On the "Refugees do not commit attrocities" article. It is nonsense.
One of the advocates for accepting the refugees dismisses the Syrian passport found on one of the Paris terrorists assuming it is fake, assuming that it belongs to the dead terrorist it was found next to, assuming that it has nothing to do with the refugee movement. Really? They have a match on a fingerprint taken by the Greeks as some of that herd of Syrians that moved through there.
They say that this terrorist, if he came from Syria, was just exploiting the refugee flow. Duh!
And they seem to believe that the UN has the capacity to tell the difference between two Syrians standing in front of them. One a 20 some year old with no papers, and the other a 20 some year old with no papers (but one of them is from ISIS). Gee, it is so unfair that they aren't properly marked, maybe with a tatoo or something so we could tell them apart. (sarcasm)
The article makes a big deal out saying that "U.S. refugees don't become terrorists." Well, we haven't yet taken in 100,000 a year from Syria after ISIS said they would use that refugee stream... have we? And they seem to come over here in other ways: The Boston Bombers for example. The 911 group for example. Which is important: How they come over in the past, or whether or not we stop them from coming over at all?
About 7 terrorists in Paris killed or wounded about 500 innocent civilians. That is a ratio of about 75 victims per terrorist. If only one terrorist gets in with each 9,999 good refugees, that works out to be about 3 Paris-like incidents ever two years in the states.
I've heard someone talking about Hillary Clinton's number of 65,000 Syrian refugees per year (maybe that was Martin O'Malley?), saying that compared to the U.S. population that would be like putting about 6 refugees in a large football stadium. After Paris, didn't he think before saying that? If 6 people are wearing suicide vests, what would that do to a stadium full of men, women and kids? That was a really dumb way to try to minimize the impact of the number of refugees.
Terrorism kills very few American each year and anyone can say that we ought to focus our attention on drunk drivers, or cancer, or something that kills larger numbers. But we can't forget that this threat from terrorism is spreading like a cancer, and it is killing our liberty. This is already not the country I grew up in.
People have said that we have a moral obligation to help - either because we share some responsibility for what has happened to Syria, or because the refugees are in such dire need. I'd reject both of those claims.
Neither the constitution, nor the proper, defense purpose of a government can justify bringing in a mass of refugees that will undoubtedly contain some terrorists and others who can be easily radicalized... and doing so at great expense. This is nuts!
Look at the security screening steps:
1. In most cases (note that it doesn't say all), the UN decides if the person actually is a refugee. All that this means is that the person claims they are from a country where they would have a well-founded-fear of returning to. An ISIS jihadist can say that, true or not.
2. The UN, or a U.S. Embassy or some Non-Governmental Organization refers the person for settlement to the U.S. That doesn't sound like it will vett out the ISIS warrior claiming to be a refugee.
3. A NGO contracted by the U.S. Dept. of State gathers the refugees' personal data and background info. Please note that if they have nothing but their verbal statements, there is no way to vett them.
4. The names (which might be made up, or the names of people who have never been in trouble in the U.S., or with Interpol and aren't on a terrorist watch list are run through the databases. Again, this will be of no use since we can't get into any Syrian databases and we have no proof that is their name or that it is a name we can say is safe.
5. If they have passed the ineffectual steps listed above, they may or maynot be run through U.S. law enforcement databases. Again, no help.
6. Fingerprints are taken and run against various databases. Again, no help exposing the Syrian jihadist.
7. This is the in-person interview. If we are going to bring in the 100,000 per year that Obama says he wants, this is a job that would take many hundreds of man-years per year. We are talking about a full-time staff that would number in the neighborhood of 5,000 to 10,000 (if it was done with private company efficiency). Do we put them up in the European equivalent of the Holiday Inn in the meantime? This step says that on occassion the DHS interviewer flies to the country of asylum to conduct the interview. Hungary, France, Turkey, Denmark, Greece... certainly won't be Syria will it? More nonsense.
8. DHS approves and paperwork is sent to State Department. But before this, just after step 6, the applicant is given "conditional approval"
9. Medical screening. Got to make sure they are healthy - terrorist or not.
10. They are matched with a sponsor agency. (Preferably in a sanctuary city?)
11. They are offered cultural orientation classes. (Doesn't seem like screening to me. But it will be helpful for any terrorists in blending in a bit better, and for the rest to understand how to apply for welfare - unless that is automatically a part of the process.)
12. A second check of the info is made to see if there is any new info. (Aka: Cover they Buearacratic behind)
13. Addmission to the U.S. Do they have all of their paperwork we and the NGOs have generated? Is it the same person that (ISIS or non-ISIS) that started this process? Yes? Turn him loose in the U.S.
If it takes as long, and is as thorough as it sounds then it is amazing that 900 or more are already running around in Lousiana. If it isn't, then this is a bunch of paper-form nonsense that is politically driven and as disconnected from reality as much of what the Federal government under Obama does. Does anyone really think that this government can get this right?