months old. Whatever.

          • Steve Palmer

            And now in lieu of any logical argument you reduce it to the response of a pissy teen by saying whatever. While I may be “resurrecting” a two month old thread it doesn’t appear that you have had any second thoughts about presenting a litany of disinformation within that time so it’s kind of like you are arguing that since eugenics is an old theory people shouldn’t argue against it anymore.

          • Nungwa

            Have fun arguing with yourself. You can have the last word. It’s clear it’s important to you.

        • Malik Al Rahim

          Seems to me that organized religion is the problem. We should abolish all of them. I don’t believe Jesus or any prophet was bound by the dogma of religion but a relationship with their creator.

          • DocD

            Jesus didn’t extol his followers to rape children, enslave women, and behead or burn people alive.

            9-11 shouldn’t be forgotten.

            It can happen again, on a larger scale. And then what?

          • Malik Al Rahim

            Nor did Mohammad.
            All wars since the beginning of time are due to the dogmas of organized religion. As I wrote, the prophets of these popular religions never promoted these killings but a relationship with their creator be it Allah, God or The Great Spirit of the Native Americans.
            I am not ‘religious’ nor do I have an allegiance to any ‘faith’. I believe we are all gods and as such are responsible for our own actions. Religions are a crutch that gives often reasonable individuals a reason, or permission, to do something they may not do otherwise. It controls weak minded people.
            I’m sure we disagree on why and who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks and yes it can happen again just as Oklahoma City can happen again.
            Crazy and weak minded people will always be an issue as will patriots that believe in freedom and desire to overthrow an out of control government. As long as humans live on earth there will be conflicts.
            We as a people must learn to talk to each other without the veil of religion influencing our dialogue.
            I’m rambling a little DocD and I’m guilty of hating someone for the smallest of reasons, like littering or smoking. But, I believe if we hate a people as a whole for the actions of a few we are doing them and ourselves a grave disservice.

          • DocD

            Nor do I.
            However, proper caution is reasonable. That isn’t hate.
            People have a right to speak out and expect the total loyalty of their leaders to protect their homeland.
            What is happening is real.
            The weak minded individuals can also be ruthless and terrifying. On a large scale.

            We cannot let kumbaya for all be our destruction…Sometimes hard decisions must be made that will “hurt” someone on either side.

            However, if you don’t agree, that does not make it hate. No one should strike back at Muslims living in their communities. That is hate.

            Although I’d like to turn on the news and see large throngs of Muslims demonstrating against Isis and definitively saying this is abhorrent. It’s quiet out there…
            That isn’t helping the perception of the wacko’s…

          • Malik Al Rahim

            I really don’t know what the answer is to this issue. I’m certainly not a kumbaya person. Even Gandhi believed in proper self defense and preparation in case of violence. I am very prepared for virtually anything short of a nuclear warhead being dropped on my property. There is nothing about due diligence that I disagree with.

            My original comment was to say that ‘organized religion’ of any kind is a dangerous proposition at best and should be abolished, IMHO. Muslim, Christian, Jew, Catholic or what ever you want to call yourself (the royal ‘you’ of course). Although anytime a group of like minded individuals decide to be a force for good or bad they may be quite a force to be reckoned with to be sure. I would imagine your perspective would determine whether that group is good or bad.

            My perspective is that money unfortunately rules the world. Until those that influence the governments and religions of the world with that money are dealt with, we will continue to be involved in a ruse that divides the people with fear of other people. If the people of the world are afraid of the people of the world they can’t or won’t join together to fight the real threat.

          • Steve Palmer

            Mohammed was a warlord. He was the general of a band of brigands who attacked caravans. He tells his followers how to kill and who to kill. He tells them they can rape those their right hand possesses and that they should get them pregnant. The first year of the muslim calendar is the year mohammed conquered mecca. It’s all a political ideology to unify and conquer. Just like Nazism. If the Nazis had been able to last a couple centuries people would be arguing if it is or isn’t a religion of peace in the future.

        • Guy Daley

          The importation of Islam is to further the agenda of gun control. Note that after every episode, San Bernardino shootings, Boston bombings, the Democrats are standing by with PRE-prepared legislation to propose for more gun/ammo/2nd amendment abuse. Why is it that so few can see this?

      • renegadesix

        Wonder how you’re feeling about your “chances of them getting it wrong are remote” comment after the Department of Homeland Security failed to properly vet Tashfeen Malik?

        Regarding point three, we can’t deport American citizens. We CAN refuse to import foreign terrorists. You draw a false equivalency here. Your chances of being killed by a foreign terrorist drop to ZERO if the government doesn’t import any of them.

        • Catherine

          But you may deport a Naturalized U.S. Citizen

      • Guy Daley

        No the odds are that its going to be a Muslim or some kid that is on those prescription pills which have nasty side affects.

    • Rory Stolzenberg

      >2. Regarding Myth #3 – Who here believes that a UN agency and the US State Department under Obama are going to get it right 100% of the time? A success rate of %99.9 means that there’s still a chance that 10 out of 10,000 could slip through.

      This is not good statistics.

      Let’s do the math. We’ll ignore Type I errors (false positives – incorrectly rejecting someone), because they don’t really affect us here. I’ll assume a 99.9% success rate on catching the terrorist; i.e. all of the errors are Type II (false negative, where we let a terrorist in). Those errors occur on 0.1% of all applications.

      Let’s make a (very) generous assumption that 10% of refugee applicants are terrorists. In our pool of 10,000, that gives us 1,000 terrorists. With a 0.1% false negative rate, that gives us 999 rejected and just *one* terrorist admitted inappropriately, not 10.

      Of course 10% is an insane assumption given Brian’s point that only 22% of them are military-aged men (also, most of his other points). If you drop that number to something more sane, like 1 in 20 military aged men (or 1% of the applicants) we’re left with a 10% chance that any single terrorist at all could gain admission – and we’d still have every chance of catching him through our ordinary counter-terror policework.

      Not exactly an existential threat.

      • Stephen Spiker

        Why would we assume that 10% of refugees are terrorists? Why would we assume any of them are? If you’re a terrorist, there are far, far easier ways of entering this country than registering with the UNHCR and waiting for 12 to 18 months for a background check.

        • Rory Stolzenberg

          Oh don’t get me wrong, I was using (extremely) generous numbers to illustrate the point – that even with a huge percentage of terrorists in the pool, high failure rates like .1% don’t really lead to negative consequences. If we assume any remotely reasonable figure, the odds of any negative events become vanishingly small.

          • Warmac9999

            Here is a bit of analogy. When you swim with a large population of great white sharks, you are much more likely to get bitten than if you swim with a population of guppies. You can fiddle with statistics all you want but when that one hungry sharks decide to eat you, it is a bit to late to say “No, eat Spikey. He is tastier.”

          • Rory Stolzenberg

            No, it’s more like swimming in one big ocean where there might be a shark or two. But sure, live your life afraid of swimming because of vanishingly improbable events. That’s what the terrorists want you to do.

          • Warmac9999

            Sharks are not distributed evenly throughout the ocean. They tend to concentrate where there is food. Australia has shark barriers for protecting swimmers in shark infested waters. Sort of like border control.

          • Jeff Mo

            So, in your analogy, wouldn’t this issue be like complaining about the danger of swimming *inside* the shark barriers?

          • Warmac9999

            Would you be comfortable swimming inside the shark barrier if it was sufficiently full of holes that a great white could get in. The illusion of a barrier isn’t the same as a barrier. The illusion of a closed border isn’t the same as a closed border.

          • Stephen Spiker

            And a barrier doesn’t have holes in it just because you think it does.

          • Jeff Mo

            Stephen calls out the obvious unfounded assumption in your reply. I’d add that people who have actually identified holes can try to fix them, or point them out to someone who can. Or, one can raise alarms about speculative holes.

          • Warmac9999

            I use an analogy and you apparently have trouble with the distinction. As far as raising an alarm, a Syrian refugee disappeared from a refugee camp in Louisiana. The response by the Obama administration – no big deal, he is reportedly just going to DC to visit family.

          • Jeff Mo

            “I use an analogy and you apparently have trouble with the distinction.”

            LOL. Cute.

    • DocD

      Damn right…

      The major crimes committed by Islamist were ALL COMMITTED BY YOUNG MUSLIM MEN. Nearly every single one. And it just takes a few. Look at 9-11 (12 people), Paris (8)…

      The difference between refugee, VISA, came here as a child, or any other source makes no difference to me.

      My main concern is EUROPE. We vet them as well as can be done. No way can Europe vet at all hundreds of thousands that are NOT, btw ASKING to come into the heart of the WEST. They are forcing there way in.

      That isn’t refugee, that is invasion.

    • Adam Mygrants

      My humble opinion:
      1: Worth considering, though pushing our way on other nations is something I generally oppose. “screw it, I’ll go to America” seems like a rational idea for a citizen of those nations.
      2: Of course they can’t get it right all the time, but to bar 10,000 people outright without consideration seems like a good reason for all 10,000 to hate us and wish ill on us. That seems more harmful than the possibility of a few extremists getting in. We have plenty of bad apples in our own nation. If we actually were the good guys we seem to think we are, they might change their ways once here.
      3: True, but that also applies to our own citizens. They are not particularly compelled by being refugees. …unless we follow that #1 issue and stick our military nose into the issue.

    • Guy Daley

      Importing Islam = Importing terror = More gun control and restriction of American liberties and freedoms = Guaranteed.

      We have mega armchair warriors that think if we spend trillions killing in the middle east, we will stop the terror over there. And yet, we’re importing it voluntarily. Just like the 9/11 bombings. We gave the Saudi Arabians a fistful of visas. Whats the point of the perpetual war when we IMPORT IT VOLUNTARILY?

  • Tom E

    Boston Bombing aside, there have been 4 instances of refugees engaged in terrorist activity in America.

    1) a UZbek male in Idaho convicted of supporting Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in Summer 2015.

    2) two Iraqi refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky whose fingerprints were a match to an IED in Iraq. One admitted in federal court in 2012 to attacking US troops in Iraq.

    3) two of the 6
    fort dix 6 plot were refugees

    4) roughly half of the 6 individuals from Bosnia arrested in Chicago in Feb 2015 for material support to ISIS were refugees.

    It’s not just Syrians who pose a threat and highlight the refugee immigration vulnerability, it is the Bosnians, Iraqis ….and Somalis too….

    • Again, none of them have committed an act of terror in the United States. In each of those situations they were caught and dealt with by law enforcement before they could commit and acts of terror here. That’s the system working as it should.

      • Kevin Kent

        Wow, total intellectual dishonesty. Technically you’re right, but only because the authorities caught them. It’s amazing intellectual dishonesty.

        • What’s intellectually dishonest about it? It’s fact.

          I’m not arguing here for or against these refugees. I’m trying to correct the record.

          • Stephen Spiker

            It’s dishonest because it’s a fact that disproves his opinion, and is therefore invalid.

          • Kevin Kent

            Wrong. Facts without context can be completely misleading. I was misled by the article–my reading was that the refugee screening process has successfully prevented terrorists from entering the United States because they’ve never carried out a terrorist attack. If the context had been pared with that fact then I, the reader, would have come to a different conclusion from the one the author tries to (mis)lead you to.

          • Kevin Kent

            It’s intellectually dishonest because your statement in the article makes it sound like refugees pose no terror threat by saying they’ve never carried out a terrorist attack. Well, they’ve never carried out an attack because they’ve been stopped before they could…It would be intellectually honest to pare both facts together.

          • You’re drawing an inference that’s not there.

            And I edited the post.

          • joen131

            Fact- according to immigration agents that actually do the interviewing of refugees trying to enter the US, through the years thousands and thousands of refugees have come here with absolutely no verifiable documentation (given that many have been uplifted from their homes with little time to take anything, that would make sense-also allows them to lie if they opt to) – they have no paperwork and have still been allowed in – as for the UN approving the refugees documentation-they usually have no better idea of who these people really are than we do – yet because of political winds going one way or the other the agents are told to accept as true what the UN has said is so – the UN has a definite interest in getting rid of refugees from camps overseen by the UN. Eases their tremendous burden. If you think the UN really cares that much about who enters the US- I have a bridge you may want to purchase. A refugee can tell you his/her name is so and so-without documentation- how do you verify. Oh right-the honorable UN has vetted them and given them documents that may or may not be valid. Of course they become “valid” because the UN says they are- not based on any verifiable records-we ALL know how reliable the UN is (Not), many countries that we take refugees from are our enemies-do you really think we can get full cooperation from them- as was done by Castro- any country at odds with us could pass off their “undesirables” or their own “soldiers” posing as refugees with the intent of infiltrating and causing destruction in the US. It’s bad enough when “criminals” are allowed in, they cause pain and suffering here, but allowing terrorists in raises the stakes to a much higher level. Yes-it may seem “cruel” to be so vigilant against “refugees” and possible terrorists, but the way I see it – we are not playing do-overs- or oops! If you make the wrong decision an American can die-or thousands- I for one don’t want to put it up to chance- and then have to say to those who lost loved ones “we’re sorry” we “mis-spoke”. (That’s PC for Lied in case I confused anyone.) You may opt to believe the politicos- I prefer to believe the people on the ground actually doing the vetting, as well as the heads of the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security(which The Department of Immigration is a part of), and THEY are telling me it’s impossible to properly vet these refugees. Syria’s infrastructure is in ruins – we are at odds with what’s left of the Syrian government. Draw your own conclusions, but in today’s world of weapons capable of killing thousands at once, you don’t have to let in a thousand “mistakes” One mistake will do- as we saw-8 people in Paris did a pretty disgusting job of killing a lot of people.
            Yeah, yeah, seems most might have been French/Belgian citizens – doesn’t mean it’s prudent to invite more un-vetted “folks” in to help them out – as some of them also took part in the mayhem.

          • If they can’t be vetted, why do you assume they’re going to be let In?

      • Tom E

        How can you minimize conspriring and plotting? Are you really differentiating between commiting terrorists act IN the US and OUTSIDE? Certainly the US military personnel who were victims of Iraqi refugees bombings don’t differentiate. You should be ashamed.

        • These folks were caught. Most were stopped other, than #2, in any attacks at all, let alone attacks on Americans.

          The issue here is the belief that letting in refugees will result, inevitably, in an attack by refugees on US soil. That has not yet happened. The system is working as it’s supposed to. Having their information, fingerprints, whereabouts and being able to monitor them has kept them from killing Americans in America, which is the entire point of what we’re talking about, isn’t it?

          • renegadesix

            No one here on expired visas had flown airplanes into buildings prior to 9/10/01 either. Your apparent response, is “oh well, I hope they fixed it.”

            I don’t have that kind of faith in the government, I’m a real conservative.

      • Warmac9999

        Those recruiters in Chattanooga are dead because of this logic. You believe terrorism is a crime, and that is really quite dangerous.

    • Warmac9999

      The numbers are higher. I posted 20 examples in a previous post on the bearing drift website. Believe it was in the “war” one with over a 110 posts.

    • Stephen Spiker

      “Roughly half of six”.

      So…. two?

      • Tom E

        Google “bosnian refugees arrested Chicago” and lots of news articles come up. Half were naturalized US citizens. Other half was lawful permanent residents and refugees. I will look for the indictment. Oh wait, why would I do that? They were JUST indicted for material supoort. No big deal. Barely a crime according to Mr Schoeneman. the news articles say 2 of the 6 also conspired to kill and maim persons in a foreign country. But again, that is really just for frills and we shouldnt worry about it because it didnt happen IN AMERICA. Right Mr Schoeneman?

        • Right. The issue we are discussing is the potential for refugees to commit acts of violence in the United States like what happened in France.

          • Tom E

            Ok so if 2 Iraqi refugees come to the US and settle in Bowling Green, Kentucky and it is later determined their fingerprint was on an IED in Iraq, would you agree with me that they are familiar with bomb making? And that they planted bombs in Iraq? Do you think they forgot how to make bombs when they came to America? How long do you think it took DOD to find the IED, dismantle it, render t inert, probably triple check the bomb components did not work before they flew it to TEDAC to be fingerprinted? How long do you think it took TEDAC to reassemble and fingerprint it? All that probably took years. Do you know if ISD fingerprints are now standard part of the refuee processing? I dont but hope so. Do you think a refugee who planted bombs could enter the US as a refugee when TEDAC is working on fingerprinting bomb parts? The final question is the only one I can answer yes to.

          • Warmac9999

            and, of course, the finger print may have nothing to do with an IED if the IED came from a collection of old computer parts – at least that is the way the left would spin it. There is really no reasoning with those who will not reason.

          • Tom E

            I realize that. I am sure his conviction was a hoax and his admission in court that he bombed American troops was coerced. His arrest was just for propaganda. If he gets a retrial and a change of jurisdiction, maybe he can go east to Virginia where the fine political leaders will welcome him with open arms and congratulate him for being such a stellar refugee

          • Warmac9999

            So much of the defense of allowing refugees into the USA ignores the worldwide aspects of terrorism. As Brian said above, we are discussing the potential for refugees to commit violence in the USA. To me, that is why you keep them out. But the other side ignores the potential and basically says you shouldn’t keep them out until they commit an act of violence in the USA even if they have killed US soldiers in Iraq. The logic escapes me but that is the logic of the left. The lefts logic really becomes utterly insane when they say “well, they didn’t actually kill someone, they were just supporting the killing or planning the killing”.

          • Stephen Spiker

            The logic is that your chances of dying in everyday life are far greater than dying in a terrorist attack, and your chances of dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee are as great as your chances of dying by being eaten by a shark and being hit by a meteor at the same time.

            You would use the “life is scary” card to turn your back on families and children who are trying to escape being executed.

          • Tom, i am not familiar with the story you’re telling. How do we know that they were the ones who created the bomb and not simply people who came into contact with a component before it was assembled? I don’t care to run down this rabbit hole of suppositions and speculation.

            The facts are the facts – none of these refugees have killed anyone on US soil, and according to CATO only 3 have ever been convicted of plotting overseas attacks.

            That’s three out of 800k some refugees. Come on now. Be fair. Do you really think this is a legitimate threat that deserves this much debate?

          • Tom E

            Yes I do think the national security of the US is worthy of debate from a credible threat. you seem to what to gloss over the threat and are splitting hairs, thus the continued debate. I am happy to have this conversation. TEDAC does some wonderful things I am will highlight that in separate post and explain the Kentucky situation, which is very important. After all, it calls into question the extent of vetting, which is an item you have listed as a myth. So I am sure you will agree that it is material and worthy of discussion. Maybe your constituents will benefit too becaue TEDAC is in Virginia and lots of military live in VA. I am sure they are all happy to hear of your strong stance on national security matters.

          • I’m not glossing over the threat. I think the threat of foreign terrorists getting to the US and hitting us here is very real, and since I live in Northern Virginia and spend most of my time in an office with a sightline to the White House and on Capitol Hill, the threat of terrorism affects me more than most.

            That’s why I want our attention spent in areas where the threat is more real because the process is easier to get through. The refugee process isn’t. You’ve got two Iraqi refugees out of 800k that have been let in over the years who’ve been convicted for terror plotting, and the plot wasn’t here. That’s a pretty good track record.

            Can we improve the vetting? Sure. We should be doing that all the time. Should we give more scrutiny to folks now because of what happened and because the public is demanding it? Sure. But to argue that there is no vetting or the vetting isn’t that good because two in 800k got through just doesn’t make sense.

            Shutting the whole process down looks to me like surrender. And I don’t want us doing that.

          • renegadesix

            See, when it comes to American lives, I demand PERFECTION. If they can’t give it, then they shouldn’t be letting anyone in.

  • edrebber

    This article cites radical left wing sources, who have lied to us repeatedly.

    The New York Times
    The Washington Post
    The State Department

    The article is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain declaring peace in our time. How can this site claim to be a Conservative voice, when they use partisan left wing hacks as their sources.

    • Those are all credible news outlets. If you don’t believe them, there is nothing anybody can write that you will believe.

      • edrebber

        The repeatedly lied about Obamacare, Benghazi, Weapons of mass destruction, IRS and Veterans Hospitals. They are not credible sources.

        • Jeff Mo

          And you are?

        • Stephen Spiker

          LOL! You’re great at political humor!

        • Warmac9999

          I understand your point. You cannot just depend on the Post or the Times, or even the information coming from the State Department to be well informed.

      • Warmac9999

        Brian: The sources are big city and government sources. There is a new media out their that is quite credible – newsmax, breitbart, blaze all have both national and international presence and cable channel coverage. Fox News and WSJ are certainly credible. I happen to like the UK news – guardian and daily mail. The NY Times and the Washington Post were, at one time, the only news fit to print. Now there are alternative sources that are quite credible and often have articles that the Times and Post will duck for what appears to be political reasons. I don’t just read the Post and expect to be well informed, and all too often I find that I am being misinformed when I consider the totality of all the news sources.

        • Stephen Spiker

          And this speaks to the reason why political discourse is worse than ever. There used to be objectives facts to fall back upon. Now there’s objective facts on one side, versus people who reject objective facts because they don’t like it and read Breitbart instead.

          • Warmac9999

            Hey, Spikey, how about this:

            News outlets across the western hemisphere are reporting that five Syrians with stolen Greek passports were arrested in Honduras. The Central American nation has historically been an integral segment of the clandestine journey from the Middle East and North Africa into the United States. All five appear to be young males. Another Syrian was caught previously in recent days, but authorities have not revealed any information about that individual.

            The United Nations (UN) warned in 2013 that “irregular migrants” were traveling from the Horn of Africa to Central and South America and then utilizing the same routes that Central Americans and Mexicans use to illegally enter the United States. They referred to Mexico as a “global pathway” from the terror-laden region.

            Nicaragua’s La Prensa first reported on the matter and wrote that the five Syrians flew in to the Toncontin airport in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on Tuesday shortly after 8 p.m.–they all had stolen Greek passports.

            La Prensa also reported that last week Honduran authorities had previously caught another Syrian.

            According to Honduras’ La Tribuna, Baca stated that the five men are expected to face forgery charges in Honduras.

            Oh, this was from Breitbart so it must be totally wrong. Nothing to worry about.

          • This has nothing to do with the refugee argument. These guys were trying to get here illegally, not through the refugee process. This stuff is still going to happen, regardless of that process. I’m glad the Hondurans stopped them.

            And this was also reported in the mainstream press.

          • Warmac9999

            You know why it was reported in the MSM? They could no longer suppress it. I would ask how many have already come across the border. If the NY Times is so great, how about investigative journalism regarding the border situation. Why is that left to Blaze or Breitbart?

          • It was reported because it was news.

          • larrd

            Sure it has something to do with the refugee argument. It’s very good evidence that Syrians are trying to illegally gain entry into the U.S.

          • Not through the refugee process. And it reinforces my point that there are other ways, legal and illegal, that terrorists would more likely use to enter the country than this program.

          • larrd

            They’re likely trying it through every process they can identify.

            It’s best to be careful. Nothing wrong with stepping back and re-evaluating.

          • Stephen Spiker

            No, they’re likely using the easiest methods available to them. Again, this isn’t something we have to guess about.

            And yes, there is something wrong with unnecessarily delaying help for families and children that need it. Imagine that conversation to a female-led household.

            “Sorry, ma’am. You’re going to have to wait for your resettlement. There was a security threat.”
            “Oh no, did a Syrian refugee blow himself up?”
            “No, but a few Syrians were caught at the border.”
            “Why would a refugee be sneaking in?”
            “They weren’t refugees.”
            “Oh. But they were caught sneaking into the U.S.?”
            “No, they were caught in Honduras. It’s this whole other country.”
            “Oh. But they were terrorists, right?”
            “It’s unclear. They’re being held on forgery charges.”
            “So what’s the threat then?”
            “You and your children, obviously.”

          • larrd

            No, they’re likely trying all avenues.

            The families in question are safe and secure and don’t need refuge any more than the other 3 billion Earthlings living in abject poverty, etc.

            “I’m an imbecile hack.”

            “Then you better keep your comments to yourself”

            “No, I’m going to broadcast them over the internet”

            “What kind of idiot would knowingly be an imbecile hack on the internet?”

            “I’m Stephen Spiker!”

          • Stephen Spiker

            If wanting to help people and hurt ISIS makes me an imbecile hack in your eyes, then sign me up. I see no benefit to being viewed positively by you.

          • larrd

            Taking in refugees doesn’t hurt ISIS, as far as I can tell. It may even have the potential to help ISIS, which is the main question, isn’t it? It’s best to make sure that isn’t the case before proceeding.

            I see no benefit in persuading you to see benefit in being seen positively by me!

          • This sort of helps make Spiker’s case that we needn’t worry much about terrorists infiltrating through the refugee system, which can take years and expose them to capture if they fail the background checks. Instead, they’ll use other methods, like entering through more legal channels, perhaps using fake passports.

          • Steve Palmer

            It doesn’t sort of do any such thing. It illustrates that they are already trying to enter.

        • And I linked to those sites, when they weren’t wrong. Breitbart did get one thing right about the Governor’s responsibility.

          I went to the papers of record who were citing State Department and other information. I went to primary sources. I went to CRS. I quoted the law. I just don’t know what else you want.

          • Stephen Spiker

            They want sites that don’t publish things that they disagree with, or otherwise challenges their opinions. Primarily, they want validation for being angry.

          • MD Russ

            Very true, Stephen. In the former Soviet Union the official outlet for the Communist Party line was “Pravda.” That is Russian for “Truth.” (It is also an excellent vodka made in Poland.)

          • Warmac9999

            I spent a year and a half on the Huffington Post. I became a pundit with lots of followers and no friends (I wonder why). From what I read here, I doubt that any of you have bothered to look at those scandalous WND and INFOWARs or, God forbid, American Thinker or Conservative Treehouse (which actually broke a major story regarding a racist attack on two white teenagers)

          • Warmac9999

            Another one for Spikey. I am in a generous mood today.

            From the Daily Mail today

            America’s ‘enemies within’: How nearly SEVENTY have been arrested in America over ISIS plots in last 18 months – including refugees who had been given safe haven but ‘turned to terror’

            Federal and local law enforcement agencies have made dozens of arrests of men and women suspected of ISIS involvement

            Analysis shows that they include refugees who entered the United States as refugees

            Increasing pressure from Republicans not to accept refugees from Syria on scale demanded by White House

            Ted Cruz plans to introduce legislation forbidding refugee status to Syrian Muslims and moves also under way to defund settling refugees

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html#ixzz3rsyReABD

            Another well written though rather long article.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Here’s another worthy article featuring news on Hillary Clinton you won’t read in the LAMESTREAM media:

            http://www.nationalenquirer.com/real-life/how-chronic-disease-could-end-hillary-clintons-white-house-run

          • Warmac9999

            From the Daily Caller: Two can play at your game.

            Dozens of the U.S. citizens arrested in recent years on terror-related charges are immigrants admitted to the United States legally who later obtained citizenship.

            More than 70 U.S. residents have been publicly arrested and charged with conspiring to help, attempting to help, or actually helping terror networks such as Islamic State in recent years. At least 15 of them received U.S. citizenship after being admitted to the country legally, including one of the Boston bombers. (RELATED: U.S. Refugee Chief Didn’t Know Boston Bombers Were Refugees)

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/at-least-15-us-citizen-terrorists-are-also-legal-immigrants/#ixzz3rtJAsaLy

          • Stephen Spiker

            You know this helps my case, right? If we’re seeing US citizens become radicalized, then maybe building 100-foot-high walls and turning our backs on people in need won’t actually make us any safer. What then? Banning the free exchange of ideas so no one else becomes radicalized?

            If you want absolute security provided by the state, the closest you can get is North Korea.

          • Steve Palmer

            So your case is that “people in need” can either get what they want from us or force it upon us is that correct? Hitler was in need of Poland is that why Chamberlin let him have it and we had peace in Europe after that?

          • ChinTurret

            Care to elaborate on what “Christian” database Cruz wants to use in the vetting of refugees? Screw the bigot.

          • Warmac9999

            You don’t have to use official databases. You go to the priests and rabbis and ask if someone can be confirmed as part of their congregation. Not a perfect solution but certainly better than relying on what is admittedly nothing.

          • ChinTurret

            Are you kidding!!? Are you seriously advocating for a screening by priests before someone can enter this Country? Boy, Trump has empowered the nut jobs to take to voice, that’s all I can say.

          • Warmac9999

            If you actually go to church, you will quickly realize that the priest, minister, rabbi gets to know who is in his congregation. This is a far better screening process than a bunch of nothingness that is masquerading as something. The CIA, FBI, etc has already said that there is no syrian data base available for screening purposes. I simply argue that if you at least let Christian Syrians and Jewish Syrians in they can be screened by their Syrian religious leaders. No such thing can be done for Syrian muslims because their Imams are part of the problem not part of the solution. I note that the CIA has said, as reported in the news today, that they couldn’t even find 100 Syrian muslims they trusted with a gun – yet here we are letting them in.

          • ChinTurret

            You haven’t read this blog post. The claims of no database is bogus. And I am still shocked you think a priest should be involved in this. What of those who are atheists? Or those who don’t want to reveal what religion they are. All this is protected by the Constitution. Are you re-interpreting the Constitution? Maybe you should start there and then work backwards.

          • Warmac9999

            Syrians have no constitutional rights in America. They are being allowed to enter based on some prior established criteria which includes the ability to vet them lest they be enemy combatants. Too bad for the atheists as nobody can speak for them. Too bad for those who are unwilling to state their religion. To bad for the good muslims who have been damaged by their brethren. Life is tough, particularly life for infidels in any muslim country. And if you think the genocidal slaughter of Christians is acceptable, then you are a monster.

            The claim of no data basis isn’t mine, it comes from a government authority who should know. A blog post is certainly not authoritative.

          • “Syrians have no constitutional rights in America.”

            I thought the Creator endows rights, not the State. Doesn’t this mean our rights apply to everyone?

          • Warmac9999

            Those are unalienable not constitutional. Our rights apply to our citizens not to the entire world.

          • I’m curious to hear more about your “inalienable v constitutional” distinction.

            Do all humans have a right to free religious practice, speech, self defense, and protection from government? Or only those who codified those rights into a governing document applied to a specific geographic location?

            Rights either come from God or they don’t. If they do, Syrians have the same ones we do. If they don’t, rights have no objective basis, and the People, through the State, may abridge or change them.

          • Steve Palmer

            Yes Syrian muslims have inalienable rights granted by the creator. One of them is not a claim to US soil. Either way the establishment clause does not have anything to do with barring entry to the US based on religion. It has to do with… wait for it… ESTABLISHING one.

          • Warmac9999

            You do understand the difference between a constitutional right and a natural right I presume.t

          • I asked you first. Do rights exist as objective moral foundations endowed by a Creator? Or do they depend on social compacts codified in constitutions?

          • Steve Palmer

            Yes it’s called the people who can’t stay in the refugee camps out of fear of being killed because they are not muslim. Then there is the church who already applied for visas for the Christians being slaughtered and paid for their passage and housing just to get turned down by obama’s state department.

          • Warmac9999

            Primary sources I like. I think the law is appropriate as well. Government sources with this president have become unreliable and that is a big shame.

            My only point is there is a big world out there and what was once the best in the world is now just another source among many and has to be treated with as much skepticism as some are treating the likes of breitbart just because it takes a more conservative slant on the news. I have to review at least a dozen different sites to get a complete story without the ridicule and word smithing.

          • If you think INFOWARS gives you more reliable information that The Washington Post, you operate with a very special kind of cognitive dissonance.

        • MD Russ

          You left out Stormfront.

          • Warmac9999

            You keep using this and I have no idea what stormfront is. Apparently, you think that it discredits everything other than the NY Times and the Washington Post. Get out of the beltway.

            I feel better now. That Bizarro Russ agreement was messing with my head.

        • ChinTurret

          Fox credible!? A one way political opinion factory does not make for a credible source on anything.

          • Warmac9999

            Let’s see. CNBC utterly butchered a Republican debate because they were so obviously biased that even a democrat could see it. And, of course, MSNBC and NBC are absolutely straight down the middle. Fox is at least as credible as these organization but yet you probably watch them religiously (well not religiously but secularly).

          • Nungwa

            No, it really isn’t.

    • Stephen Spiker

      Ha! This is pretty good satire. A+ work.

    • MD Russ

      Time to change the tinfoil in your cap there, edrebber.

      • Warmac9999

        Time to upgrade. We are now using composite structures as it give greater protection while, at the same time, more information sources.

      • edrebber

        Time to take off the rose colored glasses MD Russ.

  • Warmac9999

    I wonder how many who post here know about the history of the 20th century. Limbaugh had a nice rundown today. Here are some of the things he said:

    (1) We have banned refugees before because of terrorism. He mentioned the Sacco/Vanzetti trial and the anarchist movement.
    (2) Religion can be considered in immigration or deportation proceedings. This is in the US statutes.
    (3) The anarchist movement is alive and well today with organizations like the OWS. Notably, the anarchist movement, the labor movement, and the socialist movement are all linked. This is the modern Democrat Party.

    I have to dispute #4 above. The situation is so fluid that nobody knows the distribution of men, women and children “migrating”. There is clearly a difference between registration numbers and numbers on the ground. From what I have read, the most recent number on the ground is 70% men, 15% women, and 15% children. This is a far cry from the UN data. To base admission on the UN data would be folly.

    • It’s based on the numbers of people who have registered as refugees with the UN High Commissioner on Refugees. That’s how you get data on refugees.

      The number you read was based on UN data for migrants to Europe through Greece. That’s where the 70% men came from. It’s linked in the article – the link “proven by the UN.”

      • Warmac9999

        I just read the article again. I do not see a discussion about the 70% men figure in it, and to link to something that critical just causes confusion. Further, you ridicule people who do refer to the 70% figure as if the UN is some unimpeachable source – which it is not.

        I think it would be useful to look at a variety of sources, not saying blogs, but newspaper articles and sources that are considered to have a conservative bent. The UN has an agenda and is really not trusted by those who have found it to be consistently anti-American and anti-Western.

        • Stephen Spiker

          Here’s a link for the 70% (actually 62% plus children): http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php. Notice it’s the Mediterranean only.

          The UNHCR has no agenda other than working with refugees. If you’re going to reject data, for no reason other than you think it’s too difficult for anybody to count people, then you are willfully ignoring facts because they don’t jive with your pre-set narrative.

          Next time, just post a picture of you sticking your fingers in your ears going “la la la I can’t hear you”.

        • I said the 70% number was a mischaracterization of a UN chart.

          This isn’t an issue with the UN having an agenda. It’s counting of people who have to register to be considered refugees under international law. This isn’t some Agenda 21 stuff. This one of the areas where the UN is the only one who has good information.

          • Warmac9999

            How can we call it good information if it only accounts for registered refugees. That is my entire point.

          • Because that’s all there is. To be considered a refugee under international law, you have to be registered with the UNHCR. Anybody who isn’t, isn’t considered a refugee. The folks Saudi Arabia took in are classified by them as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress”.

          • Stephen Spiker

            For our purposes of discussion, it’s as good as we need it to be. Refugees can only come to the U.S. if they’re registered with the UNHCR, which means that for the debate over what type of people are coming here, their data is as good as it gets. The idea that we are bringing over primarily military-aged men is completely fictional.

            The issue of unregistered refugees is a real issue, but it primarily crops up in two ways:

            1) unregistered migration by land, principally to Lebanon and Turkey. The UNHCR is very active in those two countries visiting refugee camps, and register people as they find them. The most common reason to stay unregistered is fear of being sent back, or fear of anti-refugee reprisal and prejudice. The former is not a real threat. Sadly, the latter is.

            2) unregistered migration by sea, most often ending up in Europe (primarily Greece). EU countries have intake facilities and most people that end up on shore get registered; its conceivable that many do not, but their ability to move, work, eat, and live is significantly more difficult.

    • Stephen Spiker

      To reject data directly from the UN Commission that works with refugees is almost as bad as repeating something Rush Limbaugh said.

      Almost.

    • ChinTurret

      You complain about the Washington Post, but then rely and quote Limbaugh?

      You’re obviously a low information listener.

      • Warmac9999

        Here is a clue for an intellectual such as yourself. There is a difference between the messenger and the message. When you can refute the message, you are worth reading. Otherwise, you really have nothing to say but insult.

  • The Reasonable Man

    Here we go…

  • Duddioman

    This article is TOTAL crap! There is no basis in fact for most of the points listed above.

    Myth 1 – Answer: The US government is pushing for 10,000 Syrian refugees to enter the US by the end of the year. I don’t know how many you need to make a horde.

    Myth 2 – Answer: By your own admission, it will be 195,000 by 2017. Is it because we stopped just shy of 200,000 that you claim it is a myth to say ‘hundreds of thousands’? Really splitting hairs and does NOT disprove the ‘myth.’

    Myth 3 – Answer: Your timeline for vetting is in complete contradiction to the numbers and timetable proposed. If it takes two years to vet them, where will the 95,000 come from in the next year? Add to that the FBI DIRECTOR’s assertion that there is no viable database through which to vet the refugees particularly since they have been scattered from their homes, and Syrian fake passports are awash in the region. Even German immigration said they cant tell the fakes from the real Syrian passports. Your conclusion is in opposition to the facts, but fully in line with Democratic party propaganda.

    Myth 4 – Answer: You are comparing claims of the surge into Europe with the Un refugee camps which is conflating 2 separate issues. The crowds of young men pressing northward into Europe are predominantly young men. The stats you link to are for refugee camps in surrounding ME countries, and not reflective of the latest migration. Apples and Oranges. As for who gets into the US – congratulations, a FEMALE suicide bomber just exploded herself this morning during a police raid. So yeah, women would NEVER pose a threat to the US if we brought them over…..

    Myth 5 – Answer: Again, your two-year timeline doesn’t fit with what our government is proposing. Additionally, I refer you back to the fake documents that are available to hide the real identity of jihadists who want to sneak in as refugees. It is entirely possible, and an unnecessary security risk when we could facilitate refugees elsewhere in the ME.

    Myth 6 – Answer: OMG, you were actually right about something!! 0_o

    Myth 7 – Answer: Splitting hairs between a refugee and a tourist who claimed political asylum does not change the underlying truth: BOTH from screwed up home countries who want to be safe here. In the Boston Bombers case, it does nothing to help the argument that we don’t trust foreigners who want our help that may turn violent against our society and nation. = Your point is pointless.

    Myth 8 – Answer: Governors can keep state resources and personnel from assisting the settlement of refugees in their state. Makes the process that much harder on the Feds. Only a tone-deaf government would overrule the will of the locals to help resettle refugees in their communities, as we saw in Europe to devastating results. The rapes, murders, crimes and property damage not to mention the cultural upheaval witnessed in the recent migration is NOT desirable here, and it is most unwanted. Your point about them being able to travel freely within the US once here is the whole REASON we don’t want them here.

    Conclusion: your piece is pointless claptrap. I don’t get why you even wrote it, unless you are trying to help Obama, or Jeb. =/

    • Stephen Spiker

      1) We’re agreed on the fact that Obama has only called for accepting up to 10,000 Syrian refugees.

      2) No. Read it again, more closely this time. That was a separate announcement by the State Department earlier this year allowing up to 200,000 refugees from ALL countries, not just Syria, by FY2017.

      3) It takes “up to” two years to vet them; sometimes they can be processed a lot quicker if reliable information is easily available. Keep in mind all refugees to the U.S. are referred first by the UNHCR. We do not face the issue of people coming aboard our shores via boats like Greece does. Also keep in mind that the 10,000 figure is a cap, not a mandate. If we are unable to process 10,000 refugees, then we won’t have that many refugees.

      4) The demographics are the demographics. The point is many people have in their heads images of military-age men, which doesn’t not characterize most refugees. The ones who would be coming to the U.S. are primarily families. Men, women, and a lot of children.

      5) You don’t actually do anything to counter Brian’s point, which is that infiltrating the refugee system is one of the least effective ways for terrorists to infiltrate the U.S. Which is why it’s never happened before.

      6) We’re agreed that misinformation on other countries is wrong.

      7) It’s not “splitting hairs”, but that’s not even the point. The Tsarnaev brothers were American citizens who were radicalized here. They weren’t infiltrators.

      8) Yes, state governments can turn their backs on people in need fleeing for their lives. No one is disputing that. However, refugee populations have statistically and historically low crime rates, so your fantastical paranoia of rapes, murders, and crimes is staggeringly off-base. Again, these are families who are fleeing evil and want a chance to live, rather than be slaughtered or enslaved. Or worse: see their children be slaughtered and enslaved.

      So we’re good now? Good.

      • It would be so much easier if people just read to glean facts instead of reading to rebut.

        • Tom E

          Should have made this a private forum with
          Only liberals invited.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Last time I checked, conservatives were the ones that prided themselves on regard for human life.

          • Tom E

            You guys are conservative republicans? I thought most of the posters were democrats

          • Stephen Spiker

            Yep. There’s nothing inherent in conservatism about hating brown people.

          • Warmac9999

            I have the same question.

          • Warmac9999

            We do. Ours and innocents. Not so much for murderous thugs.

          • Stephen Spiker

            So you’re now willing to take in refugees? That’s great news!

            I knew you’d come around.

          • LissaKay

            I doubt anyone has a problem with helping refugees. It’s the terrorists that may be hiding amongst them that is of concern. And no, we don’t all completely trust the government to get the background checks and vetting 100% right.

          • Stephen Spiker

            It’s an unfounded concern, but if you’re looking for 100% security, why trust anything or anyone ever? Life is scary.

            And I refuse to believe people that say they want to help refugees then reject every opportunity to help refugees.

          • Steve Palmer

            Quite the logical fallacy. One inviting added risk is not the same as one accepting present risk. Life is scary yes, but it is scarier in areas known to be infested with funnel web spiders. Therefore one does not invite all the spiders of that area to stay in one’s home.

          • Everyone is invited. Facts don’t have bias. What you do with them is up to you.

        • larrd

          Goebbels thought the same thing, Brian. Wow!

    • ChinTurret

      Obviously this Dud didn’t read the post. Fire, ready, aim. People are going to believe what they want to believe.

  • Kenneth Vaughn
    • Tom E

      Great link Ken. But according to some people, dont worry because they are all arrested. Sleep well.

    • Stephen Spiker

      Does the National Enquirer have anything to say on the topic?

  • MD Russ

    Brian,

    “Neither cast ye your pearls before swine.”
    -Mathew 7-6

  • cg8s

    Thank you for restoring faith in my conservatism. Let’s use the screening protocol we have in place and open our doors to those that are suffering.

    • Warmac9999

      If that is Mary on the Donkey, let her it. Otherwise, ——-

      • Nungwa

        So some lives matter more than others?

        • Warmac9999

          The BLM movement seems to think so. And, if you are truthful, some lives do matter more than others. I will take a nobel prize winning physicist over an islamic terrorist every day. You apparently don’t really care. I suspect that you are a pro-choice leftist so it is obvious that babies lives don’t matter very much but mass murderer lives do.

          • Stephen Spiker

            … you’re the one arguing against letting families and children into the country, and you’re using your pro-LIFE bona fides to do so? Wow.

          • Carter

            Comments like yours about the BLM movement are intentionally obtuse. Go ahead and disagree with their tactics, but don’t act like you don’t know that the “too” is implied. They are saying that black lives matter too. Get it? Not hard.

          • Warmac9999

            I would argue that black lives don’t really matter to other blacks. I look at the murder rates among blacks and it says they like killing other blacks. In my early years, I had the opportunity to work for great black family men. They worked hard and educated themselves. Today, I just wonder if they would have the fortitude to rise above the ignorance masquerading as the Black Lives Matter socialist movement that is sweeping across the nation. Ben Carson is the model of success for young black men and women. Obama is but the route to failure for all black youngsters.

          • Stephen Spiker

            So, in your world, blacks are killers and refugees are terrorists. Explains a lot.

            Most people, when they write hateful racist shit, are careful to use words like “most” or “some”, lest they look like they’re making characterizations of an entire race. It’s noteworthy that you did no such thing here.

          • Carter

            I assure you that black lives do matter to the vast majority of black people. A little bit of research will reveal to you the thousands of black leaders in local communities across the U.S. who are fighting every day to reduce violence within black communities.

            Addressing problems within their own communities and addressing problems between black communities and law enforcement are not mutually exclusive.

            Also, there is no way to seperate violence and murder rates within the black community from generational poverty, generational unequal access to opportunity, harassment from law enforcement, etc. It seems to me that one either believes that these are factors, or one believes that black people are inherently more prone to violence. If you believe the former, we all have a responsibility to help.

          • Warmac9999

            Decades of help, aka the socialist welfare state, have absolutely destroyed the black community and family. Maybe, just maybe, help as defined by throwing more money at it, is the wrong idea. Maybe, just maybe, the help should come from within and should recognize that the government is not a friend.

    • doover

      The Christmas story is not a morality tale about hospitality.

      • Nungwa

        Isn’t it?

    • Biscuit

      Please don’t conflate Christianity with the functions of government, they are two different things.

    • renegadesix

      This isn’t conservatism, this is brain dead suicidal liberalism that ignores the tens of thousands of people killed by radical muslims including over 3,000 right here in America. If you support bringing these “refugees” to America, you are admittedly supporting importing terror because the Administration has admitted it cannot get it right with 100% accuracy. You are therefore supporting terrorism and the murder of your fellow Americans. That is NOT a conservative principle.

  • Redbear

    #4 is not a myth I have been staying in Vienna, I have seen first hand over half are young men. I also saw first hand about 3,000 migrants in the Munich HBH every single one were men. I can’t verify the rest of your so called myths, but I certainly question them since I see your information is false on this one.

    • Your anecdotal information does not match the data collected by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who has the aggregate data based on official registration of refugees.

      • Redbear

        Yes, because they have no agenda. Get your eyes on the ground then come at me with matching that propagated bs.

        • This isn’t BS – these are facts. There is no agenda in registering refugees. You being in Vienna doesn’t mean you can see every refugee who has come to Europe or who is in a camp in the surrounding countries. Sorry, but I’ll take the statistics over your anecdotes.

          • Redbear

            You do that

          • Warmac9999

            He mentioned 3000 men in the Vienna camp. We have no idea whether any of them are registered refugees. It is likely that they are not. This is the problem with your data – it cannot possibly keep up.

          • Stephen Spiker

            UNHRC data can’t keep up with random people that even you admit probably aren’t refugees. Guess what? It’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to keep up with refugees and it does. Your only argument for why we shouldn’t believe it is “because it seems pretty hard, you guys”.

          • Of course it can. This is what the UNHCR does.

          • Warmac9999

            You have to read the start of the threat – which, by the way, you started. Oh, here is an interesting little tid-bit from obama on span. Note the “we”

            “I think on one hand non-Muslims cannot stereotype,” Obama said, “but I also think the Muslim community has to think about how WE make sure that children are not being affected with this twisted notion that somehow they can kill innocent people.”

          • Stephen Spiker

            Warmac: Do you believe that the President was born in the U.S.?

          • /eyeroll. Obama is not a Muslim. I’ve sat in church with him.

          • larrd

            That’s hilarious, Brian!

          • It’s true. I’ve never sat in church with a muslim, to my knowledge.

          • larrd

            Have you ever sat in church with a non-believer?

          • Warmac9999

            From al Jazeera America.

            But an influx of 20,000 refugees in the last weekend alone, more than the total number of asylum seekers last year, has completely overwhelmed Austrian authorities.

          • Stephen Spiker

            The UNHCR deals with refugees, not asylees. That’s why it’s not the UNHCA.

          • What does that have to do with UNHCR registering refugees?

          • He didn’t say anything about a Vienna camp. He said he saw 3000 migrants in the Munich HBH. Hofbrauhaus?

        • Stephen Spiker

          Correct, they have no agenda. Except helping refugees. Glad we agree!

          • Redbear

            “Yes, because they have no agenda” I was being sarcastic.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Oh. Sorry, accusing an international organization that helps the most vulnerable people in the world of having an agenda seemed like such an unimaginably foolish thing that I didn’t think that was a possibility.

            Apparently I just need to imagine a bigger fool.

          • Redbear

            Lol How amusing, you expose yourself by trying to insult me, and it doesn’t serve your argument. Have a great morning day evening or night.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Who do you think is really calling the shots at the insidious UNHCR? Is it the Freemasons, or the Bilderberg Group?

          • Steve Palmer

            You mean the international organization that is headed by Saudi Arabia while the US does not even have a seat? You mean that international organization right? And that is the Saudi Arabia that plans to build 200 mosques in Germany? So that Saudi Arabia heading that international organization definitely does not have any agenda and anyone who thinks it might should take off their tin foil hat right?
            How did you become so objective and insightful? Please enlighten us all.

          • larrd

            Such an agenda doesn’t always take into account the best interests of the United States, Stephen.

      • larrd

        What precisely is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ job?

        Is it to place refugees?

          • larrd

            Oh. Placing refugees.

            I wonder if that agenda takes into account the best interests of the U.S., or the safety of its citizens.

          • soleia79

            Resettlement work is one small part of UNHCR’s mandate. They primarily are involved with humanitarian assistance to refugees. They also work with governments to promote local integration or repatriation. Less than 1% of all refugees is recommended for resettlement to a 3rd country.

          • larrd

            Humanitarian assistance=placement, I would guess. Promoting local integration=placement, as well.

            Your third point is an interesting one, and one that’s rarely discussed. We are given the image of desperate folks fleeing a war-torn country in hopes of escaping death and torture, when in fact they seem to be folks who have already been placed somewhere safe–Turkey, Jordan, etc. One could almost argue that these folks are immigrants rather than refugees once they arrive at the third country. In any case, a suspension/pause so the U.S. government can better prepare, and U.S. citizens can be better prepared, is much less a humanitarian dilemma than is often portrayed.

            Let’s give those present host countries some aid and then take our time re-evaluating a system that very few Americans even knew existed a couple months ago. Prudence is good.

          • Stephen Spiker

            “Humanitarian assistance=placement, I would guess.”

            Why would you guess? You have the exact information in front of you and readily at your disposal. There is no need to guess and remain ignorant.

            And prudence means keeping families and children in the horrible conditions of refugee camps. If there was a legitimate reason to fear them, prudence would be good. Prolonging suffering out of paranoia is never prudent.

          • larrd

            Rid the refugee camps of horrible conditions. You’d think this refugee czar would be working on that, wouldn’t you?

          • Stephen Spiker

            You really have no grasp or sense on what refugees go through or the scope of the issue, do you? Sad, really.

          • larrd

            Very persuasive, Stephen!

            I sure hope Brian appreciates your efforts!

          • I do.

          • larrd

            Atta boy, Stephen!

            Brian sees, and he cares!

            Atta boy!

          • larrd

            Sure I do. The scope of the issue is that there are about 3 billion Earthlings living in dire poverty or war torn areas in need of help. Even if we take in a million a year, it would take 3,000 years to help them all, and we’d be in just as bad a shape by then.

            Rescuing 10K isn’t going to help much, unless your motivation is to feel good about yourself and demonize more rational thinkers. It’s better to help them where they are.

          • Stephen Spiker

            It’s going to help more than doing nothing. And you are not being rational; you are relying on misinformation, conjecture, and conspiracy to rationalize halting a program for no good reason that has worked successfully for decades. That’s not rational. Your side is being driven by fear and partisanship, nothing more.

          • larrd

            No one has argued that we should do nothing, as far as I can tell.

            There has been no program to take in 10K Syrian refugees. Lying really doesn’t help further the discussion.

            But I’m sure Stephen appreciates your efforts! Good boy!

          • soleia79

            Humanitarian assistance = food, housing, education, etc.

            The legal definition of a refugee is someone who is OUTSIDE his/her country of origin. People who have had to flee their homes but remain inside their COI are known as internally displaced. Therefore, one is not technically a refugee until one has reached a second country. Being resettled by a third country (an option available to less than 1% of refugees worldwide) does not change their status from refugee to immigrant.

            The present host countries are already overburdened with hosting refugees. There are over a million Syrians in Turkey. One out of every 5 people currently in Lebanon is a refugee. There are over 600,000 Syrians in Jordan, a country on the brink of a severe water crisis. The US admitting 10,000 refugees is a drop in the bucket, and it’s already being done in a safe and responsible manner.

          • larrd

            Being outside your country of origin is not really a legal definition of a refugee, soleia. If it were, naturalized citizens, folks with green cards, folks on vacation, new immigrants, etc., etc., etc. would be included.

            I’m not arguing that they’re immigrants, I only stated it could be argued to underscore the red herring pro-refugee folks have been dangling–that they’re in immediate danger and actively fleeing.

            The point is that they’re doubtless in some safe space while the UN and U.S. authorities are vetting them for 18 months, no? If so, there’s no reason not to take our time and re-examine the vetting process, seeing as the FBI director and much of the populace seems to think it’s inadequate.

            And no, the U.S. hasn’t already admitted 10K Syrian refugees in a safe and responsible manner in the course of a fiscal year, as far as I’ve heard.

            Such dishonest talking points don’t help anything.

          • soleia79

            So I didn’t articulate it clearly, but in the context of our conversation, it’s not that hard to figure out. I perhaps should have written that the legal definition INCLUDES the fact that they are outside their COI. Of course there are other criteria. It’s very easy to find the definition if you don’t already know it.

            And I also didn’t say that 10k have been admitted, I said they are BEING admitted, meaning the process of screening and vetting of the refugees in question has already begun.

            As for your point about the FBI director, please see point #3 above. As for the populace thinking it’s inadequate, that’s because most people haven’t take the time to actually look at the process.

            We’re not going to agree on this, so I’ll bid you a good night and a Happy Thanksgiving.

          • larrd

            You claimed the U.S. has admitted 10K Syrian refugees before, responsibly, etc. I accept your walkback and hope it leads to personal growth for you.

            Point #3 above is a dishonest rendering of the director’s main point. I have already brought that up with the author, who has proven to be pretty dishonest and uninterested in personal growth.

            Happy Thanksgiving.

          • soleia79

            I wrote no such thing. This is exactly what I wrote: “The US admitting 10,000 refugees is a drop in the bucket, and it’s already being done in a safe and responsible manner.” Paying attention to tense matters. I do appreciate your concern for my personal growth, however.

            We HAVE, however, admitted more than that number of Iraqi refugees in a single year, at the direction of Congress who passed a special law to give them access to the program.

          • larrd

            As the FBI director pointed out, we had much more information on the Iraqis.

    • Stephen Spiker

      Well I’ve been there, too, and I’ve seen it for myself as well, and according to me, you’re wrong.

      Boom. *mic drop*

      • Redbear

        You have been there Stephen good for you I am residing there and deal with it. My friend have to deal with it. You can drop the mic all you want.

        • Warmac9999

          This is where the left has to invent a fact. You have no reason to make up your observations. They have every reason to disrupt, ignore or refute your word to gain some type of misguided advantage of self-serving congratulatory input. They are conditioned to blame anyone but themselves and to do so, you have to make things up.

          • Redbear

            well stated!

          • Warmac9999

            After a while you can recognize the gadflys. At first, they appear to have something relevant to offer, but they quickly resort to childish and antagonistic insults. I will play their game for a while but eventually I just have enough of it so I stop responding to them.

          • Redbear

            you must have a more even temper than myself? People would be so disrespectful to my face. The Internet has made everyone a tough guy, no consequences for ones actions. I have had enough already. .An intelligent dialog is what I was hoping for… Have a good one Warmac9999. Maybe we’ll cross paths online again?

          • Stephen Spiker

            I just love the fact that a pseudonymous poster on the Internet carries more weight with you than documented statistics from the UNHRC. That’s just about all anybody needs to know about you in this debate.

    • Warmac9999

      First hand reporting is the best available at this point and, one thing, Vienna was in the sights of the Ottoman Empire for quite a while. I don’t think it unusual that muslim men would infiltrate that city and I also wouldn’t be surprised if there was a major terrorist attack there.

      I wonder, are the migrants disappearing from the these camps?

  • doover

    Regarding Myth#2 Not a Myth.

    • It’s all explained in the article. The president is allowing 100k total refugees from anywhere next year, 10k of which will be from Syria. That’s what he tweeted. He rounded this year’s 85k up.

  • Stephen Fong

    Good, thorough and complete work, Brian!

  • Tom E

    In 2009, two Iraqi refugees were located in Bowling Green, Kentucky who had a fingerprint match to an IED that was analyzed by TEDAC.

    TEDAC is in Virginia and is a multi agency task force of ATF, FBI, DOD and they do lots of things, including reassemble and fingerprint blown up Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS) mainly from Iraq and Syria. This is all open source from govt websites and reports.

    I do not know if the refugees fingerprints were an automated fingerprint hit and that these checks were standard or if these 2 refugees were given extra scrutiny. However, this demonstrates that we don’t know just how thorough the refugee vetting is and this case certainly highlights a vulnerability.

    To further complicate matters, who knows how long it takes for DOD to find an IED, render it inert, double check it, bag it, preliminarily analyze it overseas, make it ready to put on a plane, be shipped to VA, be received in VA, be but back together, for the prints to be lifted, and then for the prints to be ran. It wouldn’t surprise me if TEDAC is backlogged just like DNA samples are but I think it is reasonable to say this process takes several months, if not multiple years. This presumed delay makes the vetting process that much more complicated. In theory, a refugee could apply for refugee status and be “vetted” in the supposed 2 years all while their fingerprints are sitting on an IED in Quantico just like these 2 Iraqis were.

    Ok, so now the defense is that these bomb fragrants could be left over parts from an old cell phone. This is contradicted because the Iraqi refugees, wait for it…………” admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq”. Now, some liberals may argue that this does not matter because the attack didn’t occur in the US. Such argument is preposterous and defies all logic. Someone whose fingerprint is on an IED in Iraq and who later comes to America, doesn’t forget the bomb training they received. I don’t know a lot about wiring an IED, but I presume it is not easy. I will also highlight about 4 or 5 other cases involving refugees so that readers can make informed decisions and realized that this isn’t anti-Syrian rhetoric. Refugees charged with terrorism offenses in the US have been from Bosnia, Iraq, +Uzbekistan. and those are just some of the cases I can recall off the top of my head.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

    • Yeah, I read this off the front page of Drudge, too. This is troubling, and I hope that the statements of the law enforcement folks in the article, that the process is refined all the time, is true. My earlier comments speculating about the case were just that – I hadn’t read the article yet.

      Again, this is two in a sea of 800k. In this case, at least, because ABC did an in-depth investigation, we know they were refugees who went through the process. And since all this happened four years ago, I would hope that this lesson has been used to fix the vetting process to make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t get missed in the future.

  • Tom E

    Uzbek refugee in Idaho charged with material support to Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan – http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/idaho-jury-convicts-uzbek-refugee-terror-charges-article-1.2323902

  • Tom E

    6 Bosnians in Chicago charged with material support to ISIS. 2 of the 6 charged were also charged with conspiring to maim and kill people in a foreign country. Half of the 6 were naturalized US citizens, the other half was permanent residents and refugees.
    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/02/06/six-bosnian-immigrants-including-two-from-illinois-charged-with-supporting-isis/ According to faulty logic though, this isn’t a big deal because they were only conspiring to hurt people outside America. Tell that to the people of France right now.

    • The article doesn’t specify if they were refugees – it says they were “either refugees or legal resident aliens.” Again, these guys were caught. You already made these points before. Stop spamming.

      • Tom E

        True, another travesty of justice. the federal government is sometimes prohibited from admitting that someone has refugee or asylee status. 8 CFR 208.6 = that’s Title 8 of Code of Federal Regulations, Section 208.6 – https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/208.6 we have to make sure these refugees who try to kill people don’t have their paperwork rights violated

        • If it’s in the indictment, I’ll take that at face value. But, again, you’re pointing out examples where law enforcement caught these folks and most of them were planning things outside the United States, not inside.

          In that time period, plenty of non-refugees not only planned but carried out attacks inside the US.

          • Tom E

            I bet your future voters are elated to know that you have geographical boundaries when it comes to terrorism

          • Hopefully they will appreciate that I’m level headed and don’t get spooked by worst case scenarios built on bad facts.

          • Tom E

            I am sure that is why you were elected.

      • Tom E

        finally found it, took a few minutes but thank you for motivating me to help point out the threat refugees pose to America. Here is the indictment that name 2, a husband and wife couple, as refugees. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2617.pdf

        for your viewing convenience, it is on page 2, paragraph 2. now I know people will say “just 2 of 6” was a refugee. I think the indictment is purposely vague about refugee status because – as explained in other posts – the US govt prefers to not highlight peoples status as refugees. it is probable that the naturalized US citizen mentioned in the indictment may have also been refugees or asylees.

  • mark Jawsz

    I will give Brian credit. He is relentless and driven – even to the point of calling the New York Times and Washington Post credible sources. A little history about the credibility of the Washington Post on stories they ran when I had absolute ground truth. From 2002 to early 2004 I worked on the counterterrorism Total Information Awareness (TIA) Program, which was a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) program and led by Admiral (Retired) Poindexter. I knew the parameters of the program and the data used. It was all kosher, but if you read reports on TIA in the Post and other left-wing outlets you’d think we were serving pork barbecue with pepperoni pizza, tacos, and ice cream for desert (as un-kosher as you can get). The Left Wing is driven by an agenda, and as smart and knowledgeable and as diligent as Brian is, you’d think he would have learned that lesson. The left wing media lies – particularly when it comes to stories that advance their agenda. Warmac – God bless you.

    • How are they lying about facts they gleaned from government sources that have no criticized the stories?

      Stop attacking the sources and read the facts they are conveying. Do you have any information that leads you to believe that the facts presented in those articles are not true?

      • mark Jawsz

        It is funny. When I offer statistics DIRECTLY from government sources on welfare rate usage or black on white crime you pooh pooh them. But when it comes to the NYT and WaPo interpretation of these stats, then all of a sudden they are ground truth. If you trust the government under this ideologically driven administration to vet all of these refugees, then you are being reckless with American lives.

        • Stephen Spiker

          We don’t shit on your statistics, we shit on your preposterous ideas of what you think they mean we should do.

        • We don’t crap on your statistics, we crap on your analysis of those statistics.

  • Tom E

    Here is an article that talks about how war criminals abuse the refugee process to come to the US. Good to know that terrorists aren’t the only ones who know it is vulnerable. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/minnesota-man-charged-immigration-fraud-failing-disclose-his-crimes-and-military#wcm-survey-target-id
    I know, I know…it says “refugee or green card application”…but as stated, the govt doesn’t ususally admit refugee status in publicly filed documents

    • Stephen Spiker

      Tom, say we stop allowing any refugees in our borders. None of them have ever carried out a terrorist act, and about a dozen out of nearly a million have been arrested in connection with nefarious things, but say that’s enough. No more refugees. The over 99% of them that are families and children looking to not die? Fuck ’em, they’re not Americans, so they’re out.

      I can only assume you’re opposed to immigration as well, particularly illegal immigration but legal immigration is no picnic either. Easy. Throw up some walls, close the borders, and let’s deport them all.

      So now we’re its just good old-fashioned Americans here, behind our walls with no chance of outsiders getting in. I suppose many of them are Muslim, and attend services at mosques. So we close them down (or maybe just the “suspicious” ones) and kick them out, too.

      That’s all we can do to solve our security issues, right? We’ve turned our backs on refugees, closed our borders, and kicked out the Muslims. What happens when terrorism still happens? When buildings blow up and restaurants get shot up? What is your end-game for this absolute security you are chasing? And if betraying every single principle of exceptionalism and freedom that makes this country great doesn’t get us there, then something has to give.

      • Tom E

        I think some balance needs to be reached for the refugee program. Maybe we allow 33% adult men, 33% adult female, 33% children. Maybe we take the annual number of allotted refugees and divide it evenly by 6 continents. I am not opposed to lawful immigration. If you can apply for a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa and demonstrate to a Consular Officer that you are qualified for it and obtain it, then you are certainly entitled and deserved it. We need to do more to correct our nonimmigrant overstay problem but that is another debate. I know we can’t deport ever illegal immigrant but we need to keep better track of who is here. Wasn’t there an illegal immigrant who killed a nun in VA while driving (drunk maybe?)? obviously things like that and the murder of the woman in San Fran pose egregious public safety issues. I think a wall would be a good idea, both on the north and south. we do need to protect our border, it is a basic principle. The northern border has had more incursions than the southern border I believe. Wasnt the LAX bomber encountered in Washington state? other immigration vulnerabilities that are a national security issue: the DV1 Diversity Visa lottery, marriage fraud, Visa Waiver Program, Lawful Permanent Residents who abandon and remain abroad (LPRs are supposed to remain the US for 6 out of 12 months). Where does refugee and asylum fraud rank amongst those?
        Good question. I think 18 of the 21 hijackers on 9/11 had visa fraud. That was 14 years ago. I think Visa Waiver is more of a problem than refugee fraud but refugee fraud is a close 2nd. Visa Waiver will become a concern if it turns out that these several people in Paris had European passports. Richard Reid the shoe bomber and Zacarias Moussaoui were both Visa Waiver violators…..
        ANd I know Americans pose a threat too. And not just Americans like Anwar Aulaqi for example. He lied about being born in America. Why would someone do that? American citizenship is the gold ticket. some people opine that he lied and claimed he was foreign born so that he could get reduced tuition rates in foreign colleges. Foreign colleges charge Americans more money than they charge non Americans. The amount of fraud and vulnerability are numerous.

  • Tom E

    WOW – 16 Bosnian refugees from Phoenix who lied about their military service during the conflict https://www.fbi.gov/phoenix/press-releases/2010/px081710.htm I know, I know, war criminals aren’t terrorists so it is not reasonable to call attention to this small matter. I am sorry.

    • Tom, I asked you before to stop spamming. We don’t need a new comment for every time you come up with a story that you think fits your narrative but doesn’t fit what I said here. Hell, that article fits my narrative – the vetting caught them and they were prosecuted.

      • Tom E

        Wrong. refugee vetting did not catch them. an investigation conducted several years later did. Note the article says “When they applied for refugee status in the United States following the end of the war, they failed to disclose they had been soldiers in the VRS.”
        The Bosnian war ended in1995. They were arrested in 2010. The vetting process has been broken for decades and still is.

        • And you know this how?

          • Tom E

            How do I know the vetting process is broken or how I do know they were arrested 15 years after the war ended?
            Take rape for instance. Rape is not an act of terrorism. It is a war crime. it is a weapon of war. ISIS uses rape of Yazidi women as a weapon of war. there is a bar to refugee status because it is persecution of others. There have been thousands of documents cases of rape. The vetting process is broken because are we 100% confident that an interviewing officer will be able to tell who a rapist and terrorist is? Do you think ISIS fighter will confess to rape or terrorism? Is ISIS not trained in deception? Could ISIS fool an interviewer? Of course. Can an interviewer verify the place of birth of a person being interviewed? their criminal history in Syria? where they have been the last 5 years? no…..therefore the vetting process is broken and vulnerable. Unless we want to conduct 10 interviews about 1 applicant and administer lie detector tests to refugees the refugee process will never be fool proof.
            how do I know about the 16 or so arrested in Phoenix? they were likely arrested on 18 USC 1546 charges. this is the standard charge for false statement on immigration forms. those forms can be asylum application, refugee applications, or green card applications. It has a five year statute of limitations [(18 USC 3238(a)]. If they werent arrested on 18 USC 1546, they were arrested on 18 USC 1001 (general false statements). 1001 also has a 5 year statute of limitations. Therefore if they were arrested in 2010 they had to have filed the forms after 2005. the Bosnian war ended in 1995. Therefore, in order for the charges to stick – and it appears that they did, they probably entered as refugees after 2005 to be able to be prosecuted within the 5 year statute of limitations….

          • How do you know the vetting process is broken? Given the complete lack of terrorist attacks on US soil by these refugees – which is what everybody is concerned about – the process seems to be working. You’ve got a handful of arrests in a pool of almost a million refugees.

            You keep layering on issues that you can’t prove. You’re asking these refugees in your latest example to prove they aren’t racists. Look at the demographics of who we are letting in – it’s mostly women, children and families and everybody has heightened circumstances. The data I already quoted indicted that only 2% of the Syrian refugees allowed in were military aged single men.

            Again, any ISIS fighter who wants to get here is not going to go through this process. It’s too detailed, too long and there are easier ways to get here. The process itself deters bad guys because they don’t want to wait years to get here.

          • Tom E

            The burden is on the applicant to prove they are eligible for refugee status and they have not violated any of the 5
            Protected grounds. Persecution based on race, religion, national origin, social group and I forget the 5th one. It is in 8 usc 1101(a)(42). So how they have treated others (“racism questions”) is certainly material. In the Immigration and Nationality Act,
            There is no distinction between “terrorist activity” and” engaged in terrorist activity”. So what I am getting at, is for national security immigration inadmissibility purposes under 8 USC 1182(a)(3), homeland security doesnt care if you blew something up in the US, outside the US, or if you provided material suport. They are all the same. Thats why the logic that nothing happened in the US yet is baseless. Terrorism has no geographical boundaries and our own terrorism related inadmissiblty laws don’t differentiate. So neither should you.

          • Tom E

            Here is INA 212(a)(3) terrorism related inadmissibility grounds in the Foreign Affairs Manual. you cant have a debate about the refugee process without knowing the verbage. it is pretty all encompassing, worded pretty well. so any argument that material support isn’t an actual act of terrorism because something didn’t blow up holds no value when it comes to INA 212 a 3

            http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86966.pdf

          • I wasn’t making a legal argument. I was stating a fact – no Americans have been killed on American soil by a refugee committing a terrorist act. Unless you can find an example – and I’ve been looking for a while and can’t – that contradicts that, you’re just going to have to accept what I said as being accurate.

          • Tom E

            You claim you are more qualified because you have a law degree than downplay the importance of laws to fit your skewed agenda. The Immigration and nationality act make no distinction between engaged in terrorist activity, terrorist
            Activity, and material support. It is fact. A law. Not really debateable. As a lawyer you can appreciate that.

          • I didn’t make that claim. I said that I am familiar with the issue you specifically talked about – how federal prosecutors make charging decisions – because of my background.

            What the INA says about terrorist activity, material support and the like is completely irrelevant to this conversation. I’m not arguing that refugees haven’t committed crimes – I said that specifically in the argument. I am saying that they have not committed acts of terror inside the United States that have led to the deaths of Americans.

            That is what everybody is worried about with allowing Syrian refugees here. That is the issue I addressed. You’re trying to change the argument instead of just acknowledging that what I said was accurate.

          • Tom E

            Terrorism inadmissibilty grounds directly apply to refugees because that is what they could be found inadmissible for and denied refugee status for….it is inherent and completely necessary for the vetting process. Saying it is irrelevant would equate to ignoring an imporrant oart of the vetting process.

            Did you really just say that terrorist activity and material support in the INA is “completely irrelevant” to this discussion about refugees? I will have to read that again a few times to let that sink in. That makes your national security stance clear. Hooefully people from the National Reconaissance Office near Sully are reading this and realize your flawed logic. I wouldnt vote for you for HOA president let alone county commisioner or Congress or whatever position
            You seek to hold in the future

          • Tom, you’re changing the goalposts, again. You took one line in my article – that refugees have not committed any terrorists acts in the US that caused the death of an American – and are trying to argue that I’m wrong.

            That’s the discussion we are having. I am not arguing about anything else here, right now. Your arguments about the legal definition of terrorism under the INA does not negate what I wrote.

          • Tom E

            Correct. The 2
            Iraqi refugees in Kentucky probably just only
            Killed 4
            American soldiers and wounded others. Not to worry, that was in Iraq and not America though. Maybe your article should focus more on the guilty
            Plea and trial transcriots from that federal hearing. When I habe time I will habe to find or FOIA them. In the mean time, refugee processing should be ahit down. You are a great public advocate, the military and constituents must be very
            Proud of the great work you are doing.

          • My article isn’t about that issue, which is why I didn’t go into the details. They’re good to know, but again, you’ve identified 2 people out of 800k+. That’s about as good as you can expect any of this vetting to be.

            If, even knowing all this, you still think we should shut everything down, that’s fine. All I wanted was for folks to have facts when they make up their minds.

          • You didn’t answer my question. How do you know the vetting process if broken?

          • Tom E

            As I said before there are lots of reasons. A refugee interviewer baiscally has to rely on a confession to make an inadmissibility determination. The main reason the refugee program is broken is because of the UN. Does anyone have knowledge if the UN shares fingerprints or runs fingerprints of refugee applicants with Terrorist Explosive Debice Analysis Center? Are UN fingerprints ran against DOD fingerprints of people encountered in the battlefield? Are UN fingerprints shared with INTERPOL? Are UN fingerprints shares with the information sharing provisions of the Five County Conference comprised of the US, UK, Brits, Canadians and New Zealanders? I dont think the UN shares anything – includng fingerprints- and would be interested to see more research on this topic. The name and date of birth a refugee presents to the UN will be the name and identifier the rest of their life. They will claim they dont have a birth certificate and were never issued a passport. How does a refugee interviewer verify that? They dont. Therefore based on the presumed lack of fingerprint sharing and unknown identiies, the vetting process is broken. As I believe the ODNi or nCTC Director said, you can run checks all day long but if they assumed a new identity not known there will never be a match.

          • What makes you think that only the UN is fingerprinting? I made it clear that it was US officials who are doing fingerprinting and photographing and running that data through our own systems. You’re making a lot of assumptions here.

          • Tom E

            woops, just reread. the press release. looks like it was 18 USC 1001 for at least 11.

            “The remaining 11 defendants, Milenko Gujic, Rajko Hercegovac, Risto Hercegovac, Momcilo Krstic, Radenko Spiric, Vitomir Spiric, Nikola Stankovic, Savo Tojcic, Dragan Ubiparipovic, Radenko Ubiparipovic, and Cvijan Vidacovic, pled guilty to felony charges of knowingly making a false statement.”

            “knowingly making a false statement” is wording of 18 USC 1001 – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

          • That’s the throwaway charge when they can’t make anything else stick.

          • Tom E

            That’s a really ignorant comment. I hate when this generalization is made. In terrorism investigations, the government uses what ever charge is immediately available to detain, hold, prevent, and disrupt anything further from happening. same is applicable to war crime investigations. if it needs to be 1001, so be it.

            A conviction for 1001 is a felony. A felony conviction makes you deportable as an aggravated felon just the same as a conviction for a sexy terrorism charge. Most people don’t even understand the difference between inadmissible and deportable. So maybe it was a throwaway charge. what was the reason behind not charging more? who knows. Maybe they wanted to save the parent the horror of testifying that the VRS machine gunned her child in front of them.

            Did you read the entire Phoenix press release? Note that:

            “The Phoenix defendants were indicted separately and pled guilty to lying about their military service. Five of the 16 were deported from the United States and returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon arrival in Bosnia and Herzegovina, three of them—Mladen Blagojevic, Zdravko Bozic and Goran Bencun—were arrested and brought before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a domestic court that includes international judges and prosecutors. Mladen Blagojevic was convicted in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to seven years in prison.”
            So of these 16 arrested, they all presumably did time in the US and were deported. and then when the 1 was deported back to Bosnia, he was arrested and did another 7 years there. Immigration law is complex and takes years to understand. it may serve you better to have a better understanding of immigration law than to publish a blog with myths with limited research and nuanced words to give the appearance of righteousness. Keeping horrible people out of the US is righteous even if impacts innocent foreign civilians. Being thorough and cautious doesn’t make you a xenophobe, it’s common sense given the track record of all the nefarious cases highlighted.

          • It’s not an ignorant comment. I’m a lawyer. I’m familiar with federal prosecutions. If you can’t get them on the underlying charges, you find where they made a misleading statement to investigators and you charge them with that. You get the conviction so you didn’t waste all the time and money on the investigation to get an acquittal.

            What’s your background? I know plenty about immigration law. That’s not what this article was about. You keep changing the goal posts in your arguments.

          • Tom E

            A concerned citizen who is not a lawyer who is familiar with federal prosecutions and who knows plenty about immigration law also

          • Then perhaps you should keep the comments about how little I know on these issues to a minimum?

          • Tom E

            So because you have a law degree that makes you a refugee expert? Habe you ever been in federal
            Criminal court? Ever been to a removal hearing? Ever attended an immigration benefit interview at Citizenship and Immigration Services? Ever assisted a client with visa or naturalization paperwork? You’re an elected official in Fairfax County?

          • Have you ever done any of those things? Where are you getting your information from, if not experience? You said yourself you’re just a concerned citizen.

            Yes, I’ve been in federal criminal court, but not practicing. No, I’ve never been to a removal hearing. No, I’ve never attended an interview. Yes, I’ve helped folks with immigration paperwork. No, I’m not an elected official in Fairfax County. I’m a former appointed official. I just testified in Congress two days ago on foreign aid programs.

            I didn’t write this article as an expert in refugees. I wrote it as someone who has done the research when confronted with all of these myths and realized that nobody had compiled them and debunked them, and we weren’t capable of having an informed discussion on this issue because of all the bad facts. So I wrote this.

          • Tom E

            Yes I have done all those things and more,
            Despite not having a law degree. I rest my case. Thx for clarifying.

          • In what capacity?

          • Tom E

            My safety is more important than what others think of my credibility. Obviously I have a mikitary
            Background. I have been overseas and done alot of immigration work and dont want ISIS to kidnap or kill me. You dont have to worry about that though. When ISIS refugees come here maybe they will give you a medal for your support and complacency.

          • If you were that concerned, you would not be making comments here. Sorry, but I’m not buying it.

          • Tom E

            That is your perrogative. I am obviously just a stay at home dad who researched the INA, CFR, US code and Foreign Affairs manual in last 48 hours to better understand the national security problem the refugee crisis is presenting.

          • You could be. This is the internet. You could be anything. That’s why I use my name and let folks vet me, as you’ve obviously done. Not letting the rest of us return the favor while claiming superior knowledge is your prerogative, but it doesn’t add to your credibility.

            As for your work on immigration, it’s hard to square your stance on this issue with that claim. Most folks I know who work with immigrants tend to want to help them.

          • Tom E

            We’ve both highlighted our stance and made our positions clear. Time will tell.

          • Tom E

            and to further debunk the “throwaway charge” – a lot of the criminal war crimes statutes in 18 USC such as 18 USC 1091 genocide and 18 USC 2340A torture didn’t come on the books until after the Rwandan genocide of 1994. so even if the government wanted to, it couldn’t indict a a Bosnian or Rwandan refugee who came to the US in 2000 for committing a war crime in 1994 or 1995 because the genocide and torture statutes didn’t come on the books until 1997 or 1998 I believe. so in theory, any war criminal in the US was “grandfathered” and not able to be charged. if the host country wanted to indict and charge that would be an option. But if not, I would hope to think the US government does what is best in its available arsenal at the given time, including using “throwaway charges”.

          • Again, they weren’t being charged for war crimes. They were being charged for refugee fraud. Read your own article.

          • Tom E

            Werent charged for war crimes in Us because the statute wasnt on the books then. Ine was charged with , crimes against humanity when he was deported back. Your reasoning defies all logic and is preposterous.

  • Tom E

    Senator Sessions table of arrests of 72 terrorism suspects and their immigration status. Some statuses are unknown. 2 are refugees. Unknown how many refugees adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status and then become naturalized US citzens. I am sure the administrations response will clear this up. http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/635eb1f5-57bc-4726-a87d-08729289f8b3/publicly-identified-cases-involving-a-nexus-to-terrorism-14-15.pdf
    Part of the problem is that refugees can quickly adjust to lawful permanent resident status within a year of entering as a refugee. For the lawyers out there, this is codified in 8 CFR 209 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/part-209 This is entirely too quick. Not sure why they are eligible to become PERMANENT residents so quick when multiple sources have reported that vetting takes 2-3 years. Asylum and refugee status is meant to be indefinite NOT PERMANENT. 8 cfr 208.14(e) – https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/208.14 It is not a mistake that I use the terms refugee and asylee interchangeably. they are near similar and an asylee needs to establish eligibility under 8 CFR 208.13(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/208.13 and show they fit the definition of a refugee in Title 8, United States Code, Section 1101(a)(42) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

    • Stephen Spiker

      You just said yourself that refugee status isn’t meant to be permanent… so they become residents, and eventually citizens. And vetting can take 2-3 years, or it can take significantly shorter than that. Every case is different, which is why they’re handled on a case-by-case basis.

      I’m not sure what your point is, beyond “life is scary”. Apparently, we’re under constant extreme threat of refugees, aslyees, immigrants, residents, and even citizens! I’ve got some extra-thick blankets you can hide under, if you like.

      • Tom E

        True, and I think vetting needs to continue once they come to the US and that is why 8 CFR 209 needs to be extended beyond 1 year. Thanks for the offer of blankets, but I am good. It’s not a matter of being scared, but I also don’t knowingly bang my head against the wall every day either. Actually, if you read the CBS article on the Iraqi refugees arrested in Kentucky, the US Attorney’s Office in Louisville actually added the surviving members of a humvee attack into the victim notification database. I don’t know what the extent of their injuries were but maybe if you call the US Attorney’s office they can tell you. Also, maybe the wounded soldiers would need your extra blankets. God knows that refugees probably get better health care coverage than our wounded veterans.
        http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

        “Pennsylvania National Guard soldiers who had served in Bayji in 2005 saw news reports about the two arrests, and Army Staff Sgt. Joshua Hedetniemi called the FBI to alert them to an Aug. 9, 2005, IED attack that killed four of their troopers in a humvee patrolling south of the town. The U.S. attorney’s office in Louisville eventually placed the surviving soldiers in its victim notification system for the case, even though it couldn’t be conclusively proven that Alwan and Hammadi had killed the Guardsmen.

        The four Pennsylvania soldiers killed that day were Pfc. Nathaniel DeTample, 19, Spec. Gennaro Pellegrini, 31, Spec. Francis J. Straub Jr., 24, and Spec. John Kulick, 35.”

  • Reagan to Palin

    There is much to respond to here but I am struck by the fact that you utilize sources that have a political bent and not those grounded in reality. And in your responses you have used the UN High Commissioner for Refugees as a credible source…that alone is enough to call into question your whole argument. Is there a less credible source than the UN High Commissioner for Refugees? I think not. And of course in just the past week the CIA DIRECTOR, FBI DIRECTOR and HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY have all said there cannot vet these refugees properly in the current environment. That alone should create pause for any thinking American. And finally, this sudden concern and breast beating about immigration is vulgar in that a week ago neither Bearing Drift or most anyone else had registered any compassion for the Syrians who have been tortured, gassed, beheaded, burned and bombed for over five years now. And yet, all it took was a horror in Paris and we have upended politics over this sudden self-serving posturing about Syrian refugees. How about having the same passion for finding a solution to the situation in Syrian so that refugees can return to their home country?

    • There are no more credible sources for the demographics of these refugees than the UNHCR. Nobody else has the data.

      I have already pointed out that the FBI Director’s statements have been taken out of context. The CIA Director said that we should strengthen the system but also that we should maintain our policy of supporting refugees. Nobody can argue against strengthening the vetting process, if we can do that without destroying the program altogether. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/politics/cia-chief-wants-to-strengthen-refugee-screening/

      The DHS Secretary has said that the refugee vetting process is safe. http://www.nbcnews.com/video/homeland-security-secretary-u-s-refugee-screening-process-is-safe-568817219748

      It’s pretty disingenuous to come here and claim our facts are bad and then proceed to repeat unsourced nonsense.

      We have been arguing in favor of immigration reform to allow more people to come here legally for a long time now. And we’ve been highlighting what’s been going on in the Middle East for a long time. DJ McGuire has written multiple articles about Iran, Syria, ISIS and others for a while. And he just wrote an article yesterday about finding a solution to the situation in Syria.

      These refugees don’t go home. They’re permanently relocated. They don’t come here if they intend to return. They stay in the camps.

    • Stephen Spiker

      I’m sorry, I couldn’t get past the username.

  • jimmy smith

    My concern is when these refugees get here do any of them have any money. Is our government gonna hook them up with a free place to live and free food when there are Americans already here that are starving and homeless.

    • They get a few months of government support, and they are eligible for medicaid, but they are then expected to fend for themselves like anybody else. The National Geographic article talks about all of that.

  • Cynthia Astle

    Thank you very much for this.

  • H G

    Myth # 9 The author of this post knows what he’s talking about.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrorists-refugee-program-settle-us/story?id=35252500

    • We discussed this case in the comments, and it’s addressed in the conclusion.

      • H G

        Discussing it doesn’t change the fact that is has and does happen. Wonder how many of the current 900+ investigation into terrorist related persons have come here as refugees or by means other than visa waivers?
        Here’s a few who tried.
        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/18/report-8-syrians-caught-at-texas-border-in-laredo/

        • Those aren’t refugees.

          • H G

            Never claimed they were. I claimed their coming here by means other than visa waivers. They will come here by whatever means necessary.

          • They will try. We have to stop them. Shutting down the refugee program, however, is not a good way to do that.

          • H G

            Who is this strawman who wants to shut down the refugee program?

          • H G

            Really Brian?
            You know full well that these are calls to temporarily halt only Syrian refugee placement in the US until the vetting process can be explained, understood and guaranteed.

            Again, who is the strawman who wants to shut down the refugee program?

          • Stephen Spiker

            Why would he or anyone know “full well” that those are temporary solutions? People are afraid. This is what happens. It’s happened before, and sadly it will happen again. We’re trying to introduce some sobriety into the conversation, and your response is to say that those hope that those drunk on paranoia and fear will eventually sober up.

          • H G

            Are you for real? Listen to them and quit putting your fears in their mouths. It isn’t being proposed and it isn’t happening. Quit imagining things.

            Good grief.

            With republicans like Brian, who needs democrats?

          • Stephen Spiker

            Since when is being pro-reguee incompatible with being a Republican?

          • H G

            Hilarious. So pro-refugee is the issue here.

            Good night. Are you capable of an adult conversation on this issue, ’cause I’m beginning to seriously doubt it.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Yes, being pro-refugee is the issue here. There are people strongly and loudly opposed to allowing Syrian refugees into this country. And there are others who disagree with them.

            Welcome to the debate.

          • H G

            Clearly that is the debate you’re having, just not with me. Neither is this debate with the actual course proposed by those Brian linked to. The fact of the matter is only a temporary halt to only those refugees from Syria is proposed until the vetting process can guarantee
            terrorists can be distinguished from among them. The fact is there are other options to dealing with Syrian refugees in the meantime one of which is a safe zone in Syria.

            That is what is really going on. But you can go back to debating your strawman. Knock yourself out.

          • Stephen Spiker

            The debate I’m having with you is debating what we’re debating about. It’s very meta.

            You seem to think that everyone arguing against allowing Syrian refugees here only means temporarily, which is adorable.

          • H G

            Not everyone, but the course our nation is considering is in no way anything but what I’ve said. You think everyone arguing to limit Syrian refugees wants to do it “indefinately”. Which is dishonest.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I’m arguing against people who want to hinder our plans to bring in refugees in any form, whether its “temporary”, “indefinite”, “permanent”, or whatever. Which is why your line of debate is fascinating in how moot it is, yet you apparently think is a game-changer.

          • H G

            Well there you have it. You fail to distinguish between a temporary pause intended to ensure the integrity of the process and stopping the refugee program completely. Glad you finally admit it.

          • Stephen Spiker

            The difference between “temporary” and “indefinite” is semantics, and there are people arguing for both using the same false talking points. I’m debating both of them, because I disagree with both of them. Your little fantasy that everyone will all of a sudden come around and believe that accepting refugees is acceptable is disproven by the overwhelming amount of vitriolic comments directed at Syrians, including statements you yourself have made.

            So, no, I don’t actually believe that you only support a temporary pause. I believe that you will never accept that our refugee intake process is secure enough for you, and therefore you will continue to oppose helping families and children in need.

          • H G

            The difference is semantics? You’re freakin’ hilarious.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Yes. As in, inconsequential. I know you’ve spent a lot of time and effort into trying to establish otherwise, but that was folly.

          • H G

            Only in your head.

          • We’re talking about Syrian refugees. I gave you the links to who wants to shut down allowing Syrian refugees in.

            I’m still trying to figure out why a temporary halt is necessary. There’s no evidence that our existing programs aren’t tough enough or that we can’t make them tougher while continuing the current program.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Brian, don’t bother. I think he thinks we’re discussing Starbuck’s red cups or something, because he doesn’t seem to acknowledge that there are people arguing against allowing Syrian refugees to come here.

          • H G

            The Governors don’t want to “shut down the refugee program” as you claimed and more than they want to “shut down allowing Syrian refugees in”. You could accurately characterize their position if you cared to.

          • I am. There are people who want to block allowing Syrian refugees to relocate here. Whether that’s temporary or permanently, they are suggesting we block them. I’ve given you all the citations you need.

            You’re trying to play a semantics game.

          • H G

            Not at all. It is you who is misrepresenting those in the very links you posted in your response to my question.

            But hey, it’s your credibility on the line here. Have it your way.

          • My credibility is fine. I’m not misrepresenting anything.

          • H G

            Your readers and commenters will decide that. You don’t get to do that for them.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Readers here will see that there’s two sides: those who are accepting of Syrian refugees here and those who are not.

            Then they’ll get to your comments and realize there’s actually THREE sides of the debate: those who are accepting of Syrian refugees here, those who are not, and whatever the hell H G is going on about.

          • Stephen Spiker

            You are literally the only person ever encountered who is seeing those arguments as anything other than “let’s not allow Syrian refugees here” So, of the people in this thread, I don’t think it’s Brian who has to worry about credibility.

            Again, this is an exceedingly fascinating line of discussion you’re trying so hard to make stick.

      • Tom E

        I think we should print out this entire discussion thread and mail it to the 4 widows of the American soldiers likely killed in Iraq by the 2
        Iraqi refugees arrested in Kentucky and get their opinion of what they think of refugees posing a national security problem.

        • H G

          Judging by Brian’s articles, he appears far more DC republican than conservative. Far more.

        • I would prefer that you leave those women alone.

          • Tom E

            Was making a point. They have certainly been thru enough, at the hands of terrorist refugees. But it drives home the fact that you cant distinguish between acts of terrorism committed outside the US and acts of terrorism in the US. It affects people everywhere and has no boundaries. That is why I am puzzled beyond all belief you continue to make that distinction. You should be ashamed…

          • I was making a point about the refugee program. Terrorism is terrorism and it should be deplored anywhere. But you know full well that’s not what we were talking about. You were nitpicking to try to undermine a point a made. Do you honestly think I’m okay with terrorism if it doesn’t happen here? Come on.

          • Tom E

            I think saying that only focusing on potential for terrorism IN THE US BY REFUGEES is naive at best. Material supoort leads to terrorism. Engaged in terrorist activity includes material support and equates to terrorism as far as federal law is concerned. You want to ignore that for some reason but they go hand in hand. to distinguish between them to forward a leftist agenda js deplorable. I honestly dont know what you think. Maybe that’s why your elections haven’t been successful.

          • I’m not ignoring it at all. It’s simply not the point of this piece.

  • TWP

    The “intense and time consuming vetting process” as described ultimately depends at every stage almost exclusively on one source of information: the individual involved. How could it not? Are they bringing paperwork with them that can be traced? Are we accessing Syrian government (the one whose leader Obama has said “must go”) records? The Syrian government that wouldn’t mind unloading its problems? Or do we simply assume they won’t lie to the various interviewers and screeners? No way a terrorist trying to sneak in to slaughter Americans would stoop to lying to Americans to do it, right?

    The Tsarnaev family was screened as asylees, not refugees, but the standard is pretty much the same. Why does where they were physically located at the time matter at all? A distinction without a difference, for any purposes that matter here.

    • It matters because if you want to abuse this process to come to America and commit a terrorist attack, the asylum process is much more attractive – because you’re already physically present here – than the refugee process.

      The Tsarnaev family – the parents – haven’t committed any crimes. Their kids were 15 and 8 when they got here. There is no way to screen out kids. They were essentially home grown terrorists when they decided to commit their acts, not sleeper ISIS agents who were sent here to infiltrate and carry out attacks.

      • H G

        All the more reason to limit Muslims refugees allowed into our country.

        We have to be able to stop radical Islam from ever taking root in America. It is an evil we cannot live with.

        • So all muslim refugees are radical islamists?

          • H G

            You argue like a liberal.
            What a pathetic generalization.

          • I’m trying to figure out what you are saying here. You suggest not letting in any muslims, because we can’t let radical islam take root here.

            Not all muslims are radical Islamists, right?

          • H G

            You’ve read more than one of my comments Brian. You know what I’m saying you just chose to grossly misconstrue it.

          • I am responding to this statement: “All the more reason to limit Muslims refugees allowed into our country. We have to be able to stop radical Islam from ever taking root in America. It is an evil we cannot live with.”

            Can you answer the question? Do you think all muslims are radical Islamists?

          • H G

            You read my comments and imagine whatever you like.

          • I would rather not imagine – I’d rather you just tell me what you’re thinking. Why are you unwilling to answer this question?

          • H G

            Because it’s rooted in willful ignorance of my comments here.

          • No, it’s not. I am trying to understand what you said. You are refusing to help me do that. I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to say whether you think all muslims are radical Islamists. A yes or no is sufficient.

          • H G

            Brian, could you explain why we should allow Muslims who support Sharia law, or jihad, or sympathize with terrorists, or mercy killings, into America or be allowed to remain in America as free?

          • Answer my question and I’ll answer yours.

          • H G

            The answer is evident in my question and in my many other comments you’ve read and responded to. You know the answer.
            If you don’t want to answer my question, so be it.

          • No, I don’t. If you are saying that all Muslims are radical Islamists, then say that. If that’s what you believe, own it and say it. That you won’t makes me think you recognize that you can’t defend that statement.

          • H G

            Radical islamists terrorists are muslim, not the other way around.

            This is evident from my comments.

          • No. It’s not. Okay, so you are saying that NOT all Muslims are radical Islamists. Good.

          • But hey, I will answer your question. If folks hold those views and in the opinion of the folks vetting them that makes them a security risk, they should be barred. If they are already here, this is America and people are free to believe whatever they want. No action should be taken unless they break the law.

          • H G

            So do you want to stop the detainment, arrest, and prosecution of those who make threats to others on social media sites?

          • If they’ve broken the law, they’ve broken the law.

          • “You argue like a liberal.”

            What a pathetic generalization.

          • Apparently asking to clarify a statement that seems to mean something that he eventually says he didn’t mean is a “liberal” argument tactic. How dastardly.

        • Stephen Spiker

          How do you stop an ideology from taking root in a free society?

          • H G

            I have no idea. I mean it’s not like we arrest people who make threats to innocent civilians on twitter.

            If someone or some group – say, in a mosque – is advocating and sympathizing with islamic terrorists, jihad, or other islamic evil, they should be removed from society.

        • Warmac9999

          Unfortunately, it has already taken root. There are muslim enclaves such as Detroit and acknowledged “training” camps in a variety of states. No one knows when a plot(s) will be activated but if 9/11 proved anything, it is that a plot will be activated at the time and choosing of the enemy.

          • Where, exactly, are these “acknowledged ‘training’ camps?” Can you document this claim?

          • Warmac9999

            The FBI knows of at least 22 paramilitary Islamic communes in the U.S. run by the Pakistan-based Jamaat al-Fuqra and its American branch, Muslims of the Americas, and the questions those locations give rise to.

            Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly was interviewing Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst for the Clarion Project, which focuses its studies on extremism, about some of those same locations.

            He told O’Reilly that one of the dangerous spots is in Hancock, New York, about 145 miles from Manhattan, where there is actually a place called Islamberg.

            The 60-acre compound features military-style training and is run by Muslims of America, Mauro said.

            He explained that the group is not a designated terror organization, so police can do little but monitor the activities of the estimated 3,000 people who are part of it across the U.S.

            Other points to pay attention to, Mauro said, were several mosques where preachers have been known to talk about getting arms for jihadis as a priority, and where Muslim leaders talk about turning America into an Islamic caliphate.

            “This is pretty frightening stuff,” said O’Reilly. “My question is, should Americans be concerned?”

            Mauro said there is danger, because of the ideology taught in those locations.

          • Stephen Spiker

            At least one of Mauro’s alleged communes has already been disproven. http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-brook/news/ct-dob-checking-islamic-extremists-tl-0319-20150312-story.html

            I found that within 15 seconds of searching. I’m not looking for other examples. It appears Mauro carries as much weight as an pseudonym posting in the comments section on the Internet.

          • Warmac9999

            You do realize there is a difference between Oak Brook and Oak Hill.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I have no idea where this list came from or what it’s supposed to mean. In Mauro’s segment, Oak Brook was included on a map of Muslim training camps. He was wrong.

            Anyways, I have no interest in debating this with you. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion of refugees. If you want to sit there and be afraid of Muslims, have at it. You should take this as an opportunity to post another link from a fringe news source without any context.

          • Apparently there’s a training camp in my county. Right.

          • Here is one source: http://conservativetribune.com/map-terrorist-training-camps-1/

            This is World Net Daily-style conspiracy-with -a-tin-foil-hat stuff.

          • This is pretty weak tea if you mean to support a claim of 22 radical Islamic training camps in the US.

            Ryan Mauro, Bill O’Reilly, and the Clarion Project are simply not credible sources.

            Got anything from the FBI?

          • Warmac9999

            A January 2003 investigative summary by the FBI states: “The captioned investigation of the Muslims of America is based upon specific and articulate facts giving justification to believe they are engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation thereof…”

          • It would help if you provided links, but I presume you mean this document I found at Clarion Project:

            http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/exclusive-clarion-project-discovers-texas-terror-enclave#popup-1

            This is indeed very interesting, but hardly supports a claim that the FBI knows about 22 Muslim terrorist training camps in the US. It really only says they have one small camp in Texas that amounted a few mobile homes on ten acres out in the middle of nowhere.

            To be sure, this document suggests that the FBI at least suspected that the Muslims of America group was an international terrorist organization. But it’s also more than 12 years old, and begs a very important question: if the FBI was so sure that MOA was a terrorist group in 2003, why didn’t the George W. Bush Justice Department take action?

            Perhaps because it would have distracted Americans from his plan to borrow trillions of dollars so he could invade Iraq for no good reason?

            It would appear that if you believe we have a Muslim training camp problem in the US you should blame Republicans like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft. Barack Obama inherited a problem that Conservative leaders allowed to fester.

          • Warmac9999

            Well if obama inherited a problem from Buch, who did Bush inherit his 9/11 problem from. The answer is Bill Clinton who had at least three distinct opportunities to kill bin Laden. For some reason, I don’t think Clinton was conservative

          • Warmac9999

            You apparently missed “FBI” is the first sentence of my post in your rush to discredit it.

          • Warmac9999

            Here they are!!!!!!!

      • TWP

        The asylum process, as used by the Tsarnaev family, requires first obtaining a legal tourist visa, which only works on a small scale, and so gets you more individual scrutiny. Coming in in numbers is easier in a crowd. Even more effective is a diversified strategy using both avenues.

        The “home grown” argument is just a reason to be careful about even the individually “harmless” ones, but that’s a separate discussion.

        • H G

          They’ll come here by any means they can be it visas, refugees, illegal immigration, etc. etc.

        • Stephen Spiker

          No, it’s not a separate discussion. It’s exactly pertinent to what we’re discussing. Terrorists don’t infiltrate the U.S. using the refugee system — it’s too stringent which is why it’s never happened. But some refugees, and aslyees, and migrants, and native-born citizens, have been radicalized once here and have committed acts of violence. So what does that tell us? Two things:

          1) Stopping the intake of people in need is a piss-poor way of making anybody safer, and you’re needlessly sending thousands of families and children back to be slaughtered by evil, and;

          2) Sometimes bad people do bad things, and the only way really to prevent that is to have the government ban the free exchange of ideas.

          • H G

            There are other options when dealing with Syrian refugees. You can quit pretending otherwise.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I’m not pretending otherwise. I’m just not accepting “let’s not help innocent families and children fleeing for their lives from evil” as an option.

          • H G

            Another strawman. Perfect.

            Who is saying that?

          • Stephen Spiker

            You and everybody else who doesn’t want to accept Syrian refugees in the U.S.

            Of all the things up for debate, how is this one of them? I thought the two sides were pretty damn clear: accept Syrian refugees or don’t.

          • H G

            Then you’ve ignored the argument in favor of you own imaginations.

            If you refuse to listen, I can’t help you.

          • Stephen Spiker

            … okay, H G. I guess I’m just pretending that 30+ Governors and countless others have said “we don’t want Syrian refugees”. I’m glad it was all just a bad dream.

          • H G

            You’re funny. You’ve been instructed on the temporary nature of the Governor’s requests.
            Again, you refuse to process facts. Why not just get it right?

          • Stephen Spiker

            Because I’m in favor of allowing Syrian refugees, and others are opposed to that. You seem to think that an unnecessary indefinite halt is called for, which I disagree. You also seem to think that those calling for an indefinite halt will suddenly change course and be willing to accept Syrians into this country down the line, which is fucking hilarious.

          • H G

            Now it’s and “indefinate” halt. You really have trouble with facts.

          • Stephen Spiker

            This is utterly fascinating to me.

            Time-out for a second (we’ll get back to going round-and-round, I promise): What is your end goal here?

          • When does it stop being temporary? When all the refugees are dead and they aren’t trying to come here anymore?

          • H G

            Why don’t you read what they’ve said instead of speculating?

          • I was asking rhetorical questions.

          • H G

            It would have been taken rhetorically if your point wasn’t so ridiculous.
            They’ve said why Syrian refugees should be temporarily paused. They’ve said what type of assurances and information they would require before continuing.

            Again, it defies reason the way your side refuses to acknowledge that these refugees could be protected within their own country and probably for far less expense — definitely with far less risk to America.

          • You don’t understand the purpose of this program. These people are leaving for good. They are resettling here. They left and want to become Americans.

          • H G

            Just because they want to come here doesn’t mean we have to take them today. They can and should be secured in their own nation. They can get in the legal immigration line if they still want to leave.

          • solepsis

            The refugee process is the strictest possible version of the legal immigration line

          • I’m sorry that you have no compassion, nor any recognition of what is actually going on over there.

            And this is the regular immigration line. The refugee program is part of it.

          • H G

            I have compassion. I feel sorry for you.

            This is the typical liberal accusation hurled when you emote on an issue instead of think.

          • You are suggesting that people who have been displaced by war just put their lives on hold for years. That they stay in tent cities with no jobs, no food, no security. All because you are afraid that somebody may try to use the system that has worked for three decades to come here with bad intentions.

            You aren’t putting yourself in the shoes of the refugee or trying to understand what they are going through.

            If you can’t have compassion for those folks, that’s fine. Just admit it. I’m a Christian and I can’t ignore their plight.

          • renegadesix

            You are in the wrong party. Liberals belong in the democRAT party. Please see yourself out the door.

          • Warmac9999

            It is not only imagination, it is the distortion or even outright manufacture of facts.

          • H G

            You’re right. You don’t defeat a strawman without first creating one.

        • soleia79

          interviews for tourist visas last 5-10 minutes, max, and they don’t have the same security/background checks that refugees go through. That 5-10 minute visa interview is a far cry less thorough than an extensive refugee interview.

          And the difference between asylum status and refugee status DOES matter, because they government is more limited in what it can do once someone physically present in the US claims asylum versus an overseas refugee program where applicants don’t have the same rights.

          • TWP

            The law (208)(b)(1)(A)) says an applicant for asylum must meet the definition (101(a)(42)(a)) of a refugee to be eligible. I’m not sure where anyone would get the idea its an easier path, unless it’s based on the present endemic nullification of law by those charged with its enforcement. There, you might have a point.

          • soleia79

            I didn’t say that it’s easier to be granted asylum than it is to be granted refugee status. But no one comes to the U.S. on an asylum visa; people claim asylum after entering the U.S. on tourist visas, student visas, etc. Those visas require less screening than refugee applicants go through. And the fact of the matter is, once a person is present on U.S. soil (especially if they claim asylum), they are afforded certain rights not necessarily available to people outside the U.S.

  • sparkyva

    Virginia has a governor who welcomes Syrians, but then what would you expect from such a liberal who thinks only of being Hillary’s VEEP? Fortunately the most heavily populated area to attack in Virginia is the North Eastern area rich in liberals. They might even cross over into the DC area. Not that I enjoy the idea of blood and mayhem, but what else will cause liberals to think logically?

    • Warmac9999

      Nothing will cause them to think logically. If what you say happens, they will quickly blame someone else for having let it happen. They cannot accept blame. They are conditioned to point the finger at someone else. Sort of like the 7 year old who ate all the cookies, has the chocolate on his or her fingers, and blames their 2 year old sister who just happens to be a grandma’s house.

      • H G

        Exactly. “We won’t process the facts because doing so will compromise our refugee policy”.

        • Stephen Spiker

          The fact is that terrorists don’t use the refugee system to come into the U.S. So… you’re not really talking about “facts” here, more like “paranoid fears exacerbated by xenophobia”.

          • H G

            Already you’ve been proven wrong on this. Yet you refuse to process those facts.

          • Stephen Spiker

            The fear is that ISIS or some other terrorist organization, looking to get a plant inside the U.S., will send people through the system in order to gain access to the U.S. That’s never happened. Period.

            Which makes perfect sense, because being a refugee requires a referral from the UNHCR and up to two years in vetting. There are much, much easier ways for terrorists to get inside the U.S. For example, see every single terrorist act ever committed in this country.

            Have there been refugees who have done bad things once here? Certainly. People in this thread have helpfully pointed out a dozen or so individuals out of nearly a million, which makes refugees statistically the least violent population group in the U.S.

          • H G

            Your actual words differ from this version.
            “The fact is that terrorists don’t use the refugee system to come into the U.S.”
            See what I mean.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Yes, I wrote a sentence, then I wrote a larger explanation consistent with what I’ve been saying all along.

            This is fun, H G. It’s like a DVD commentary track.

          • H G

            So you admit that terrorist have attempted and have come here through the refugee process. Good on ya.

          • Stephen Spiker

            No, I mean the words that I wrote that say the exact opposite of what you just typed. I’ve meant them every time I’ve said them.

            You’re an odd person. It’s charming, in a way.

  • H G

    After reading much of the comments it’s becoming clear that Brian’s position is along the lines of… “okay, okay, so terrorist have come here as refugees after all, but hey, they haven’t succeeded in carrying out there evil plots ’cause we caught them in time. So come one come all you refugees. We’ll catch the terrorist refugees here in America’s neighborhoods before its too late.”

    • No, my argument is that the overwhelming majority of refugees – 99% – are not terrorists. As the CATO article noted, there are a total of 3 convictions of refugees for terrorism related activities, and none of those resulted in American deaths on American soil.

      The issue with refugees, right now, is the idea that they could potentially be sleeper ISIS agents who are planning immediate attacks, like we saw in Paris. There is no evidence, based on the last thirty plus years of our current refugee policies, that this is true or even likely.

      • H G

        Look Brian, nobody is saying to never accept Syrian refugees again. What we’re saying is to look at the options when it comes to Syrian refugees. Setting up a protected zone in their own country is one of those options.
        But the idea that evil Muslim terrorists aren’t changing tactics and looking for weakness to exploit in our refugee immigration system and policies and that such efforts are doomed to fail even if they make it here, is naive to say the least.

        • I’m not being naive and I’m not saying that terrorists aren’t changing their tactics. I’m saying that this program is one of the least likely for anybody to use as a vector to get a sleeper cell in the country. There’s too much vetting, the process takes too long, and it’s too skewed towards families, women and children.

          And yes, plenty of people are saying shut down the program and bar Syrian refugees from entering.

          • renegadesix

            And when one does succeed in killing an American or many Americans, what then? Mea Culpa from you? That will be cold comfort to the families of the people blown apart from your little policy error. It will happen. It is GUARANTEED to happen. It is only a matter of time We just got the proof in California.

        • Stephen Spiker

          A lot of people are saying never accept Syrian refugees again.

          • H G

            That isn’t the course of action our nation is considering.

      • H G

        So maybe 1% of the next 10k Obama is intent on bringing to our soil will be terrorists. That puts us at ease. A mere 100 terrorists is nothing to concern ourselves over. It’s not like Paris’ attacks were carried out by far less.

        • Warmac9999

          It is statistically impossible not to let ISIS terrorists in with the refugees. We have no real vetting information so you essentially have to look at this statistically. What percentage of the muslim populace is willing to commit violent jihad.

          • Stephen Spiker

            I don’t think you understand how statistics work, but that’s okay.

  • Chris

    Really interesting summary, Brian. Seems like you did a TON of research. If only more media outlets published such rigorous pieces. Thank you!

  • Chris

    I read a thought provoking piece that compared our response to this to our response to mass shootings. Whenever there’s a mass shooting, we hasten to point out that it was carried out by one individual and they don’t necessarily speak for any other individuals, or for gun owners in general. But with this attack the focus is totally on the larger population. It makes sense, because here the attackers explicitly claim to speak for Muslims in general, but do they really? It seems sort of dissonant to just take them at their word, especially when plenty of Muslims are loudly saying that these terrorists do NOT speak for them.

    • Stephen Spiker

      Correct. Because a collectivist response to a domestic incident might infringe on the rights of people who live here. Whereas a collectivist response against an international incident only impacts people who don’t live here.

      Unfortunately, principles are easily cast aside in times of uncertainty.

      • Chris

        Very clearly and succinctly stated. Have you considered going into punditry?

  • Cheryl

    You present many good facts here in a calm and non-judgmental way. This is good. People are understandably afraid and we need to talk about this problem is a serious manner. Unfortunately the President set a negative tone by using this as an opportunity to insult and belittle not only Republican candidates and Governors, but also the many people they represent. If he were a real leader he would have acknowledged the legitimate fears of the American people and used his “powers of persuasion” to bring them to his point of view. Instead he lectures, bullies, and calls them names. Speaker Ryan is doing his best to tone down the rhetoric and come up with a plan that would give our citizens some sense of security, so they can feel safer in bringing these refugees to our communities. Unfortunately the President has rejected this and continues to demagogue the subject for political reasons. He is so destructive to our national fiber; I think it will take a long time to recover from the damage. One last point about France taking in refugees – it is my understanding that as past of the EU they cannot act independently and that these numbers are set by Brussels. So it’s not really fair to compare their actions to those of our country. This is the one place where I think you were indeed judgmental in your writing.

    • I know that Brussels sets a minimum, but I believe President Hollande was making the point that they will allow a larger amount than their quota next year.

    • Tom E

      Yes, Obama saying it was a setback was a travesty. Kerry added insult to injury when he told US Embassy emoloyees in paris that charlie hebdo attack was rationale.

  • Tom E

    Here is an article that relates to the vetting problem.
    http://www.mprnews.org/story/2009/12/29/january-1-birthdays
    A lot of refugees fleeing their country don’t have their passport, identification documents, birth certificate, etc or “don’t know” their birth date. This is true for both men and women and for more countries than just Africa. So for someone who doesn’t know their Date of birth, usually 1-1-1960 or whatever year is assigned to them or maybe xx-xx-1960 or sometimes even 00-00-1960. This obviously presents vetting problems because it is extremely hard to vet someone without a date of birth. The west is reliant on dates of birth, passport numbers, social security numbers, etc. When we don’t have that information, whether it be on purpose, the refugee truly doesn’t know their DOB, or thru fraud, or by a terrorist masking their identity presents vetting problems. This is another reason why vetting can never be guaranteed

  • Bryan

    Brian, I came across your article as I was researching facts related to Syrian refugees. A friend of mine had posted on FB that 80% of the refugees were men of “military age” and this seemed very high so I wanted to dig deeper before responding. Your Myth #4 speaks to this exact point and has a dramatically different statement of fact, “In the United States, the numbers are strikingly different – of those admitted for resettlement in America, only 2% were unmarried men of military age.” Once again, I felt this statistic was unbelievable so I checked your fact with the source you linked to and found that your statement does NOT agree with your source. Being unmarried and being attached to a family are not mutually exclusive.

    If your article was truly intended to cut through the misinformation and colorful narrative in order to form a foundation of truth from which to create sound policy ideas I struggle to understand why you would attempt to debunk a myth with misleading facts of your own.

    Ultimately my friend’s FB post that quoted 80% was much further from the truth, but when I, or anyone for that matter, read an article written by a journalist such as yourself I should be able to trust that myth-busting facts are simply that. For the sake of other readers who don’t have the time to fact-check your article or read these comments, please clarify your facts related to Myth #4 so we can all truly have an objective discussion on the subject.

    Other than that, I enjoyed your article and feel more educated about the myths and facts related to Syrian refugees and our nation’s policies related to them.

    Best regards,
    Bryan

    • H G

      That higher percentage is from the UNHCR and indicative of refugees entering Europe, not the US.

      https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2015/09/07/unhcr-data-confirms-it-75-of-the-so-called-refugees-arriving-in-europe-are-men/

    • I took the phrase “unattached to a family” and “men with no family” as meaning “unmarried.” If they were married, they’d have a spouse and that would count as a family. If they’re adults, they wouldn’t be coming over as part of a family unit, and the definition of military aged men I’ve seen used is adults 18-45.

      I don’t think the difference is that significant – do you have any information that the number of unmarried military aged men is higher than what I reported?

      I’ll edit the post to reflect what the headline says.

      And while I appreciate it, I’m not a journalist. I’m just a commentator.

  • Tom E

    Here is a good report on Immigration and Terrorism. I know, I know, it doesn’t have the word refugee in the title but have no fear, a key word search of “refugee” in the PDF returns about 4 hits that highlight the following national security refugee concerns dating back to the 1990s:

    http://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2005/kephart.pdf

    -Wadi El Hage was involved in the 1998 Africa Embassy bombings and was the personal secretary of Bin Laden. He worked at Al Kifah REFUGEE center in New York. Al Kifah has been described as “al-Qaeda’s recruitment center in the US” (top right of page 15 of the PDF)

    -Fawaz Damrah was an Imam at the Islamic Center of Cleveland and a chief fundraiser for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Damrah was charged with criminal natz fraud and among his false statements was his concealment of Al Kifah REFUGEE Center in NY.
    I wonder how the left will respond to bin Laden’s personal body guard working at a refugee center in New York? Surely this a coincidence and the body guard only helped inventory pencils and paperclips at the refugee center. I am sure he was not involved in referrals or trying to get other bad people to come to America.

    • The refugee centers help refugees acclimate after they get here, they don’t recruit people to come. You’re really digging here. This was a long time ago, he was born into a Christian family in Lebanon but converted, came here for school, got to stay because he married an American. Not a refugee.

  • Tom E
    • H G

      Oh no! They voted to stop our refugee program..

      Nope, nope, just to try and make it terrorist proof.

      • The bill didn’t really do that. It just required the FBI Director to certify to DHS and DNI that a background screening had been done. That’s already done, the certification is the only thing that’s added. It also requires that DHS, FBI and DNI all certify to Congress that the refugee is “not a threat to the United States.” They already make the decision now, but now Congress is requiring a certification. That’s just paperwork. It adds nothing substantive to the process.

        All it will really do is slow down the process. It won’t have a meaningful impact on making the process any stronger.Tom keeps saying the process is flawed, and the fix here is just require a certification that they’ve done the process. Not sure why you guys like that.

        • H G

          Probably right, accountability is over-rated.

          • The accountability is already there. If they certify and somebody gets through, nothing happens as a result of this law. The accountability will be political, and it will happen regardless of whether this law is enacted or not.

          • H G

            Yeah…. I disagree.

          • renegadesix

            They need to pass a law that if anyone cleared commits or attempts to commit a terrorist act, every person involved in clearing them is an accomplice to the terror act and suffers the same penalty as the terrorist they let in.

            In a perfect world, all of you people supporting allowing terrorists in would suffer the same penalty.

        • Tom E

          Rationale is that maybe the High ranking 3
          Officials wont want to certify if these vulnerabilities are highlighted and brought to their attention. That is 1 heavy decision to weigh. Kind of like trying to justify terrorism only matters if it happens in The US. Hmm, maybe a white paper needs to be drafted. I wonder if they know the INA doesnt differentiate if refugees commit terrorism in or outside the US. Or materially support from in or out of the US. Oh wait, they wont give a hoot because they are professionals.

          • And that’s a bad rationale. These folks all work for the President. If they don’t do what he tells them, he will remove them. The President doesn’t want this bill. The certifications will just be a rubber stamp.

    • H G

      By a vote of 289-137.

      Curs-ed bipartisanship!

  • Fullwit

    I commend Stephen and Brian, your patience is almost inspiring. I’ve read more of these comments than I care to admit, but goodness, you two are amazing! How you can continue to interact with the willfully ignorant, honestly just blows my mind. I am truly at a loss for words..in the best way possible.

    • Practice.

    • Tom E

      The only thing worse than a politician is a wannabe politician

  • Reinhardt Reganbacker lll

    Myth #9- We can vet them, in spite of what the FBI Director says;

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/fbi-director-admits-us-cant-vet-all-syrian-refugees-for-terror-ties-video/

    Where is your link Brian?

    Myth #10- A country that is nearing $20 Trillion in debt can afford the expensive half assed vetting process. We cannot.

    Myth #11- The Saudi’s and othe rich middle-east countries are gladly taking as many refugees as possible. To the best of my knowledge they are not taking any? Why not?

    Myth #12- Brian wrote this article? Or, did ISIS really hack BD, and it is they who really wrote this article? Prove it????

    • My links are in the article. He was not quoted properly.

      If you read the article, you’d know that the Saudis claim to have taken 2.5 million, and the UN has said they’ve taken at least 500,000.

      You’ve read enough of my stuff to know this was me.

      • Reinhardt Reganbacker lll

        Boloney, you were able to find the one website to use to prove what you wanted us to believe. Find another.

        One can read exactly what the director said. Make their own opinion. He said what he said.

        If you will not at least support the Republican Party on this, how can you be Republican?

        No unity means a loss in ’16. The most united party will win.

        • H G

          He’s a typical DC republican. Not a conservative.

        • Stephen Spiker

          Why is opposing refugees the line of demarcation for being a Republican? I’m a libertarian. I support limited government. Why does that obligate me to turn my back on families in need?

          • Reinhardt Reganbacker lll

            It’s not, it is the lack of unity that not opposing refugees brings to the table. The table of defeat.

          • Stephen Spiker

            So, we should turn our backs on refugee families and children in need… not because of any security risk they pose, but because it’s better for the Republican Party.

        • I found an article that had Comey’s actual quotes in it, and it’s from a conservative news source. The quotes are right there. Yes, he said what he said, and what he said wasn’t that they couldn’t vet people.

          The Party doesn’t have an official stance on it. I’m trying to help shape the debate. My personal opinions don’t matter – this article was about facts.

          • Reinhardt Reganbacker lll

            The article about how many refugees that the rich Arab states are takings in.

            The Republican controlled US House passed a bi-partisan bill today.

            At the end of the day, compromise is the order here.

            Also, if we did not have 20-30 million illegals already here, we would be in a better position.

            If we didn’t have nearly $20 Trillion of debt piled up.

            If we hadn’t been at war since 911.

            Anything the left is for, the right is against, and vise versa. Thank Reagan for that, by doing away with the FCC Fairness Act. Hence, the formation and fertilization of hate radio.

            There are too many variables here.

          • You are babbling.

          • Reinhardt Reganbacker lll

            You’re more in line with what party? But, don’t get me wrong, I still think you are a great guy.

            Babbling is now when someone tells the truth?

          • You’re just stringing together random sentences that aren’t connected by any coherent thought. It’s babbling.

  • reluctant activist

    Brian, We are typically on opposite sides of the spectrum, but I continue to have great respect for you. I very much appreciate the myth busting you have done with this article. I understand that people are certainly afraid to allow refugees into this country, and with good intention. But I would add that it is likely to be in our best national security interests to assimilate these refugees, so that more Muslim ghettos like Molenbeek are not established in Europe. These places are rank with poverty, lack of opportunity and isolation and are breeding grounds for organizations like ISIS.

    • H G

      The entire muslim world is a breeding ground for islamic terrorists. There isn’t a muslim nation that hasn’t known terror and war at the hands of islamic terrorists. It is a culture and religion rife with brutality, indignity, terror, and war. Always has been.
      Poverty and lack of opportunity are not to blame.

      • Now we’re getting into the bigotry area.

        • H G

          Hilarious. What part of my comment isn’t true?

          • The quote about the culture and religion, the always has been.

          • H G

            Really, please point to a time and place where the muslim culture and religion didn’t experience the presence of brutality, indignity, terror or war.

          • When has any culture not experienced those things? They are ubiquitous in human culture throughtout all of history.

          • H G

            Not to the same degree, but nevertheless thanks for admitting what I said is true.

          • You are correct – not to the same degree. Western culture has done far worse. And I am not admitting what you’ve said is true, I said you singling out those things for Muslims is bogus and bigoted. Pretending that their culture is less violent than ours or other western cultures in ages last just demonstrates your lack of history.

          • H G

            Western culture has done far worse? Really? Whatever are you speaking of?
            I’m very curious how their culture is less violent than ours.

          • Holocaust, nuking of Japan, just for starters. Crusades, most of what Rome did during the empire and republican days. Massive wars constantly. Vikings.

          • H G

            Nuking of Japan?

            Oh my. Brian. How sad.

            Fast forward to today. We are not experiencing those things and yet they remain, as I’ve said, prominent in the muslim world. They always have been.

          • It was completely justified, but don’t act like it wasn’t brutal, terror causing or war.

            Vietnam? Nobody has clean hands. Pretending we do is just disingenuous.

          • H G

            Equating our culture with muslim world much more than just disingenuous.

          • Every culture is different. When we start trying to argue that one culture is better than another, that’s where we trend into dangerous territory. There’s no reason to do that.

          • H G

            Every culture is not compatible with American values.

          • Steve Palmer

            Where we trend into dangerous territory is when we cannot acknowledge bad ideas as bad ideas. The irony is you talk like a progressive while claiming to be a conservative but are in fact neither. You are what people have attempted to label as regressive, authoritarian in your effort to pretend that all cultures are equally bad and good and therefore no other culture can be criticised while western culture must be torn to shreds. You use liberal talking points straight from the DNC and Rachel Maddow to do it. I wonder if one day you will look back and realize you were just softening your fellow Americans up for the kill.

          • No, I’ll probably be looking back proud that I could help my fellow Americans stop jumping at their shadows and whining about everyone who is different than they are.

            If you want to convince someone that something is a bad idea, you’ve got to first start with all the facts. That was the point of this post. When people begin an argument based on things that aren’t true, you can’t have a reasonable discussion about them.

            You also can’t do that when you start trying to label the person you’re talking to.

          • Steve Palmer

            Yes but you started with facts that have been clearly disproven in the comments by more than one person. So tell me how you can have a reasonable discussion when one of the parties accept falsehood as fact?

          • Which facts in the article have been disproven?

          • Steve Palmer

            Wouldn’t it be easier to ask which facts haven’t been? Or are you going to cling to things like the vetting process takes 2 years even after homeland and the FBI have admitted there really is no vetting process since Syria’s records have been destroyed and there is no information on these people?

          • I dealt with the vetting process in the article, including the FBI’s statements.

            Again, the folks who can’t be vetted don’t get in. All of this is in the article. Not sure why you’re wasting all of our time rehashing things that have already been discussed.

          • Steve Palmer

            Maybe it’s because the wife in San Bernadino was vetted and put down a fake address on her application then got into the country and killed 14 people. But excuse me for wasting time.

          • She wasn’t a refugee.

          • Steve Palmer

            Ah semantics is a wonderful thing.

          • It’s not semantics. It’s a legal definition and a completely different process.

            The point I made in the article is that ISIS terrorists are not going to waste their time trying to sneak someone in through the refugee system when there are easier programs like the Visa Waiver program they can use. This is a perfect example of my point – she got an expedited review because she was marrying a US citizen. You want to tighten that up, I’m all for it.

          • Steve Palmer

            But that is predicting what the enemy will do and saying with definitive certainty what that is.

          • Yes, it’s predicting what the enemy will do. That’s what we pay law enforcement and our intelligence community to do.

            Put yourself in ISIS’s shoes.

            To sneak somebody in as a refugee, you’ve got to 1) find and recruit a woman, a woman with kids, or the teenage son of a woman with kids because those are the most likely to get accepted as a refugee to the US, 2) get them to a refugee camp; 3) sign them up with UNHCR; 4) find some way to get UNHCR to recommend they be sent to America; 5) give them good enough papers and a cover story to withstand multiple layers of vetting; 6) wait the two years it takes to get through the entire process.

            Are you going to do all that? Probably not, because you’ve got multiple other faster options like:

            1) Recruit a European; 2) Let them fly to America.

            That’s two steps, can be done in 72 hours.

            The refugee process is not what terrorists will target to infiltrate sleeper cells into the US. They aren’t like the Soviets were – they aren’t interested in long term intelligence gathering.

          • KTA

            Why cannot you accept that Western culture has been as violent or much more so than Muslim culture? Between 500-1500, the Jews actually lived in Israel peacefully as the Muslims controlled the area. It only changed after the Crusades and the subsequent failure of Western countries to determine the lives of everyone around the world through imperialism.

          • H G

            That is preposterous.

          • KTA

            What makes it preposterous? The fact that it doesn’t fit your view of how things should have happened or the fact that maybe Muslims weren’t always a danger to others? Or is it your belief that western culture was ever violent?

          • H G

            First, they didn’t live in “Israel”, there was no nation at the time.
            My belief is that Islam began as a violent religion and has always contained a significant violent element.
            Your imperialism nonsense is pure mythology. What did we take from the nations we conquered?

          • KTA

            Nevermind, I’m not going to have a discussion with someone as closed-minded as you are. You cannot accept a different view. If it is a different view from your narrow version it is blasphemy.

          • H G

            Blasphemy? How so?
            Because I acknowledge the violent history of a significant portion of Islam?

          • KTA

            You choose to ignore anything I say as long as you get your misguided point of the violent history of a significant portion of Islam across. You cannot prove that but you will proclaim it.

          • H G

            I can prove it. It’s historical fact and a present reality.

            You on the other hand cannot prove your “imperialism” or your Jews lived in “Israel” from 500-1500 nonsense.

            Do you support Sharia law?

          • H G

            KTA, do you favor Sharia law over our Constitution?

          • KTA

            Complete irrelevant to the discussion we were having but how can I expect something different from you?

          • H G

            Well, you accused me of blasphemy. Stands to reason you’re muslim. Do you support Sharia law over our Constitution? A simple yes or no will suffice.

          • KTA

            No I don’t support Sharia law over our Constitution. And for the matter, I am Jewish. Do you see how ignorant you are? If someone disagrees with you, even with reason on their side, you are quick to view them as the enemy. I pray to your god that you don’t vote because we don’t need fear determining our leaders. You are despicable. The blasphemy I accused you of is the fact that you would NEVER accept opposing views. You are the anti-intellect.

          • H G

            Blasphemy is a term that has nothing to do with opposing political views.
            “the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk”
            Nothing intellectual about an improper use of the word. Ignorance is responsible.
            Just to rub a little salt in the proverbial wound, I have and do vote in every election.

          • KTA

            I will never accuse you of being intellectual about anything. Well, then if you have voted in every election, you have made this country a little bit further than what it was founded on.

          • H G

            When did you come to America?

          • KTA

            Are you really this stupid? I was born in Maryland, good enough for you? You cannot even refute anything I said, you just start down a different path. My ancestors have a good word for that, you are meshugenah.

          • H G

            KTA I’ve already handily refuted your comments. You said you didn’t want to talk to me about it any more. So I moved on to something else. There is no way for me to know you were born in America unless you tell me. I asked because your misuse of the word blasphemy as well as some of your grammar suggests you may have come here recently. Another option is you’re a young person.

          • Steve Palmer

            Do we need irrational emotional hyperbole like you spew out to determine our leaders? You do not have reason on your side, you do not have facts on your side. You have only hyperbole and name calling. You are an emotional child who can’t accept that they don’t know what they are talking about so they throw a tantrum and call names. Perhaps you found a flyer telling you there was a poop swastika on a wall somewhere so you now know full well how much bigotry and racism there is in the US.

          • Steve Palmer

            When KTA is shown to be a fool who does not know what they are talking about you are called closed minded, then in a roundabout way as always a bigot. Liberal logic strikes again.

          • Steve Palmer

            Would you like a list of the pogroms against the Jews in the middle East during that period? And when I saw Jews I mean the limited number that live in “israel” during that time. The fact however that you call it “israel” is illustrative of how little you know of what you are talking about.

          • KTA

            Steve Palmer, you said absolutely nothing and didn’t refute a thing I said. What was the point of your comment? The country is called Israel and will always be called that. Try some critical thinking, it helps.

          • Steve Palmer

            Well I really didn’t need to say much after reading through all of H G’s comments and seeing that he thoroughly refuted any claims you made and exposed our lack of knowledge. He also exposed that when confronted by this you simply attempt to insult other’s intellect to hide the lack of your own.

          • KTA

            Why are you so ignorant? Is it inherited or environmental? I just looked at the thread and HG didn’t respond to my comment. How can someone who didn’t respond refute anything I said? You must be a Trump supporter with that kind of nonsensical logic.

          • Steve Palmer

            Oh I see, you must be a Bernie supporter and you deny the existence of many replies the same way you deny the existence of the demand curve.
            You crap cultural marxist talking points out like Rosie O’Donnell craps out the remnants of her super sized fries. But you might want to actually check facts prior to doing so because there were no muslims in 500 AD.

            If you want to make the sophomoric argument about colonialism, which I’m guessing is what you actually meant when you said imperialism you might want to take a look at India and compare British occupation to muslim occupation. Or hell just take a look at the fact that India is now split up into 3 separate countries and they and Pakistan now point nuclear weapons at each other. Tell me what is the single difference between Pakistanis and Indians. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not ethnicity.

          • KTA

            This will be my last response to you. You are complete and utterly insane. You are fabricating an argument that doesn’t exist and start bringing in topics that are so far removed from the actual conversation it makes me wonder whether you are capable of rational thought.

            The single difference between you and I is that I currently live in reality and see things as they were and as they are. You are not qualified to say that for yourself.

            Also, the writer of the article is trying to be reasonable with you but there’s no reason involved in any of your comments.

            Goodbye.

          • Steve Palmer

            Yes it is totally off topic to point out that islam did not exist in 500 AD when you claim the Jews and muslims got along so swimmingly between 500 and 1500 AD. So based on that I think your claims to living in reality speak for themselves. Nevertheless there is no reason to get all hurt feels about it. You always have your safe space.

          • Wiping out Aboriginal Americans, including the first use of biological warfare.

          • H G

            Wiping out? You mean no more indigenous people remain here?
            What about when the indigenous were wiping out each other prior to us wiping them out? What biological warfare are you speaking of?

          • Did you seriously just imply that it wasn’t genocide because Europeans and the US Government didn’t kill every single Native American? Or that their conflicts with each other justified killing them and stealing their land? Don’t you have a very special kind of moral world view!

            During negotiations at Fort Pitt on 24 June 1763, British Captain Simeon Ecuyer gave a smallpox-infected handkerchief and blankets to Delaware Indians hoping to spread the disease. It worked.

          • H G

            No genocide.
            No stealing of the land.
            An claim of British, not American, captain for which there is no evidence.

            My point is the world operated on a completely different paradigm.
            The way it worked back then was nations were established by conquest and the same paradigm was in full operation among the various tribes. To measure America by the modern paradigm America help establish in the world is ignorance.

            America isn’t perfect, but the evidence shows that America is the best idea the world has ever known.

          • Steve Palmer

            The first use of biological warfare 100 years before germ theory genius? So despite having no idea what causes smallpox or what the hell a germ is Americans were using biological warfare?
            That’s interesting because as it turns out smallpox can’t be transmitted through blankets or any other inanimate object for that matter. This is according to the CDC who ran studies on it. It turns out that smallpox only lives for minutes outside the host organism.
            You’ve bought into a myth. A myth by the way that muslims don’t seem to have to face despite the fact that 1/3rd of the population of Europe died from the bubonic plague which came from North Africa. And it started right around the time muslims were invading Europe. Why do you think that is?

          • Steve Palmer

            Do you see the misdirection there? You ask him to point to a time and place where it was not the case. So incapable of doing so he deflects by asking when has any culture not experienced similar things. Essentially he asks you to point out a perfect culture that has never experienced in answer to you asking when has the muslim world not experienced it.All of these left wing arguments are smoke and mirrors, including his argument that he is a conservative.

  • Josh Reilly

    are you sure you are conservative?

    • H G

      I’m absolutely sure he is not.

    • Depends on how you define it. By the definition most people use – limited government, fewer regulations, low taxes, pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-personal freedoms, then yes.

      • H G

        pro gay marriage?

        • Yep.

          • H G

            Libertarian. Not conservative.

          • No, not really.

          • renegadesix

            Yes, really. No conservative is pro-gay marriage. No conservative is pro-taking ANY chance of letting terrorists into this country. No conservative would insult veterans by placing them on equal footing (we can do both) with refugees and argue that vets shouldn’t come first.

            You are a flaming liberal and should exit the GOP post haste for your true home — the democRATS.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Same thing.

        • David Southall

          pro-personal freedoms”<- gay marriage

  • H G
    • We already knew this. I acknowledged it in the opening paragraph. Did you not read this article?

      • H G

        Slightly different. “At least one may have posed” is not quite what the PM is now reported to have said at a point in time after your article posted. The PM says “some” of the suspects. That would point to more than one and implies more than they “may” have slipped in.

        • The PM did not say the had identified more than the one guy as potentially through migration, but regardless, we wouldn’t even be talking about this issue if at least one if not more of the bombers didn’t take advantage of the migrations to get there.

          I never said anything differently.

          • H G

            No, but your comments do cast aspersion on the reporting of refugees abroad.

          • How?

          • H G

            “a massive amount of misreporting on the issue of refugees, both in the United States and elsewhere”

          • That was misreporting of the issue of refugees here and refugees elsewhere.

          • H G

            What misreporting on refugees elsewhere are you speaking of?

          • The numbers, the reporting on Saudi’s acceptance, etc.

  • H G
  • Akamu

    Thank God Brian knows more than the Director of the FBI…

    I fail to see why the life of a Syrian Refugee is more important than the life of a US citizen. If we violate the safety of our country, where will people run to? We won’t be able to help anyone. We’re supposed to take in 10,000 and we can’t even get to the bottom of Hilary’s email scandal. Sure tells you a lot.

    • I don’t know more than the Director of the FBI, but I know what he actually said, not what some are spinning about what he said.

      If you guys want to go down this route – where the security of a US citizen is worth changing fundamental aspects of who we are – it leads to all kinds of places we should never go, from complete electronic surveillance, gun registration and restrictions, to other kinds of civil liberty restricting laws. That may make us safer from terrorists, but it will also create an America totally different from where we live now,

      There has to be a balance, and I believe we have struck the right balance in this program.

      • Akamu

        I do agree that we need balance, but this administration has already shown its incompetence. It can’t even figure out Hilary’s email scandal. Also, taking immigrants is not always the same, where they come from matter. America has always protected America, and other countries when it can. It’s not changing core values, it’s just not setting a crazy goal like 10,000 refugees when ISIS has just began to get serious. Other countries have already admitted they allowed people to slip through with fake IDs. I don’t see our government as any more competent.

        • Stephen Spiker

          The difference between the U.S. and Greece isn’t a matter of competence, it’s a matter of geography. Greece has refugees showing up on their shorelines; they can do little but sign them in, contact the UN, and send them on their way. Coming to the U.S. physically requires an actual ship or plane.

          We’ve allowed close to a million refugees in the past few decades, and they have been statistically the safest population group living here. An additional 10,000, or 1% – 2%, is not crazy by any means.

          • Akamu

            What’s crazy is 10,000 in 2 years. That’s nearly 5x what we’ve been doing.

            I’m not saying to keep them out forever, but people are doing the same thing that Islamophobic people are doing; letting their emotions run rampant. “Oh, those poor Muslims in other countries. We’ve got to save them!” No, we need to slow down, gather more information, and then slowly (emphasis) allow for people to seek refugee here. Though, it’s not like our country has it together. We’re bankrupt, racism is incredibly high and republicans and democrats are out for each other’s blood.

            I don’t find this taking the FBI Director’s statement out of context:
            http://ij.com/2015/11/476646-stop-gowdytime/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=

          • Who was Gowdy asking? Comey wasn’t on that panel.

            10,000 in 2 years is aspirational. The chances are we won’t hit those numbers. The process doesn’t get any faster without additional resources, and I don’t see the President coming to Congress to ask for more resources in this environment. The vetting has to be done. No one is arguing in favor of expedited processing, at least to my knowledge. I wouldn’t support that and I don’t think most people, even those who support allowing more refugees in, would support that.

          • Tom E

            See above post. From 2009 to 2013 we let 25 to 36 Syrians PER YEAR. 10,000 is 277 times greater than 36 a year

          • Stephen Spiker

            The reason for the increase is because the UNHCR is hesitant to recommend re-settlement for new conflicts, with the hope that things will settle down and people can return to their homes. It makes perfect sense that the Syrian Civil War, which started in 2011, would only see large numbers of potential refugees in 2013-2014.

          • soleia79

            You mistakenly assume that the process for the 10k this fiscal year is beginning at day one now. Many of the people are already in the midst of the process.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Hold true to our principles as a country in the face of terrorism isn’t an emotional response, it’s a refusal to surrender to ISIS.

        • This is a process that has been around since the Reagan Administration. It’s not something new, and while I don’t always have faith in a lot of the administration’s political appointees, the career staff who handle most of this stuff know what they are doing. Their track record has been good, so far.

          10,000 from Syria, given the extent of their crisis with an estimated 9 million Syrians who have fled from their homes, is not a crazy goal. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that anybody is going to be able to get through the entire vetting process with a fake ID. There are too many checks.

          Who knows – in two years, we may have gotten rid of ISIS. A lot can happen in that time frame.

          • Akamu

            While I respect your opinion and apologize for the sarcastic tone I initially have, I simply disagree. The FBI director has said that we lack intel, for one reason or another. While this statement doesn’t necessitate the impossibility of gathering intel, he goes on to say “And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our database because of our country’s work there for a decade. This is a different situation.”

            By your own article’s estimations, we’ve taken few people because it is a lengthy process, 1-3 years if I recall correctly. This doesn’t speak to the competency of the check, as apparently there were 73 TSA employees on the United States’ terrorist watch. So, people who the government distrusts are working in an agency that verifies who the government should trust.

            I’m of the position we should be protecting refugees overseas, not by bringing them in. Maybe, down the road, we can bring them in when we’re in a position to, but I don’t see one. It’s also telling how many Muslims opposed to Christians are being brought over, when Christians are the ones who receive the worst treatment.

          • I think based on his comments, it’s clear that we do lack the capability to vet some of the Syrian refugees that sign up with UNHCR. But those people probably aren’t going to be referred, and if they are referred, I can’t imagine that anybody in the multi-layered chain of reviews, interviews and the like is going to pass those people along. If we can’t vet them, they won’t get in.

            There were 73 employees on the watch list because DHS didn’t have access to the full DOD watch list. Based on what I’ve read doing the research here, these names are run through broader databases, especially after the Iraqi incident in 2011. The IG still determined that TSA’s reviews were “generally effective.” And none of the 73 employees appear to have done anything or committed any crimes. It’s as likely that the database has false positive than it is that there are 73 potential terrorists in airline related jobs right now.

            The best way to protect refugees is to bring them in. There just isn’t sufficient infrastructure where they are to handle the flow. Here’s an article with photos of where some of these refugees are sleeping. It’s anecdotal, but it’s true. If we can help some of the most brutalized start over in a better place, and we can do it at a minimal risk to ourselves, we should do that.

            http://www.buzzfeed.com/lynzybilling/where-syrian-children-sleep#.kn9ee55qEB

      • larrd

        Suspending the acceptance of refugees from a single country is not going to change the fundamental aspects of “who we are,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, Brian.

        • It means what it means.

          • larrd

            Good one, Brian.

            You seem shakier every response.

  • Bob

    What about the cost of feeding and housing them? The VA is under funded there are lots of homeless here already. Should we take care of them first? Do we only have compassion for people from other countries? I didn’t see the’s things addressed. There’s never enough money for domestic programs and this seems like it have a cost associated with it.

    • We can do both at the same time, and refugees are given a temporary package of benefits. We have compassion for everybody, and the “take care if things at home first” argument is a poor one. We have been accepting refugees for as long as we have been a country and only now are we hearing this line of argument.

      • Bob

        I’m sorry you feel my argument is a poor one, and I agree that we could do both but we do not!
        Why?
        We are not just now hearing this argument, I’e been hearing it for many years.

        Here’s my 2 cents for the day!

        My main concern is that we keep hearing that there’s no money to help the VA hospitals or homeless vets. We have starving homeless people on our streets right now and a huge deficit. Are we compassionate because there’s a need, or because of political gain? It seems when there’s a need for domestic programs to help suffering people who are already here, there’s no money or resources. When the refugees get here they will be provided housing, medical treatment and food while people that have served this country and were born here will be hungry and sleeping on the street. Having been a homeless drug addict, I can tell you there’s very little compassion or help if you are a citizen of this great country. I’m all for immigration with appropriate regulation but why do we always look half way around the world for someone that needs help when I’ll bet you’ll see several today when you go to work or shopping. As you step over someone sleeping in a stoop tell yourself how benevolent you are by saving someone in the public eye because it’s the flavor of the month and that dirty person you walk by will probably just waste the money he’s begging for on drugs, right? I’m not trying to be offensive, I’m just offering an unpopular fact, that we tend to want to help people that we don’t have to get close enough to.smell, or get dirty hands from.
        So while you enjoy your wonderful day in this great country today, if you see some one that looks like they slept outside last night (it’s going to be 43 degree’s here tonight) say hi and give them a couple bucks. If they spend it on drugs or booze,well, they probably need it more than you need that 5 dollar latte.

        • The argument that there’s no money is ridiculous. We’ve doubled spending on vets in the last few years, and nobody is really going to argue against increased funding for vets. Those bills are rarely controversial. We spend billions a year on social safety net programs.

          When the refugees get here, they get a package that lasts a month, maybe two. Vets have permanent benefits, and they also are entitled to all of the welfare packages available to American citizens which refugees aren’t, because they’re not citizens yet.

          As for me personally, I do my best to help the hungry. I donate, my church donates, and I’ve never had a problem giving a guy a few bucks, regardless of what he spends it on. And I’m not a latte guy. 7-11 coffee is good enough for me.

          At the end of the day, this doesn’t have to be an “us” or “them” thing and these issues should be separate. We can help both and we should.

          • Bob

            Well, as for public safety nets, I have personally experienced being homeless and addicted to drugs. I guess I am the exception to the rule, because when I looked for help, I found little to none. I’m glad that it’s only me that didn’t have any help when I needed it and that all the rest of the homeless like being destitute and just choose not to use the help that you’ve read is available. I’m glad you are a charitable man and sincerely hope you never fall on hard times. Before I became down on my luck I had a great job and a family. I also had an outlook on public assistance much like you describe in your comments. I now have a very different view after needing help. While I completely agree that we could do both I don’t see the evidence. If so much money has gone to the VA why are people dying on waiting lists? This country has a 17 trillion dollar deficit. That seems to me like we don’t have extra money or even enough money. You seem like a smart guy, your research is probably more credible than my experience and I do hope you never have the experience of needing help from our benevolent compassionate government but if you do, I guarantee it will change the way you feel about how your tax dollar is being managed. I guess I’m just old fashioned, I think we should stop spending money when our balance is zero not 17 Trillion in the red. I hope we can help both and should but since it really seems like we are only going to help one why does it have to be people from another country? So we can feel good about how wonderful and caring we are and watch it on TV?

          • Depends on where you are. In the DC area there are a lot of places that offer assistance. I haven’t gone through what you’ve been through, but I have helped others who have, including family members.

            The VA’s problems are mismanagement, not money. We have a $19 trillion debt because we don’t let the money get in the way of doing things that people want done. When you can print your own money and you’ve got the strongest army and most stable economy, debt doesn’t matter as much, although we need to fix it. First things first, however. I don’t want to cut the debt if it means folks get hurt by it.

            The folks we are helping have been tortured. They’ve been attacked, had their houses destroyed by barrels bombs and chemical weapons. They’ve watched family members murdered in front of them. They’ve been raped and victimized. We prioritize those folks first. What they’ve gone through nobody should go through.

            Again, we can and are doing both. I’m sorry that it was difficult for you, but it looks like you’ve cleaned up and Worked things out and that’s a good thing. Hopefully yiu can empathize with what they’ve been through.

          • Looks like Bob deleted his comments. That’s a shame.

    • Chris

      Ask Congress why they never address those things. Also, your argument is “since we don’t take care of some people we shouldn’t take care of other people either.” How does the saying about two wrongs go again?

  • Tom E

    Maybe we should give refugees “the benefit of a doubt”

    • No, I think we vet them thoroughly and if we can’t verify their identities or the other aspects of their stories, we don’t allow them admission.

      • Tom E

        Do you think it is possible the UN gives refugee interviewees the benefit of a doubt during a UN interview? Would you agree a UN interview is one of the first steps in the vetting process?

        • Stephen Spiker

          It’s only the first step. That’s the first hurdle before they even face any scrutiny from U.S. agencies. And there’s no proof that their methods are lax — just you grousing about “possibilities”.

          • Tom E

            Do you have any references /citations or proof that the UN interview methods aren’t lax? Am interested to hear what Brian has to say too.

          • Stephen Spiker

            It was exceedingly easy to Google, but here you go:

            “The process begins with a referral from UNHCR. The U.N.’s refugee agency is responsible for registering some 15 million asylum seekers around the world, and providing aid and assistance until they are resettled abroad or (more likely) returned home once conditions ease. The registration process includes in-depth refugee interviews, home country reference checks and biological screening such as iris scans. Military combatants are weeded out.

            Among those who pass background checks, a small percentage are referred for overseas resettlement based on criteria designed to determine the most vulnerable cases. This group may include survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence, targets of political persecution, the medically needy, families with multiple children and a female head of household.”

            http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

          • Tom E

            Got to love google. That was a good article. I am sure that makes the common American realize the great work UNHCR is doing. The UN interview does sound thorough. “In depth” to quote the article, and “weeds out military
            Combatants”. I guess I never realized how squared away UNHCR was. I guess I Was under the presumption that they would give some of these refugees the benefit of a doubt. But I guess the Syrian crisis is so significant and important – and the threat so grave – that the UN has absolutely no wiggle room or any chance to give a refugee applicant the benefit of the doubt.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Even if they did, it wouldn’t really matter since they go through rigorous vetting by the U.S. following a referral. Given that these are mostly female-led households and children, there aren’t that many military combatants to weed out.

            You are trying really, really, really hard to believe that there is a gaping loophole in the refugee process and I’m not sure why. Most people who are irrationally anti-refugee are so because they’re underinformed and easily inflamed. You come across the same way, but the amount of work you’re putting into research suggests something else.

            Anyways, we’ve reached the point of the debate where we recognize the futility of it all. There is literally nothing on earth that would ever convince you that women and children are safe enough to be resettled here, and there’s nothing you can conjure that will convince me, or the U.S. and international communities for that matter, that refugees are all literal ticking time-bombs waiting to blow up school buses and shopping malls. So go on doing what you do, and if you ever cross paths with a Syrian refugee–an orphan perhaps, or a little girl playing with a doll–I hope you survive the encounter.

          • Stephen Spiker

            An under-emphasized point in all of this is that for the UNHRC to refer someone–that is, to say that this person should permanently be relocated to another country–it means not only that they face a threat where they live (hence, why they’ve fled in the first place) but they are particularly vulnerable. Great emphasis is put on children, female-led households, and orphans, who not only would not be in a position to thrive if they returned home after the conflict ends, but also may face significant challenges living in a refugee camp.

            That’s why only 2% of refugees admitted so far have been single males of combat age.

        • No, I don’t. Yes, the UN vetting starts the process. It’s the first step. Not the last and not the only.

      • renegadesix

        That is NOT what is happening. If they can’t find anything on them, they ARE giving them the benefit of the doubt and letting them in. They have said that.

  • edrebber

    The Assad government would have the records we need to vet the Syrian refugees. The United States is trying to overthrow Assad. It is the height of stupidity to think that Assad would cooperate in any way with vetting the Syrian refugees. Assad would be more inclined to prop up terrorists with false documentation sold to the highest bidder.

  • AbstractRealist

    73 people on terror watch lists were able to get jobs as TSA agents…only discovering later that they were on the lists. I don’t care how dissimilar the processes are, it just goes to show how serious we take security here (which is to say, not very seriously). Also the system has both been severely tested and even failed during “normal” flow…you really trust something run by our government during crazy times? Then if we ARE attacked? Really, well good luck with trusting that..

    • The IG report found that TSA didn’t have access to the entire terrorist watchlist. Hopefully that is correct.

      The IG report also found that “the vetting and re-vetting procedures that TSA used were “generally effective” in identifying workers with links to terrorism. Since 2003, the agency has advised airports to deny or revoke 58 airport workers as a result of its vetting process for credential applicants and holders.”

      Again, based on the evidence I’ve seen, we’re managing the risk appropriately. If there are ways to tighten the vetting process without having a noticeable impact on the timeline, we should obviously do that, but so far that hasn’t been an issue.

  • Flying Blogger

    I have heard reports from New Orleans that they are bringing in busloads. Who believes this propaganda machine? Obama is a pathological liar. Soros tells him to do it. He does it.

  • Flying Blogger

    It costs 12X as much to bring them over here as it does to keep them over there. We could help more people by keeping them there in safe zones. If they come here, they are going to be looting the overburdened Social Security and Medicare systems. The whole deal stinks. Obama is just trying to force more immigration on us.

    • Do you have any citations on the cost claim? And no, 10,000 people, if we even get to that number, aren’t going to “loot” social security. More children are born in the country every day than that. Are they looting social security and Medicare too?

      As for forcing immigration, no. We accept these people because it’s the right thing to do. If you want the program ended, lobby your congressional representation to end the program. Fortunately, the chances of that are nil.

      • Stephen Spiker

        Also refugees who settle here get jobs and pay into the system. If and when they become citizens they are entitled to benefits. Not before.

  • Flying Blogger

    30,000 refugees in France costs the same as 2,500 refugees in the US. We should pay Greece to keep ours for us. Then it will be easy for them to go back to Syria when things settle down.

    • You don’t seem to understand that these are people coming here permanently. Our top priority people are those who have suffered torture, been victims of violence, and who would be endangering themselves to return.

    • Tom E

      Great idea. Take all the salary of the refugee interviewer, vetting costs and incidentals and give it to Greece. They can help the Greek economy. Since economy and gloBal warming are more important than national security anyway,

  • Flying Blogger

    Myth #2 – The Obama Administration wants to allow hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to relocate to the United States.

    The article double-speaks this issue 10,000 this year + 85,000 next year +100,000 the following year = 195,000 over the next three years. Why is the crisis going to last that long? This is not a refugee situation. It is immigration.

    • This is incorrect. The numbers are the numbers. 10,000 Syrians of the 85k this year. the president has not increased that number yet, just the total number of refugees of all origins, as documented.

      • larrd

        “Yet,” huh?

        • He has the authority to raise it to whatever level he wants.

          • larrd

            You get creepier by the hour, Brian.

          • I’m not a progressive. I quoted the Refugee Act’s exact text giving him the authority to raise the limits if he finds it would be in the national interests. That’s essentially the power to let in as many as he wants.

            That’s the law. If you don’t like it, lobby your Congressman to change it. They granted him that authority. They can take it away.

          • larrd

            Sure you are, Brian.

            “That’s the law” is classic prog talk, for example. I’d guess you’re big into unions and such with that kind of authoritarian mindset.

          • I’m big into unions because they’re a better solution for regulating the market than big government. But don’t let the knee-jerk nonsense get in the way of you pointing out you’ve read my bio.

          • larrd

            It looks to me that the fellow conservatives you hobnob with are the beltway lapdog, type, Brian. Progs, even if they don’t realize it.

          • Yes, yes, everybody who actually does something is a progressive, only the anonymous keyboard commandos like you are true conservatives. If every one of you guys who came on here and started telling the rest of us how to do things actually did something, we might be able to win a national election once in a while.

          • larrd

            No, folks who spout nonsense like “That’s the law!” and “I wish people wouldn’t question my stuff but just read it as fact” and “unions are great for regulating!” tend to be prog zombies, Brian. I’ve already noted that a lot of you don’t realize it.

            I do plenty. Lying isn’t one of those activities, however.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Speaking of lying, he didn’t say two of those three things you put in quotes.

            The third thing, “that’s the law”, was him literally citing the law in order to back up his assertion of what the President can and cannot do.

            You’re not even arguing for anything here, you’re just picking a fight with Brian over nothing.

          • larrd

            Sure he did, Stephen.

            Brian is a beltway lapdog authoritarian hack, masquerading as some sort of authority on “conservatism.” Pointing out such is a much needed service, and it’s working. His type is losing influence by the day, thanks to free speech.

            I’m sure he appreciates your support, however. And I hope you feel smart and sophisticated for supporting the Beltway GOP.

          • Stephen Spiker

            He surely didn’t, liar.

            In my experience, the “authoritarian” hacks are the ones who blindly support the police when they shoot people and want to massively expand the federal government in order to deport illegal immigrants, like Trump.

            Brian is a sensible conservatism, meaning he buys into the notion that conservatives should stand for something rather than just throwing stones.

          • larrd

            Sure he did, Stephen.

            Wow! Police shootings, border fences!

            I hope someone has provided a safe space for you!

          • Stephen Spiker

            The U.S. is my safe space. I’m not the one scared of Syrian women and children.

          • larrd

            Good one, Stephen! You sure picked up the baton from Obama on that one!

          • When you claim I give a scary answer, but the answer is exactly what Congress enacted, I don’t now how to say it other than “that’s the law.” If there’s a way I can explain that to you that is less scary, let me know and I will be sure to use that word choice next time. I’m not asking anybody not to question my stuff. That’s why I cited it, so they could check my facts. So far a lot of folks have done that any nobody has proven me wrong, which means I did my research well. You’ve never heard another Republicsn give my answer about unions, so don’t make things up.

            There’s no way to know what you do because you’re posting under a pseudonym, but given the number of comments you’ve made here and elsewhere, it’s unlikely you’ve ever done more than complain and perhaps vote. If I’m wrong, feel free to prove me wrong.

          • larrd

            I don’t think I claimed it was “scary.” Creepy, maybe.

            You clearly complained that people read your stuff critically, rather than just taking it as fact, in one of your comments.

            You’re right–I haven’t heard Republicans give your answer about unions. Even most Est. GOPers are smart enough to see such statements as too openly prog-like.

            Commenting is doing something, when you live in a democracy. The comments in this thread have shown you to be just another disingenuous beltway lapdog masquerading as an authority on conservatism. Pointing such out is an invaluable service that is helping to upend the Est. GOP, in case you haven’t noticed.

            If you feel you’re above your readers and commentators, as so many beltway types do, maybe writing blog posts isn’t the thing for you.

          • I haven’t complained that people read it critically. Everybody should do that. The problem I’m primarily having is that people aren’t reading it and just repeating the myths I’ve already debunked.

            Commenting is doing nothing other than driving up my hit count, which I thank you for, but don’t pretend you’re striking a blow for whatever ideology you claim to represent. Every hour you spend in the comments is an hour you could have spent getting something accomplished. I have an excuse – this is part of my job.

            I don’t feel I’m above anybody, but I can tell when I’m being trolled by an anonymous blowhard.

          • larrd

            Sure you did. You said folks should just read it for “facts.”

            The myths you have supposedly debunked aren’t clearly myths, as many folks have shown.

            If commenters are wasting their time, so are you for writing the piece, unless you’re just in it for whatever you get paid for writing such pieces, which I don’t imagine is a whole lot. I doubt a big union lawyer does something like this for the money, but if that’s the case, maybe you should attach a disclaimer noting that you’re only doing it for money and that you feel your writing doesn’t matter in terms of ideology, etc. so no one should pay much mind or comment.

            And of course that begs the question–are you getting paid for posting in the comment section, as well?

          • What do you think being critical is? Reading for facts and verifying the facts. Discussing the facts. Clearing things up when they’re not clear. I don’t have a problem with anybody criticizing my piece, but so far the criticisms have mainly been either repeating the myths or arguing things I didn’t say.

            This is a blog that makes money from advertising revenue. I’m a co-owner, I get a chunk of the profit, if there is any. Driving traffic to the site is part of my job. Engaging in the comments does that, so I’m helping the company’s bottom line when I do it. You, on the other hand, are just wasting everybody’s time with your nonsense.

            But feel free to keep chatting.

          • larrd

            Folks have been doing that. You’ve been whining about that. You wrote that people feel compelled to respond, while they should just accept what’s obviously an opinion piece.

            So I guess I’ll take you don’t feel the content of your article doesn’t matter, and you’re only acting all butthurt to drive traffic.

            So noted!

          • You keep putting words in my mouth that aren’t there. Not sure why you can’t simply discuss these things without making it personal.

          • larrd

            Don’t go all butthurt on me now, Brian. Remember, I’m the worthless guy who doesn’t do anything!

            You really do argue like a Democrat.

          • All I’m suggesting is that you stop putting words in my mouth. As for you being worthless, you said that, not me.

          • renegadesix

            Actually, “we” lose elections because when people look at the RINOs like you they see not a whit’s difference between the GOP and the democRATS. So they go with the people who are being honest about being liberals.

            The only way “we” will start winning elections is if the GOP throws you RINOs out and goes with a 100% conservative agenda.

  • Flying Blogger

    Most Syrians just want to go home. The crisis is a myth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXSnm4H5DiU

  • toeburn

    What I’ve learned from this whole debate is you can post all the facts and figures you want, and no one will listen. I could post links that refute every one of your points, links to the presidents own words, videos from Germany, rape statistics from Sweden, but I would be vilified and flamed. Everyone would twist themselves into knots to discredit those links, argue the videos were edited etc etc. The truth is, there is genuine risk bringing them here, but not only because of terrorism, long term damage will be done. I’d post a link to statistics, but why bother, it will be ignored. My only question is when we are attacked, will you twist yourselves into pretzels to add modifiers to your arguments to prove to yourselves and justify your flawed position? I’ve read my Bible and God told us that “he would be a wild man, his hand would be upon every nation, and every nations hand would be upon him.” As I type this there are news reports of yet another attack. So, put your faith in man, this administration and its ability to verify all of these refugees, while I prepare to protect my family and community.

    • Chris

      “He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” Deut. 10:18-19

    • If you can do it, please do. The President has been clear on what he’s proposing, and the only thing I’ve seen is a tweet that some are twisting into the idea that he wants to let in 100,000 Syrians, which is a misreading of it. As for videos from Germany or rape statistics in Sweden, I don’t know how either of those would discredit anything written here. We’re talking about refugees in America, not Europe.

      If we are attacked, it will unlikely come from a refugee, given their past track record. If that does happen, then I’ll have been wrong, and we’ll have to look at these issues more carefully. But right now, the risk analysis demonstrates that this is a slight benefit, and the better life we can provide these refugees is worth it.

      And what Chris said.

      • toeburn

        The videos and rape statistics from Europe are a direct result of their reckless refugee program. Americans seem to think that it won’t happen here which I do not understand. Also we can quote bible verses all day, the fact is the MAJORITY of terror around the globe is perpetrated by Muslims, and the refugees are 97% Muslim. I’d link to a site that updates in real time the daily violence, but again it would be ignored or discredited as “propaganda” even though it simply tracks violent acts in the name of islam.

        • Stephen Spiker

          The process for taking in refugees in the U.S. and Europe are so different as to not even be comparable.

          There’s plenty of domestic non-Muslim terrorism that occurs in this country. Bad people do bad things. When they do, the individuals responsible are held accountable for their actions. That’s how a free society works.

          • Tom E

            Not so different if the UN gets forst crack at the refugee interview. If the UN refers them to the US, Sweden, or Norway, there is a presumption that they were scrubbed and blessed by the UN so they must be good to go. We put our hope and trust in the UN. I wouldnt trust the UN in that capacity,
            They give the interviewee the benefit of the doubt.

          • soleia79

            The Syrians in Europe are by definition asylum seekers, which is functionally different than refugees, and the UN has no mandate there. It’s possible that some of them had previously been registered with UNHCR in Jordan, Lebanon, etc., but once they entered Europe, they became asylum seekers. And no, there is never a presumption that just because the UN says they are ok, that no further checks are needed. That’s simply untrue.

          • Stephen Spiker

            No, there isn’t that presumption. You are just flat-out making things up.

          • renegadesix

            The big difference being we are stuck with the bad people who are born here. We are not stuck with, and do not have to accept, the bad people born elsewhere.

        • It won’t happen here because, if you read the article, the number of unattached males of military age – the people who tend to do the murdering and raping – are less than 2% of those we let in. It’s mostly families, women and children.

          Europe doesn’t have an ocean between them and these refugees. Their processes are nothing like ours, and the problems Europe is seeing aren’t the kinds of problems we can expect or should expect. We are very selective with who we let in.

          There are violent acts all the time, everywhere. The Bible verses are to remind Christians, assuming you are one, what we’re called to do. You keep saying you’d link but the stuff would be discredited – how about you just do it and let us decide for ourselves?

          • toeburn

            Are they not the same people, coming from the same region? I don’t bother posting because I’ve gone around in circles (mostly on fb) where it’s either completely ignored or criticized as “fear-mongering”. Honestly, I’m more concerned about the long-term consequences than terror. You may be right, they may be perfectly fine. Have you consider the long term consequences? Based on birth-rate and ideology? Here’s a link: https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/

            Here’s another: http://www.project315.net/blog/why-so-many-in-the-west-committed-to-defending-islam-as-a-religion-of-peace

            http://www.afa.net/the-stand/immigration/2015/11/christian-refugees-and-muslim-refugees/#.Vk44mU9kfmI.facebook

            http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

            What you believe the Bible instructs us to do is different than what I believe, which is fine. I do not pass judgement. I am a Christian, but I certainly don’t hold myself up as an example. Just the opposite. I hope your right, I really do. I also greatly appreciate you engaging with me. It’s been the first conversation on the subject that hasn’t devolved into name calling.

          • What long term consequences? We’re talking about 10,000 people. In the long run, that’s a drop in the bucket in terms of American demographics. I wouldn’t be concerned about that. We’ve got a sizeable muslim population now – a few million – and the vast majority are law abiding, patriotic Americans who aren’t terror threats.

          • renegadesix

            That’s 10,000 A YEAR…maybe…if it doesn’t get ratcheted up.

          • renegadesix

            How, EXACTLY, does being an “attached” male stop said male from raping, robbing, or committing acts of terror? Our prisons are full of married criminals.

  • Chris
  • ajfbiz

    The vetting process is indeed a good one–if they follow it. My info is they do not. Maybe they do at official ports of entry, but not at the Mexican fence line. We actually do not know who’s coming in there, nor how many, but we do know there is little or no vetting. I’m not hysterical, but I’m not calm about this problem. I find it alarming how much certainty is being proclaimed on each side.

    • Stephen Spiker

      You’re not talking about refugees, you’re talking about illegal immigration.

  • KJaco

    To be fair there is an inaccuracy in the article. The section that talks about the 22%. That 22% statistic comes from 4 countries: Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebabon. In the Mediterranean European countries the statistic is 62% men 18+. Both of these statistics are provided on data.unhcr.org

    • The 22% includes the bulk of the displaced Syrians. I can’t seem to find the 62% number on the UNCHR website. Do you have a direct link? The 70% number that I debunked was on those coming to the Mediterranean European countries and was not solely Syrians.

  • larrd

    So the number from Syria has risen from about 500 a fiscal year to 10,000 a fiscal year and that’s not regarded as “pouring in” or even a significant change/increase? And neither is increasing the total number of refugees to the U.S. from 70K to 100K in the next year (we are in fiscal year 2016) due to pressures from Africa, Iraq, and Syria? Sounds like those added 30K will be predominantly Muslim refugees from countries where terrorists are wreaking havoc.

    On balance, I’d say even Trump’s statement may not be too far off the mark if we’re talking about the next five years or so, and that on balance the candidates’ claims are more honest than those made by the writer of this article.

    There are some good points in this article, but also some disingenuous spin. The FBI director explained that, in comparison to other countries such as Iraq, we have very little information concerning the Syrians, his main point which has been conveniently left out of this article. Pausing to re-evaluate, and educate the public, is warranted. I believe we’ve done such before.

    • It hasn’t gotten to 10,000 a year. That’s the goal. And by no metric, given the hundreds of thousands heading to Europe, is 2,000 considered a flood. The increase will be from 85k (this FY) to 100k next FY. That’s an increase of 15,000. Given the size of the world’s refugee population, that’s not a flood either.

      Yes, we added additional refugees who have been the victims of the violence in those countries. And hopefully we resolve this situation in Syria within the next five years so the flow stops.

      I explained his main point and noted that those we can’t vet don’t get admitted. We have paused in the past, but that was after we had evidence that there was an issue with the process. We don’t have any evidence of that now.

      • larrd

        That’s the goal this fiscal year. By the metric of past refugees from Syria to the U.S.–the only relevant metric–that is a flood.

        The evidence you’re looking for is ISIS members blowing up a restaurant or hotel.

        And no, you explicitly claimed that what the FBI director said is true for every group of refugees. He in fact explicitly noted that it’s more difficult in the case of Syrian refugees.

        Given the size of the world’s potential refugee population–3 billion live on $2 or less a day–it’s always going to be a trickle. If we took a million a year it would take 3,000 years to help them all. It’s much more possible to help them where they are, and that goes for the Syrians as well as everybody else.

        • In no way is 10,000 people in a nation of 300 million a flood. It’s not even a good crowd for a ball game.

          And no I made no claims about what the FBI director said. I provided his exact quote.

          • larrd

            It is a flood compared to past refugees from Syria, Brian. That shouldn’t be a difficult concept for you.

            Yes, you explicitly made the claim that what the FBI director said is true of all refugees, when in fact he was differentiating them from other refugees because they are harder to track.

            Fibbing about your article doesn’t help you make your case.

          • My comment in the article was discussing the FBI Chairman’s comments about vetting Syrians, not all refugees. The quote I used explicitly said “Syrians” in it. Scroll up if you forgot what I wrote.

          • larrd

            I saw the quote. I also saw where you claimed his statements are true of all refugees, while he explicitly stated Syrians were more difficult to vet than others. Scroll up if you’ve forgotten what you wrote. Go look at his full statements if you want to include a more accurate quote in your article.

          • Quote where I said what you are claiming I said.

          • larrd

            “That’s true – but that’s true in any kind of vetting situation.”

            You’re likening the Syrian situation to any refugee situation, which is quite the opposite of the director’s point.

          • Stephen Spiker

            This isn’t that difficult. Brian quoted, directly, from the FBI Chairman. Those comments were explicitly about Syrian refugees.

            Brian then expounded on the Chairman’s point, in order to make it easier for his reading audience to understand, by providing analogies. That’s not likening the Syrian situation to anything, that’s a standard rhetorical device used to explain and illuminate a somewhat complex situation.

            In short, you’re over-reading into what Brian said.

          • larrd

            Yes, Brian quoted part of the FBI’s statements, leaving out the part that was inconvenient to his argument, then expounded dishonestly by claiming the Syrian refugees were just like any other, when in fact the FBI director was stating just the opposite.

            We’ve covered all that, though Brian is denying it.

          • Which part did I leave out that was inconvenient?

          • No, I am likening it to all situations where you are vetting someone. If, as the FBI director stated, they haven’t made any ripples, there is nothing to vet. I noted the analogous situation of a background check for a gun purchase where there is nothing on record that would bar the person from buying a gun and then they shoot up a school. If someone has kept their nose clean – and that would be a prerequisite for any good terrorist or spy trying to get in – there won’t be anything to vet.

            You misread what I wrote.

          • larrd

            Keep flailing, prog!

          • Hey – I’m sorry if you flunked reading comprehension. That’s on you, not me. I’ve been as clear as crystal.

    • Tom E

      https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_yb_2013_0.pdf

      From 2009 to 2013, US only admitted 25 to 36 Syrian refugees PER YEAR.

      According to my calculator, 10,000 is 277 times greater than 36

      Table 14, page 46 of 122

      • larrd

        Thank you for the clarification!

        • Tom E

          Anytime. Reassuring arent they? Who can make the determination if 36 to 10,000 in 24 months is an influx? A mathemetician, lawyer, refugee interviewer? I am sure that doesnt meet Brian’s definition of an influx. If I am an ISIS fighter (don’t worry Brian I am not),
          I realize that influx and want to blend in with the rest. I just doubled,
          Er wait, 277x my chances.

          • Since an influx is defined as a “large inflow” and we are talking about a population entering the country – if we even hit the 10k number – barely larger than the size of the freshman class at Penn State, we’re not talking about large numbers. Again, 10,000 people in a nation of 330 million is a drop in the bucket. Hundreds of thousands would be an influx. 10,000 is a rounding error.

      • The major displacements didn’t begin until around 2013.

  • Niko the Farmer

    I think the myths are myths.

  • Flying Blogger

    Myth #6 – Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States aren’t taking in any refugees.

    This is not a myth. The Syrians they are counting are primarily workers and their families who immigrated before the crisis. They have not taken any significant number of refugees of the current crisis.

    • That’s not what they have said, and that’s not what the UN have said. Do you have any sources for this claim?

  • M_Young

    Who cares whether the Tsarnaevs got in through bleeding heart program A or B, they got in, unvetted.

    “Regardless, at the time of their entering the United States – more than a decade prior to the Boston Bombings, neither of the Tsarnaev brothers were on anybody’s radar, which makes sense, as they were both 15 and 8 at the time. That didn’t happen until in 2013.”

    And that’s the point…whether it is the children of Somali ‘refugees’ or just plain immigrants, who now are involved in gang activity and leaving to fight for ISIS in droves, to the Ft Hood shooter, to Anwar al-Alaki, to the Tsarnaevs, there are sufficient numbers of Muslim immigrants or their children that want to cause us harm to prevent anything but the smallest, most vetted number of them from settling here.

    • Stephen Spiker

      They became U.S. citizens and were radicalized here. What’s your answer to prevent that? Maybe we should ban the Internet for everybody to prevent a free exchange of ideas.

    • Fort Hood shooter was born in Virginia.

      The smallest most vetted number are the ones settling here.

  • Drew Page

    One’s comfort level with the assurances coming from the Obama administration with respect to the acceptance of refugees from predominently Muslim countries, will be in direct proportion to the level of credibility they have with any pronouncements coming from that administration. Speaking for myself, that evel is zero.

    • This is a program that has been around since the Reagan Administration. It’s not something that was just developed by the President. That he is incompetent does not mean the men and women responsible for doing the actual work in these programs are incompetent.

      • Drew Page

        If you are comfortable with what Obama and his administration tell you, you are entitled to your opinion. I do not believe anything they say.

        • Stephen Spiker

          He just stated that he’s no relying on the administration to tell him anything. He’s relying on the people who have been doing this since long before Obama got there, and will be there after Obama leaves. So even if Obama and his political team are lying at every turn, that doesn’t make every single government agency a font of dishonesty.

        • Again, this is program that predates the Obama Administration.

  • Dave Hanson

    Except that the fearful and paranoid won’t stop and think about anything; they will only react irrationally.

    • Tom E

      Maybe we are too fearful. Maybe the refugees are just misunderstood amd all goodhearted. Its not like a refugee has come to the US and was on the FBI’s top 10 most wanted list or anything.

      • He was added to the list after he left. Nice try.

        • Tom E

          If a Somali refugee comes to the US and then gets his green card and then naturalized citizen his ability to come to america was the refugee system. Naturalized US citzens can be criminally and civilly denaturalized for a variety of reasons. He was able to obtain that US passport because he had ability to come as a refugee

          Once denaturalized, they revert to Green card status. Green card status can be terminated and green card holders can be deportable.

          • Correct. At this time, however, I don’t believe the guy we’re talking about has been convicted.

          • Tom E

            He left the US in July 2012. He conspired with Zachary Chesser (who was convicted in Feb 2011). Arrest warrant via complaint unsealed Jan 2015. he was encountered in Somalia in March 2015 by “Somali intel” (that’s a oxymoron, how can a failed state have an intel service). https://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2015/liban-haji-mohamed-placed-on-the-fbis-most-wanted-terrorists-list Cadman’s article referenced above indicates he went thru refugee system

          • Tom E

            Even if the press occasionally mixes up asylees with refugees, their is legitimate overlap because an asylee needs to fit the definition of a refugee codified in INA 101(a)(42) pursuant to 8 CFR 208.14. The only difference is where they are processed. Refugees abroad, asylees in US.. Again, we’ve been over this. Asylees and refugees are synonymous but to appease you I have only highlighted refugee terrorists. If you want, I can start naming terrorists who abused the asylum process: Blind Sheikh, Mir Amal Kansi, LAX shooter…….

          • Kansi came into the country with a fake passport and stayed by buying a fake green card. He wasn’t an asylee. Rahmen was doing exactly what I have said is different about being an asylee – his bad behavior all happened while he was awaiting a determination of his status. That’s exactly why it’s better for refugees to be processed out of the country. This was also twenty years ago before we were as concerned about this stuff. The LAX shooter was from New Jersey.

            Stop spreading bad information.

          • Tom E

            Cadman’s article is pretty clear he was a refugee and Cadman has been published extensively on immigration matters

          • He’s writing for a source that I do not trust, and his statement is not corroborated in any of the other outlets that I’ve seen.

          • Tom E

            Are you referring to the Center for Immigratiom Studies or National Review?

            True, not a lot of information on refugees but that is because of confidentaility laws. This will always skew the statisics.

          • I mean the article in WND. If it’s in the indictment, that’s good enough for me.

          • Tom E

            I am not talking about the WND article. I am talking about the article “welcome,
            Terrorists” by Dan Cadman published in National review. Cadman has been widely published and worked or works for Center for Immigration Studies. That article says the Somali born VA cabbie has an arrest warrant for material support (based on a criminal complaint) to al Shabaab

            I dont believe he has been indicted yet? He was encountered in Somalia in March according to other articles. The US obviously doesnt have an extradition treaty with
            Somalia.

            Maybe he can live in Fairfax if the charges in Alexandria dont stick.

          • I don’t see any citations to anything in Cadman’s piece.

            The Somali born VA cabbie was already living in Fairfax before he went back to Somalia. He was being held by the Somalis in March.

            If he hasn’t been indicted or convicted, he’s not a terrorist. He’s an alleged terrorist. You’re the one splitting hairs with legal definitions of terrorism, aren’t you?

          • Tom E

            A criminal complaint by a law enforcement officer generated a federal arrest warrant. He hasnt been arrested yet because he is a fugitive. I havent seen the complaint, it may be under seal. Just wanted to make this clear to everyone including non practicing lawyers

          • Not sure how many non-practicing lawyers are reading this.

            I’m sorry you’re still upset.

          • Tom E

            I’m not upset. Just passionate the right facts about Refugees involved with terrorism get out there so public can be informed. And with 900 comments, I am sure there are lots of law students and other people who passed the bar looking. You are the moderator, what is the total page hits?

          • 90,000. I don’t know how many of them have read the comments.

          • renegadesix

            LOL. You cite BUZZFEED and actually say you don’t trust another source? Seriously, guy, are you this website’s token liberal, or is all this claim to be conservative just satire?

  • Tom E

    I am not sure how the Pinocchio conversion rate works from the UK to US. But this is a wonderful article:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/not-one-us-refugee-since-911-has-been-arrested-for-domestic-terrorism-investigating-the-claim-a6740316.html

    4 for Brian, 2 for Stephen?

    • Stephen Spiker

      What do you imagine this shows, except for that refugees are statistically one of the least likely groups to participate in terrorism and that it still makes no sense for ISIS to try and use the refugee pipeline to bring refugees here?

      It’s cute that you think nitpicking a point to death means collapsing the entire house of cards, but it’s clear you don’t even know what you’re arguing against.

      • Tom E

        hey don’t be mad pinnochio. the closing 3 paragraphs of that article are crystal clear.
        what do you need to collapse “the house of cards?
        something beyond 2 Iraqis killing US troops obviously?
        what is more significant than that, short of a refugee coming her and blowing something up?

        • Stephen Spiker

          We’ve gone over this many times, Tom.

          The present fear is that ISIS is using the refugee system to infiltrate the U.S. with terrorists. This is simply something that doesn’t happen.

          The fact that a very small handful of people who have come into this country through the refugee process have done bad things makes them, statistically, the least violent population group in the U.S.

    • Nope. None for me, because I didn’t use the statistic or the tweet they’re talking about. My statement remains true – not a single American has died in a terrorist attack on US soil committed be a refugee. It’s right up there.

      • Tom E

        congratulations, you are correct. I’ll have to reread the article on the 2 Kentucky terrorist refugees who were arrested and convicted. In federal court, they admitted to attacking American troops in Iraq. Glad we make that distinction. the military constituents you serve in Northern VA must appreciate the distinction you are drawing. You should make this argument at Walter Reed or before a group of veterans.

        • Stephen Spiker

          Tom, what does the action of two Iraqi refugees have to do with allowing Syrian women and children into the U.S.?

          • Tom E

            The woman can petition for their husband after coming to the US deoendents ny filing form I-730. The refugee process doesnt stop at entry. They have the ability to file for dependents, ontain green card status, citizenship, financial assistance. The list goes on an on

          • Stephen Spiker

            Sounds good.

        • You’ve already made this argument before. It didn’t hold water then, and it doesn’t hold water now. The two guys you keep bringing up could have provided material support anywhere in the world. They were here so they did it here. But they did not attack Americans in America, which is what the fears of folks complaining about the refugee issue are worried about.

          I know that you’re desperate to win the argument, but I’m still trying to figure out why.

  • Tom E

    I know it must be confusing keeping track of the 6 terrorism related arrests of refugees. I highlighted all of their cases except this one:

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/611/us-v-muhtorov

    so I am doing that now. This Uzbek male was from Colorado and supported Islamic Jihad Union. This website isn’t to be confused with the Uzbek male from Idaho who supported Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. I know, it can be confusing. sort of like specifying that “domestic terrorism” only includes stuff that has blown up in the US even when federal laws in 8 USC 1182(a)(3) – which are national security inadmissibility grounds – make no distinction between material support, terrorist activity, and engaged in terrorist activity. nor does it matter if the act of terrorism occurred inside the US or outside….

    • Stephen Spiker

      Mostly, I’m just glad you found something to occupy your time.

  • Tom E
  • wowlikewow

    what about the boston bombers?

  • wowlikewow

    i don’t care, I don’t want them here!!! they should stay and fight for their own damn country!!! they like sharia law, we don’t have sharia law, soooo, send them somewhere that has sharia law and practicing muslims.

    • Stephen Spiker

      We’re taking in women and children. Only 2% are single combat-aged men. I don’t think telling a six-year-old orphan to pick up a gun and fight for his country is a prudent, or American, response.

  • Adam Mygrants

    You and your silly rational thinking. It’s un-American. That’s just not how we do things here. In America, we surrender our freedoms, ideals, and principles whenever “safety” or “health” is uttered as an excuse. We believe anything the media tells us we should be afraid of. The media will tell us in exaggerated detail everything we should be remotely afraid of, because we all watch it. The more that watch it, the better ratings they get. The better ratings they get, the more money they make. Now here you come with your “Have half a brain and consider the facts before you make decisions” crap!? We’ll have none of that here! How are 2bit scam e-mailers supposed to make a living if you start shoving “common sense” down everyone’s throat? Think of the children man!

    • Tom E

      You must have faith in refugee vetting, I certainly do not

      • Stephen Spiker

        Because you refuse to listen to facts and are proud of your ignorance.

        • Tom E

          Everyone should read the book “the Road to Hell” by Michael Maren. It’s about UN corruption

          • Stephen Spiker

            Everyone should read the book “Cat in the Hat” by Dr. Seuss. It’s about a cat who wears a hat.

          • Tom E

            35 years of Lax UN vetting is beginning to catch up with them, and the US

          • Stephen Spiker

            There’s no evidence that UN vetting is lax, and it’s only the first step for a refugee to come to the U.S.

            This has all been addressed many times in this thread. You are just recycling your disproven claims and fears. This resembles less of a debate and more of a glitch in a video game’s dialogue system.

      • Adam Mygrants

        Not really… you just need to recognize that a refugee is no more likely to be a terrorist than any American born citizen. For every international terrorist attack, there is incredibly more local crazies that perform terrorist-like attacks. I’m not sure why a false international agenda makes it more scary for everyone then a lone crazy. It’s not like they are going to sneak a briefcase nuke through the refugee program. It’s not like we have a militarized border with minefields and barbed wire… anyone can get in. It’s getting in legally that is difficult.

  • Jane Solorzano

    This made my day. Thank you for this much needed presentation.

    • Tom E

      Interested to hear what side of the fence you are on, pardon the pun

      • Jane Solorzano

        I’m a centrist lefty in a family of far righters :

        • Tom E

          I am a conservative Republican who is pro immigration enforcement

          • Jane Solorzano

            What is immigration “enforcement”?

          • It tends to mean building a wall and deporting people.

          • Jane Solorzano

            ahh, thank you, Mr. Schoeneman.

          • Tom E

            Immigration enforcement is enforcing the immigration laws properly for aliens who come to the US illegally (including walking across the border, overstaying their visa, visa waiver violators). Lawful immigration such as employment and familial based petitions, and immigrant and non-immigrant visas are great programs and options when followed lawfully and not abused.

        • Tom E

          Have the rest of your family join the debate! Haha

  • Tom E

    Welcome, Terrorists by Dan Cadman – Somali refugee who became a naturalized US citizen was on FBI’s Top 10 list for supporting al-Shabaab

    • Tom E

      oh, so for those keeping track. we are now up to 10 terrorists who were refugees

      • Stephen Spiker

        This is another guy who became involved with extremist groups AFTER he came here. Once again, not proof of terrorists using the refugee system to infiltrate the U.S.

        • It’s interesting that the whole “never killed an American on American soil” thing is being completely ignored here.

          • Tom E

            because it’s a disgrace you draw that distinction. Killing of American troops in Iraq matters. Conspiring to kill people in a foreign country matters. Providing support so that others can kill matters. your logic is severely flawed. thank god you never won an election

          • Nobody is concerned about letting refugees in because they’re going to conspire to kill people in another country. They’re concerned about letting refugees in because they’re going to actually kill people in this country.

            Stop with the personal nonsense.

        • Tom E

          also proof that refugees return to the country they originally sought refuge from! talk about abuse of a system

          • Stephen Spiker

            Do you grasp that there are almost a million refugees in the U.S. right now? When you talk about an actions of a very small handful, you are referring to a microscopic fraction. When you use that microscopic fraction to characterize the actions of all of them, you look like an idiot.

            Hey, I found someone named “Tom” who was arrested on child abuse charges. (http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/police-man-35-wanted-on-child-abuse-charges-avoiding-arrest/36099278) I bet I could find a few more examples of being named “Tom” doing bad things. This means that all Toms are evil, right?

          • Tom E

            This doesnt even dignify a response.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Math doesn’t dignify a response? 10 refugees compared to over 750,000 = 0.001%.

          • Tom E

            Edit the child abuse comparison by first name?- completely illogical? – and I’ll be happy to respond

          • Stephen Spiker

            It was an example of how illogical it is to use a small handful of examples to characterize an entire group, as you have done repeatedly. I stand by it.

            Besides, it’s not like there’s really a response required. The general back-and-forth of debating you is you posting something wrong and Brian or I correcting you with facts and logic. You not responding means less misinformation to be corrected.

          • Tom E

            I’ll start a new thread then. I think there at least 14’cases of refugees in America being involved in terrorism. I have highlighted ten and will do the rest of the 4 tonight. You and Brian are hiding behind semantics and play on words. Cant differentiate between refugees who are involved in terrorism by differentiating support, inrernational vs domestic. Terrorism is terrorism. Also, to say a naturalized US citizen who was once a refugee doesnt apply because they are now citizens is illogical as well. It’s like saying a lawyer who can bypass a 4 year undergrad degree and go straight to law school

          • Stephen Spiker

            The point, as it has always been, is that terrorists groups like ISIS don’t use the refugee system to send terrorists here. Once they’re here, if they are radicalized, that’s not a problem with the refugee system, nor is it a reason not to allow more refugees.

            Fourteen cases out of over 750,000 is still 0.001%. That makes refugees statistically one of the least likely groups to turn to terrorism. There are more Toms who have been arrested for child abuse than there are refugees who have been involved in terrorism.

          • Tom E

            14 is more than a handful. Not sure how child anuse comparison relate at all. If you want, we can start talking about refugees who have been involved in child abuse…..14 may be a small number but it only takes 1. Or 2 for the Iraqis convicted in Kentucky. Some people may be willing to sacrific security for compassion. I am not. Let the kids under 14 in and elderly
            Over 70 in. In the mean time, lets figure out the vetting process and have the UN explain their processing and vetting- which is questionable at best because it gives refugees the benefit of a doubt.

          • Stephen Spiker

            Just because you repeat over and over again that the U.N. gives refugees the benefit of the doubt doesn’t make it true. You just made that up. We understand how the U.N. system works–they don’t need to explain it to us again.

            None of the 14 people you referenced (again, 0.001% of refugees) are terrorists who infiltrated the U.S. There is no security concern with the refugee process, only people projecting their fears on something they are misinformed about.

            You have time and time and time again closed your eyes and put your fingers in your ears when we have explained patiently over and over and over again how things actually work. What are you getting out of repeatedly posting false claims here?

  • Tom E

    53 percent of Americans think the Syrian refugees program should be halted. Only 28 percent say the vetting is sufficient

    • Stephen Spiker

      Few Americans understand how the vetting system works.

    • Stephen Spiker

      Few Americans understand how the vetting system works.

    • Refugee programs have never been popular at any time throughout American history.

  • PaulV

    Re: Myth 3 – “Can you name a single computer database outside of maybe some of our own very small but valuable intelligence databases for Syria that you can check against. Does Syria have any?” Sessions asked.

    “The government does not, no sir,” Emrich answered.

    • Stephen Spiker

      Vettings and screenings rely on more than just data.

      • PaulV

        That doesn’t answer my question. Are you implying that you can somehow determine the intent and risk of a refugee admission apart from a verifiable documented history of that person?

        • Stephen Spiker

          You can determine a refugee’s situation. If they say they lived in a city that was bombed, you can verify whether that’s so. If they say they lived on a street or a neighborhood, you can verify that those things exist. The more details they collect about towns and villages, the more details they can compare it with in future interviews. They look for consistency in stories, need, interviews, examinations, and yes where available security intelligence.

          From there, only a small fraction get referred to the U.S. for resettlement, primarily women-led households and children. After the U.N. process, the U.S. conducts a more thorough review.

          • PaulV

            I’m sorry – without boots on the ground confirming any of that is near impossible. It is easily manufactured, impossible to verify with any certainty, and extremely risky.

          • Stephen Spiker

            That’s why the UNHCR has boots on the ground.

          • PaulV

            That’s just not good enough – it it were, we wouldn’t need a vetting process in the US. As it is,

          • Stephen Spiker

            Of course we’d still need a vetting process, because we don’t outsource our national security protocols. And there have been no terrorist attacks committed by anyone coming through the refugee process. That’s because they’re mostly women and children, and it’s a lot easier for terrorists to infiltrate the U.S. other ways.

            I get that you’re scared. That’s no reason to turn our backs on people in need when they don’t post a risk to us.

          • PaulV

            Sorry. That is the issue – determining who poses the risk and who does not. Also it is an invalid belief that a woman cannot be a terrorist. See the NY Times article “Roughly 10 percent of its [ISIS] Western recruits are female” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/opinion/when-women-become-terrorists.html?_r=0

            I’m not scared and not unsympathetic – it’s critical to our security (both domestic and foreign) that unless someone can be wholly vetted, they not be taken in, and we just don’t have enough information to vet these all of the refugees per our own intelligence community. It’s a risk the American people should not be forced to accept.

          • That is why so few get in. We take the ones we can vet.

          • PaulV

            Well let’s hope so, because unlike your article above implies, there does not exist a whole lot to vet against.

            “Testifying was Matthew Emrich, associate director for Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within the Department of Homeland Security.

            Sessions asked if Emrich’s department had access to even a single database in Syria that could provide solid background records on refugees in order to confirm a refugee is who he says he is.

            “Can you name a single computer database outside of maybe some of our own very small but valuable intelligence databases for Syria that you can check against. Does Syria have any?” Sessions asked.

            “The government does not, no sir,” Emrich answered.”

          • This is not unsurprising. The places refugees come from aren’t exactly the kinds of places where you are going to find that kind of infrastructure. That’s why the vetting takes so long.

    • Stephen Spiker

      Vettings and screenings rely on more than just data.

  • JohnC

    IF we’re going to let refugees in the US, we should put them in those FEMA camps

  • PaulV

    Extremist muslims make up about 15%-20% of the Muslim population. Those 20% manage to make up around 270 MILLION people of the world that are intent on the destruction of Western civilization and what it stands for. I think it is appropriate to be apprehensive about importing refugees that we really have no meaningful information on. I think this article provides a lot of good insight, but it doesn’t go far enough to provide a hard look at the reality of the situation and the extremely challenging and risky task it is to vet these refugees. I think the American people deserve to know ALL the facts. Trusting our leaders and especially this administration is no longer a viable option. And it’s a shame modern journalism no longer fills this void.

    • Do you have any citations as to the 15-20% number? That sounds a little high to me.

      • PaulV

        Yes. A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is “often” or “sometimes” justified. 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe attacks are either somewhat justified or often justified, 18% in Malaysia, 7% in Iraq, 15% in Jordan, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.[30][31][32] The survey did not include some Muslim nations, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but did include densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria and Indonesia.[33] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Also, 36%[34] of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so.[35]

        • I see a lot of numbers in there, but I don’t see 15-20% of the world muslim population being extremist.

          • PaulV

            Really then what is your definition of an extremist?- I see that as someone who believes “attacks on civilians were justified” to promote their cause. This is the definition of terrorism. Many nations in the Pew Research Center poll were well over 20% and some under in this regard.

          • I would define it as people who have actually participated in attacks on civilians.

          • PaulV

            I’m sorry. Then your definition is sorely incomplete and myopic. Anyone that believes that violence against civilians is justified in promotion of their cause, it is reasonable to say, is an extremist, at the least. You don’t have to actually participate in a violent attack to be an extremist and there is no lack of agreement on the definition of extremism. Read David Cameron’s now famous Munich Speech “As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’, and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.”

          • There’s a difference between saying that to a pollster and actually doing anything about it. I think it’s hard to justify your statement given those numbers. I just find it hard to believe that 270 million people are “violent extremists.” If they were, the problems we are seeing would be much, much larger than they are.

          • PaulV

            And you know of some way to tell the difference between what someone says they believe and approve and what they intend and will do given the opportunity and circumstance? What’s the tipping point for that? At what point do we look at what people say outright and the harm it insinuates and say enough? Iran chants death to America and we shrug and say they don’t really mean it. How big does the problem need to be? Conversely, a few intent on destruction can do a lot of damage – it only took 19 to kill ~3000 on 9/11. 130 killed and hundreds more wounded in Paris by 7 or so. There have been 55 separate Isis and Isis inspired attacks since September 2014 around the globe. If we’re dismissive of these realities now the consequences could be dire.

          • PaulV

            Oh by the way, The US just issued a worldwide travel alert over terror threats. I’m sure it has nothing to do with any “violent extremists.”

          • I’m sure it does. But not 270 million of them.

          • PaulV

            And you know this based your private polling of the muslim community around the world? You’ve got more definitive statistics than the Pew Research Center? No, you don’t.

          • Pew’s statistics don’t show what you claimed.

          • PaulV

            They do. Its a simple matter to take the number of Muslims per country and the %s provided and do the math (Afghanistan has a population of 22.6MM Muslims and 40% per Pew are extremists – that is 9MM). There are over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. The 270MM number is not unreasonable. Concerning yes, unreasonable no.

          • Many of the largest muslim countries weren’t polled. It says that specifically in the article.

          • PaulV

            The survey included 21 countries. Indonesia and Pakistan were included and are the two largest Muslim populated countries in the world. Quote: “The survey did not include SOME Muslim nations, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but DID include densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria and Indonesia.” There are 231 countries with a Muslim population. Just looking at 10 of the 21 countries they polled makes up 121 Million of the 270 Million extremists. They are Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Palestinian Territories, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh.

          • PaulV

            Do the research for yourself. Here are the percentages of the Extremists by country polled.

          • Stephen Spiker

            The problem with the poll isn’t how it was conducted, it’s the inference that 28% are “extremists”. I wonder what the results would be if you asked U.S. citizens. If it was some significant percentage–say 25%, or 15%, or even just 8%–what does that tell us?

          • PaulV

            What it tells us is quite obvious. It gives us a very significant piece of information left out of the blog above and the Left’s rhetoric altogether; that there exists today throughout the world a very significant percentage of the Islamic population that hold radical views and sympathies. That we have good reason to be concerned and had better take whatever steps necessary, including closing our borders if required and other security measures, to ensure the security of our nation.

          • Correct. You are extrapolating. I just don’t buy the number. It seems too high.

          • PaulV

            Yes of course I am extrapolating. A poll from a reputable source that can be considered from a fairly representative section of the population is a very common and acceptable means of predicting the whole. The numbers are what they are. If the number was half that it would still be concerning. They are eye opening to the risks and the very different values between our cultures despite the glossing over by the media.

          • The problem is that you’re looking at the high end numbers – Afghanistan and the Palestinians where these kinds of things have been common for decades, and ignoring the low numbers in states that have limited amounts of terrorism yet high muslim populations, like Indonesia. As for the wording of the question – “in defense of Islam” could mean a lot of things. I’m sure you’d get some radical responses from certain groups if you asked what you would be willing to do in defense of Christ, too.

            At the end of the day, nobody is arguing that radical Islam – which does not appear to be of a very significant size – isn’t a threat. But lumping all of Islam together, or inflating the numbers into the hundreds of millions doesn’t help us decide what to do about this problem. It’s just fearmongering.

          • PaulV

            No there is no problem with the numbers – there are 210 other countries with Muslim populations than the ones I’ve cited above. And as a matter of fact, Indonesia’s 14 Million of their 205MM muslim population believe attacks against civilians in defense of Islam is justified. I’m also sure, to your point, you would get some radicals in Christianity if polled, but you’re only kidding yourself if you think the numbers would be anywhere close to the Pew polls of Muslims – and that is because the tenants of Christianity and Islam are very very different.

            Fear mongering? Again the numbers are what they are. You can turn a blind eye to them if you like. But I worry more about articles and journalism like this that fall short in providing a full view of the issue and point to conclusions based on politics (or wishes) rather than providing all the hard facts.

          • I’m sure they would, if you ask the question properly.

            The numbers are what they are, but they aren’t what you’re claiming the are.

          • It’s not a question of being dismissive. I am not saying we just ignore it, or we dismantle the intelligence community or repeal the Patriot Act. All I am saying is that I find that number to be unrealistically high. If it were real, we’d be seeing more evidence of it.

  • GJones

    Sir, I have a letter response from the White House that specifically states it is their intention of admitting 100,000 “or more” refugees into the US during the next two years – mainly from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe you need to adjust your “myth” positions and numbers. With open borders and sanctuary cities and states, this Nation is headed for hell and more quickly than you would admit.

    • This has been addressed ad nauseum. The White House’s statement that they are increasing the total number of refugees includes Syrians, it is not simply Syrians. They have not given a concrete number higher than 10,000 noted before. If they do that, I’ll update the post.

      We don’t have open borders. The refugee program is a perfect example of that.

      • GJones

        The UNCHR has already referred 22,247 Syrians to the US. This 10,000 is just the first group approved for 2016. Prepare to be amazed as the numbers will change – not set in “concrete”. The UN also states as of now they estimate there are 6.7 million displaced persons residing WITHIN Syria and northern Iraq. Just what could the final number be? I find it incredible that of all these refugees residing in camps that stretch for miles, the US couldn’t manage but find but a handful willing to be trained and equipped to fight for THEIR land and property. What are we to expect from them re OUR land and property.
        Further, if we don’t have open borders then where did the 12+ million or more illegal aliens (mainly Hispanic) come from?
        A member of the Border Patrol is my neighbor. He tells me they are increasingly concerned with the number of non-Hispanic and undocumented persons crossing with Cartel drug mules. Not being reported.
        There are communities just a few minutes from my Phoenix home where no US citizen is welcome, no English is spoken, and they fly their home country’s flag rather than the Stars & Stripes.
        Lastly, I am not a bigot, raised in a small town as a minority among Hispanics, my daughter’s married name is Hernandez, my best friend is a Montoya. The Latino and Hispanics that came here legally, some generations ago, resent what’s going on as much or more than I.
        At $19 trillion in debt we are approaching the tripping point. Everything we do is now with borrowed money. $4.5 billion already spent on Syrian refugees. Do you have any idea the number of homes in the Middle East that would build.
        I, for one, have had enough of the Sunni/Shia schism and the beliefs and barbarism of extreme Islam. Let them live in the hell they made themselves – just not here – we have little more to give.

        • Not everybody wants to fight. I linked an article about that. As you will not from the article, a large number have been referred, and most were rejected at the first stage.

          We don’t have open borders. It’s still a crime, and you wou,don’t have a neighbor in the border patrol if there were open borders. Most of that debt is the result of native born Americans, not the handful of illegal immigrants and refugees.

          America has always had the one thing to give that all these people want – hope. We haven’t run out of that yet.

          • GJones

            Like I said, prepare to be amazed by the real number if and as I expect it to escalate if nothing changes re ISIL.
            How about none are prepared to fight? You entirely missed the real point I attempted to make. Not everyone in this troubled world can come to live in America and Europe because of conflict – it’s just not possible. The Kurds will fight. They’re not stormimg the fences in Europe, and they do not even have a country, which after centuries of oppression they deserve. What’s the problem with these people – are they all cowards? We fought for our freedom and rights, but they are excused?
            Re “open borders”, your response was condescending and did not address the facts. You know you have open borders when your neighbor, the border agent, tells you that their essentially open and we are losing the battle. It’s a crime, yes, but said law is not being enforced. He’s Hispanic and depressed by Administration directives and procedures which provide for processing and immediate release for a later hearing where not a one shows up.
            Regarding our debt, it’s just a reality no matter how we got here. Again, you missed the point I attempted to make. Our economic ability to oblige illegals and refugees is limited and diminishing by the day.
            Regards “hope” and promise of America, I hope there’s still a future of my children and grandchildren if what’s happening continues.
            Let’s leave at that – we simply disagree at what’s best for this Nation and its citizens. You put your money on what you’re being told by UN and US Administration, and I will rely on what I read, see and experience in the real world.

          • We both live in the real world. That’s the problem – you aren’t accepting that my opinion represents my experiences in the real world.

            No, not everyone can come to America or Europe. But until this crisis is resolved, we can take in some. That’s all we’re doing. Helping those who are most in need. We can afford to do that, and so we do.

          • GJones

            Brian, I apologize if my remarks offended. I do respect the work you’ve done (a quality piece) and your experience. Just thought you would also appreciate another person’s perspective and doubts, which I believe we’ve exhausted.
            I keep trying to figure out how to attach the White House letter that started all our back and forth, but have been unable to do so.
            No matter – for in time we’ll all know the real truth.
            Believe me when I say I hope all will turn out as you believe and better than I suspect.
            From an old Marine who spent two tours in Nam and has seen the very worst of war, and who earlier this year lost my wife (a school teacher) of 43 years to pancreatic cancer – peace be with you, and if you have a family – God’s blessings on each and everyone of them.
            I am finished.

          • Thanks G. I appreciate it.

          • renegadesix

            “We haven’t run out of [hope] yet.” We have if you’re the voice of the GOP. There is zero difference between you and the liberal democRATS.

  • Tracy Singer

    I’m concerned about the so-called “vetting” we’re doing. In the US, we are entered into a somewhat centralized system almost from birth. We have our pictures taken, ID’s issued, background checks, etc, along with law enforcement databases like AFIS and NCIC and others. Yet, despite knowing who Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were, we didn’t see the Murrah building bombing coming.

    Syria doesn’t have one tenth of our resources or processes in place. How in the hell can we even begin to vet them with any confidence? Sure, maybe only two of ten thousand is a bad egg, but Nichols and McVeigh were only two people. We cannot underestimate the resolve of a man committed to a cause. 9/11, Paris, Mali, all prove this over and over.

    • It’s a question of balancing risk vs. reward. The vetting and interview processes help to ensure that only those who we can identify and whose stories can be adequately corroborated can get in. That’s why it’s more likely for terrorists who successfully carry out attacks here – like Hasan, McVeigh and others tend to be American.

      Given the small numbers, the focus on women and children and those who have suffered the most, I think we are able to minimize the risk.

      There will never be zero risk, but that’s no reason to shut down the program.

      • renegadesix

        What reward do we get? We get a bunch of people either taking the jobs of American citizens or sucking up welfare dollars. We get the risk that they are or will become terrorists. I’m not seeing the upside here for us.

    • Stephen Spiker

      We’re not vetting them to predict if they’ll turn to a life of crime a la Minority Report. We vet them to determine if they are a security threat. The consequence of living in a free society is that anybody, refugee, native-born, or whatever, could cause harm. Fortunately, refugees are statistically the least likely to be violent or turn to terrorism.

      There’s no good reason to stop a program that’s been working well for decades.

  • Jon-Michael Ivey

    Technically the US Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to regulate immigration. Article 1 section 8 explicitly grants Congress the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” but that is not relevant for any migrants who come here to live or work but never seek citizenship. Immigration and Naturalization are separate issues.

    The closest the Constitution comes to granting power to regulate immigration in Article I section 9, which is forbids it the power to prohibit the migration or importation of any persons that the states then existing should think proper to admit before the year 1808, while giving Congress the power to place a tax of no more than $10 (not adjusted for inflation) per capita on each person imported.

    A plain reading of the Constitution would not seem to grant the Federal government the authority to force any states to accept any immigrants who have not been granted citizenship yet. Once an immigrant is naturalized as a citizen then the 14th amendment would require all of the states accept them and grant them equal rights as their own native residents.

    The 10th amendment would preserve the right of either the states or the people regarding the immigration of aliens not undergoing naturalization.

    (I’m personally strongly favor open borders and would rather say that freedom of movement is a natural right to be protected rather than give the states the power to keep out foreigners, but the legal case seems more on the side of the states rights supporters.)

    • I don’t buy that argument. The Supreme Court has long held that the naturalization power subsumes the immigration issue and that Congress has the sole authority to make these decisions. It hasn’t struck down a single federal immigration law in decades.

      The court wrote in Arizona v. United States (2012) that “The Government of the Unit­ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi­gration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con­stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….”

      Article I Section 9 regulated the importation of slaves. Not really any argument there.

      From a fundamental perspective, it’s critical to have uniform immigration laws, even for migrants, because a patchwork of differing laws by state would be unworkable. It wouldn’t work in our federal system.

      The legal case here is solidly on the federal preemption side of things. I don’t think the states rights supporters have much of a leg to stand on.

  • Kevin

    I’ve been trying to tell people my story of covering the refugee crisis last October, but my voice has largely fallen flat in the face of fear and hyperbole. Thanks for providing a concise and thorough myth buster for my tool box.

  • D?ESDEN

    THANK YOU! This article should be shared all over the internet. So many people saying that the the current administration isnt doing anything, but they are the most misinformed and biased people that ever existed..

  • renegadesix

    Why does this website call itself “Virginia’s Conservative Voice” when this article does nothing but parrot lies from Obama and his pawns in the media and elsewhere? This article looks like it was lifted verbatim from HuffPo or the Daily Kook. I really like the “myth” that the Tsarnaev brothers were not refugees. While they came in as a derivative of their parents’ asylum application, they were OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY at the time they were admitted, making them more akin to refugees. And that’s just the legal sense of the word “refugee.” The more common definition of a refugee is a civilian displaced by war or strife in their own country. That is PRECISELY what the brothers and their family were.

    Moreover, the fact that we could not vet them demonstrates why relying on there being only 2% men of military age is utterly irrelevant. Every single one of the kids that are being admitted could become a bomber 10 years from now. There is no way to prevent that. No amount of screening can find that flaw. So the only way to protect the Martin Richard’s who have not yet been born is to keep the Syrian Tsarnaev brothers out today.

  • renegadesix

    Why does this website call itself “Virginia’s Conservative Voice” when this article does nothing but parrot lies from Obama and his pawns in the media and elsewhere? This article looks like it was lifted verbatim from HuffPo or the Daily Kook. I really like the “myth” that the Tsarnaev brothers were not refugees. While they came in as a derivative of their parents’ asylum application, they were OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY at the time they were admitted, making them more akin to refugees. And that’s just the legal sense of the word “refugee.” The more common definition of a refugee is a civilian displaced by war or strife in their own country. That is PRECISELY what the brothers and their family were.

    Moreover, the fact that we could not vet them demonstrates why relying on there being only 2% men of military age is utterly irrelevant. Every single one of the kids that are being admitted could become a bomber 10 years from now. There is no way to prevent that. No amount of screening can find that flaw. So the only way to protect the Martin Richard’s who have not yet been born is to keep the Syrian Tsarnaev brothers out today.

    Then let’s look at the 2% number. It has a giant weasel phrase in it “unattached to families.” How many military aged men are there, PERIOD — regardless of whether they are attached to families or not. That guy in California was attached to family and it didn’t detract one bit from his ability to gun down 16 people. While he was not a refugee, his wife who helped him was supposedly vetted for her visa by the same agencies who are vetting these refugees. And other than to laugh derisively, what is any conservative doing citing BuzzFeed?

  • renegadesix

    Whooops. Caught another one that “slipped through the cracks.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389819/Feds-say-terrorism-related-arrests-2-states.html

  • Steve Palmer

    2, 3, 4, and 5 are all crap. Obama under pressure to take more means he wants to take more. Syria no longer has an infrastructure and in case you didn’t notice we are not on the friendliest terms with Assad. The FBI has stated there is no possible way to vet them. Hell a Pakistani put a false address on her entrance application and murdered 12 people with her husband. Remember that? Most of the refugees ARE men of military age since they were given the fast track to enter and get job training. At least in Europe. It’s well documented that it’s 73% young males of fighting age.
    You claim yourself to be a conservative but you seem to just dole out progressive talking points. When in history did a nation let refugees from the enemy enter? It may be asymmetrical warfare but it’s still warfare. So unless you have some sort of all knowing terrorist spotting eye that the FBI and Homeland are employing how do you call yourself conservative and concerned for America and Americans?

  • Steve Palmer

    Why not update this again with the 100,00 being deported in Sweden and France and the fact that France has now announced it will not take anymore? Or with the fact that Merkel has 40% of her constituents calling for her resignation?

    • Because none of those things have to do with the focus of the article, which was American policy on refugees.

      • Steve Palmer

        No specifically the focus was on US policy in muslim refugees and since Europe is a mess because of their policy on muslim refugees only a delusional person or one being entirely disingenuous would claim it has nothing to do with the article.

        • It has nothing to do with the article. No refugees can get on a boat and show up on our shores. We do not have the issues Europe has.

          • Steve Palmer

            Since that isn’t what happened in Sweden and since it doesn’t matter if they sit waiting for 2 years when there is no way to actually do a background check it does indeed have everything to do with the article. As does the call for Merkel’s resignation since the Cologne rapists were from muslim countries and Merkel pulled the same basic guilt trip as Barry.

          • There are ways to do the background checks, as the article notes, and as the links in the article to stories from refugees who have been vetted makes clear.

            Europe is not America. Our process is not the same as theirs. Our experience with refugees is not the same as theirs. The situations are not comparable.

  • Alex Zuccarelli

    Awesome post.

  • Guy Daley

    Propaganda article LOADED with tons of misleading information:

    #There is a flood of Syrian refugees entering the US.

    Article neglects to mention that the US is poised to import 100s of thousands over the next few years. Paul Ryan celebrated the passage of the funding and pact with Obama. Also misleading is that the refugees are coming from OTHER countries posing as Syrian refugees (just like the invasion to Europe) and we certainly aren’t going to know their nationality. What’s that you say? We’ve got interpreters that will sniff out deception. And who do they work for? Oh that’s right, it would be under Obama, the professional liar.

    #He has pledged to accept hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees

    100% TRUE – Its even described in the response to this “myth”. 70 to 85,000 this year, 100,000 next year PLUS whatever that has already arrived of which some is going to be CLASSIFIED. 85 + 100, +15 (what they will admit to having received already) = 200 thousand. WHO THE HELL IS PAYING FOR THIS? There are a whole bunch of Islam countries directly adjacent to Syria. And they need to come here? What the hell for?

    I could address each one of these propaganda listings. I’ll bet money that in some way this information was collected and/or disseminated by an organization funded by Uncle Fraud.

  • Pingback: drinking water()

  • Pingback: Google()

  • Pingback: payday loan()

  • Pingback: 핸드폰소액결제현금화()

  • Pingback: thread()

  • Pingback: Doctor()

  • Pingback: http://www.zwsoft.com/shoes/yeezy/()

  • Pingback: life insurance lawyer()

  • Pingback: careers you can work from home()

  • Pingback: National Theatre London()

  • Pingback: tampa magazine()

  • Pingback: افلام()

  • Pingback: oakleys cheap()

  • Pingback: led flashlight online()

  • Pingback: free virtual number()

  • Pingback: vcc mastercard and visa card buy()

  • Pingback: sattamatka()

  • Pingback: Fenster()

  • Pingback: imitation bracelet love cartier or blanc()

  • Pingback: imitation cartier love()

  • Pingback: van cleef and arpels alhambra necklace heart imitation()

  • Pingback: hawaiian kona coffee()

  • Pingback: apprendre la guitare()

  • Pingback: Solicitors()

  • Pingback: pittsburgh web design()

  • Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee()

  • Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee()

  • skipwins

    What a crock of BS. You mean the vetting is being done by the same people who refuse to even protect us from illegal alien felons who have illegally crossed this border 5 or more times and continue to commit felonies. You mean we’re supposed to trust those people?
    I think I’d rather not. Save your politically motivated crap for the robitons, Bearingdrift.

    • You trust them with a lot of things, so yes.

    • aaron

      I agree skipwins. Complete nonsense.

      Looks like the conservatives in Virginia have sold out. smh

  • Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee()

  • Pingback: gourmet hawaiian coffee()

  • Pingback: chrome paint uk()

  • Pingback: Home Surveillance()

  • Pingback: Home Automation Florida()

  • Pingback: scandals()

  • Pingback: montre homme Cartier occasion()

  • Pingback: cartier bracciali repliche()

  • Pingback: make an app()

  • Pingback: internet()

  • Pingback: taweez for love()

  • Pingback: Homepage()

  • Pingback: http://www.hamefanim.co.il/()

  • Pingback: details()

  • Pingback: read more()

  • Pingback: How To Determine the Sex of a Beaver()

  • Pingback: how to find a work from home job()

  • Pingback: us and uk virtual number buy()

  • Pingback: penny auction guide()

  • Pingback: Stylish Skirts()

  • Pingback: nationalpdr.org()

  • Pingback: betterscooter.com()

  • Pingback: vispoets.com()

  • Pingback: ski resorts()

  • Pingback: Google()

  • Pingback: work from home data entry()

  • Pingback: Mariage()

  • Pingback: регистрация предприятия в киеве()

  • Pingback: http://www.mypsychicadvice.com()

  • Pingback: black magic for love()

  • Pingback: fifa 17 coins()

  • Pingback: replica cartier baignoire cronografo()

  • Pingback: kala jadu()

  • Pingback: Cheap Banners()

  • Pingback: home decor()

  • Pingback: skin beauty()

  • Pingback: satta matka()

  • Pingback: SATTA MATKA()

  • Pingback: cheap fifa 17 coins()

  • Pingback: SEO services in Lahore()

  • Pingback: new()

  • Pingback: Youtube to mp3 converter()

  • Pingback: Youtube to mp3 converter()

  • Pingback: piano now()

  • Pingback: fifa 17 points()

  • Pingback: how to create an app()

  • Pingback: exterior building supplies()

  • Pingback: light deprivation greenhouse()

  • Pingback: youtube to mp3()

  • Pingback: atlantapiano- Piano lessons in the Atlanta Area()

  • Pingback: imitation love cartier bracelet()

  • Pingback: Pinganillo()

  • Pingback: retrospectiva animada()

  • Pingback: Check it out()

  • Pingback: personalised fans()

  • Pingback: Jual PLTS ONGRID Dan OFFgrid Terpusat()

  • Pingback: Wood burning pizza oven Pizza Party()

  • Pingback: lease office space Denver CO()

  • aaron

    Are you serious?

    You do realize that 100,000 is a formative number, and that number is looking at being fulfilled by 2017. I can’t believe this article.

    From your own words,”That number has hovered around 70,000 total over the past few years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. The President has been under pressure to increase that number, given the number of refugee creating crises around the globe, including in Syria, Africa and Iraq. He has pledged to increase the number we accept gradually, from 70,000 to 85,000 in FY 2016, and 100,000 in FY 2017.”

    Granted, Trump’s estimates were way way off. But Fiorina’s weren’t. I can’t believe you expect people to swallow this drivel.

  • Pingback: More Terror Attacks, More Refugee Scapegoating - Bearing Drift()

  • Pingback: Cash for cars()

  • Pingback: 受注管理システム()

  • Pingback: Fenster und Turen()

  • Pingback: Fenster()

  • Pingback: patrick kane jersey()

  • Pingback: Maybe We’re Misinformed: Information on the Syrian Refugee Crisis – Thrive()

  • Pingback: Where in God’s Name Were You? – Millennial Ascent()

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.