Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dear Governors Who Oppose Syrian Refugee Resettlement
I applaud you in your eagerness to keep our homeland safe from terrorism. Believe me, I don’t take the threat of terrorism lightly. I don’t want to pull this card too often — I know it gets old — but my cozy Paris neighborhood was turned into a river of blood the other day. I’m dusting off the escape plans, thinking maybe it would be prudent to buy myself a bit of atropine, 2-PAM and diazepam to have on hand at home, a Hazmat suit, that sort of thing. And I only I mention this to you just so you know I take this threat every bit as seriously as you do. Unfortunately, I suspect, I take it quite a bit more seriously, because it’s obvious to me that you’ve not given this even five minutes’ of serious thought.
Here’s why I think so. Have a close look:
Do you see the problem I see?
Now, Syrian refugees are, at least in principle, subjected to a layer of screening that includes in-person interviews with staff trained to elicit testimony. Whether these trained staff are any good at it, I don’t know, and I doubt it a priori, but at least they’re thinking about the possibility that these people might not be who they say they are. After that, they refer only the most vulnerable and the least dangerous — survivors of torture and rape, for example, or families with multiple children and a female head of household — for resettlement. Then the applications have to be reviewed and approved by State, Defense, Homeland Security, and the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, as well as a bunch of agencies we probably don’t even know about; and then, supposedly, a DHS officer gets in on the act and interviews every applicant, too; they collect fingerprints, they scan eyeballs, they match them against databases at the National Counterterrorism Center, the Pentagon, domestic and international law enforcement, the FBI, NSA, and Interpol — and then they turn most of them away. Supposedly, half the refugees admitted are children. A quarter are adults over 60. Only two percent are single males of combat age, and I’d be pretty surprised if they weren’t cripples incapable of feeding themselves unaided, no less committing terrorism. After that, they’re followed up by a lot of vetted, Christian non-profits whose goal is to help them integrate, so basically they’re under semi-permanent surveillance, and the chances of their getting enough private time to plot a terrorist abomination sound, to me, reasonably slim.
But not impossible.
For you see, I’m completely with you in saying that we can’t and shouldn’t trust any of those agencies, given that they screw up everything they touch. It’s like they’ve got some kind of anti-Midas magic, isn’t it? And above all, I have to agree on the most basic of principles: Our policy, as Americans, should be to take no risk, ever. There is nothing so important that it’s worth taking a risk. Certainly not, say, saving someone’s life. That much is trivially obvious, as Chomsky would say.
So I’m with you 100 percent on the principle — no risk, ever — but I’ll know that you’re serious about this philosophy, as opposed to just being disgusting demagogues trying to exploit the plight of the most miserable victims of war in the world, when you shut down the Belgian pipeline. Because it sure looks to me as if the most despicable terrorists whose handiwork I’ve ever had the personal displeasure of coming across are Belgian and French nationals, not Syrians. And as you can see from the above, Europeans can just skip all of this vetting nonsense, book a ticket on Priceline, hail a cab to Brussel-Nationaal, and fourteen hours later walk out of customs into the sunlit tarmac of Dallas/Fort Worth International. No questions asked.
Given that on average, it takes a Syrian refugee 18-24 months get into the US (clearly, someone is cogitating deeply over those files, for better or worse) why isn’t that exactly the strategy any terrorist EU National who wasn’t clinically feeble-minded would adopt? I mean, haven’t you noticed that these scum are in a hurry to kill us? They don’t have the time to wait for our bureaucratic Behemoth to go through its creaking paces.
Think about it. Try to imagine you’re a terrorist. Don’t get all worked up about the tafsir part of it, just think about it like a video game: His goal (or hers, lots of she-jihadis these days) is to kill as many of us as possible in the most cost effective, time-saving, and maximally terrorising way. Now, we know these guys with the iris scanners and the notebooks and the scary-looking interrogators from State, Defense, Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, the DHS, the Pentagon and the NSA are all a total joke who couldn’t spot a terrorist if it bit ’em in the rump. After all, it’s not like anyone in any of those agencies has ever spent years in these parts of the world sincerely trying to avoid getting his own posterior blown up by jihadi psychopaths, so why would they know anything about that?
But let’s let their total incompetence be our little secret, for now. See, I figure to an ISIS fanboy it could actually sound quite daunting, not to mention seriously hectic, to deal with all those agencies and their obnoxious, repetitive, intrusive, personal, and insulting questions — especially when the alternative is so supremely easy: You just book your flight, hop across the pond, and if anyone asks, you tell them you’ve always heard that Zee Burning Man, he is so cool, dude and I go to to hook up wid deez crazy girls who bring zee Axayacoatl to life! — and you’re home free! You don’t even need to bring your own Kalashnikov — we’ve got much better stuff for sale at any Walmart, and it’s way cheaper than those rusty ancient-model Russian rejects you’d have to buy from some Balkan gonif who’s probably going to sell you the only AK in the recorded history of warfare that’s ever jammed.
So prove to me you’re serious about keeping us safe, governors. And I mean 100 percent safe: No risk, ever. Not for any cause, however worthy. Show me you’re serious by getting that Belgian terrorist pipeline shut down. If one more Belgian gets into the US without the same treatment we give the Syrians, it’s on you if he blows himself and everyone around him up on prime time during a football game. Because that’s just the obvious thing to do, isn’t it? He doesn’t have to hang out for even a second with all those sad-faced, depressing, exhausted refugees — some of whom might even know who he is and start shrieking in horror, right in front of the local CIA vetter, you know? You just skip all that risky, time-consuming nonsense and hop right on the plane.
You know I’m right, Governors.
No need to thank me. It’s just what any patriotic American would do.
Published in General, Islamist Terrorism
This is a serious problem, a hole in the immigration process. Brussels is a breeding ground for terrorists.
I thought the legislation that passed was pretty sensible, and I assume it reflects the governors’ requests. It didn’t say no; it just said to slow down and check more thoroughly.
The immigration system is a disorganized mess, and it doesn’t take into account the various ways people enter the country.
My little town has something called a “government oversight committee.” They mostly fill the role of heckling the board of selectmen at our town meetings and making great jokes. However, I love the concept of a panel of citizens who aren’t involved in any government agencies or elected offices overseeing what the government does and doesn’t do.
I think we need some type of impartial, objective government oversight committee. There is a serious lack of executive talent and skills in government, which is why the INS operates outside the boundaries of its own clearly stated goals and objectives. It does stuff it shouldn’t and doesn’t do stuff it should.
Into this chaos it is easy, as you have pointed out, for terrorists to arrive.
Your post certainly puts the issue in its proper perspective. Thank you.
Yazidi’s aren’t Christians. When you run into one let me know.
+ 1,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000
We are a hundred years on. The strong arms of science no longer shelter us. These are not Jews on the MS St. Louis and the “Voyage of the Damned.”
Syrian politics are dominated by two forces. Islam and the secular Ba’athists. Both deplore pluralism, believe in pan-Arabism and lead through terror and the force of the police state. Neither are culturally compatible with our society.
Claire – Something you mention in your post I’ve now seen mention of elsewhere – that it takes 18-24 months for a Syrian refugee to clear our security process. Does this mean that when President Obama announced the U.S. will accept 10,000 refugees that they will be arriving sometime in 2017? That leaves me puzzled about the sudden urgency around this.
If that is true, who are the refugees we hear about arriving now? Our governor here in CT just accepted a Syrian family that Indiana rejected. Of course, that family was already in a refugee camp in Jordan and it is my understanding that most of these refugees are not coming directly from Syria and are already in refugee camps.
Well, yeah, but that’s not where Claire’s expertise comes from, either. She’s studied international relations and written on foreign policy and security for years. It’s kind of her beat.
Several people have left remarks saying something like Claire has no experience other than emotional intensity to justify her position. But I doubt that’s true, or fair.
…and yet, Claire, your point still stands. I mean yes, it’s true, the ten thousand are on one level just a political gesture to allow our terrible president to feel slightly better about his sorry self. So yeah, that’s offensive, but on the other hand, as risks go, they’re probably minimal and much smaller than other risks about which we’re doing basically nothing.
And even if the ten thousand are a tiny percentage of those displaced, and quite pitiful from the perspective of political posturing, they’re still… ten thousand desperate people. I think we should try not to be as callous as our enemies (political and otherwise).
Claire, I am quite willing to call out some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric as dishonest demagoguery — largely from a certain presidential candidate who will go unnamed. I’m probably in your most sympathetic audience on this issue.
But I don’t find this argument convincing or the implication of dishonest demagoguery substantiated — especially since these governors are not for the most part actually opposing any refugee resettlement.
They are not walking in your shoes. They aren’t seeing it from your angle. They are looking at their cities and considering young men coming from one of the most dangerous parts of the world — let in by an administration they do not trust with the nation’s security. The State Dept’s briefings were so unsubstantial and unsatisfying that congressmen walked out.
Most aren’t spouting the kind of rhetoric you might think from the media coverage. More like this (emphasis mine):
Midge:
Is my experience allow me to load a post on Mental Illness with this much sarcasm?
Claire Berlinski
“After that, they’re followed up by a lot of vetted, Christian non-profits whose goal is to help them integrate, so basically they’re under semi-permanent surveillance…”
You may want to re-think this assertion.
I advise a quick perusal of Ann Coulter’s chapter on refugees in “Adios, America” for a start.
Then move on to Ann Corcoran’s “Refugee Resettlement Watch” web-site to get the full picture about those “vetted, Christian non-profits” who act as temporary (usually three months) covers for a system that doesn’t integrate and doesn’t assimilate, collect hundreds of thousands in federal funds for their “sponsorship” and then move on to “sponsor” a new batch of refugees for another six-figure fee.
It’s a racket, Claire, a vile, crony racket engineered by a vile, crony cabal in government.
Regarding the Syrians, I’m not an absolutist about keeping them out – if Martha’s Vineyard and East Hampton each want to take in and house a few thousand permanently, I might be able to be convinced.
Tone aside, that’s a useful observation, Claire. It’s worth considering when formulating policy.
A few questions for Claire.
What good are databases and biometrics for people who have never committed terrorist acts or been in the custody of the US or any of our allies who share intelligence with us?
Seeing as a dangerous cell of terrorists need only be a few people, why should I take comfort in the idea that only 200 of the refugees might be fighting age males?
Will all of the women who may be let in be mothers with their children?
Is it really implausible that women, especially women without children, or people over the age of 60 could also be terrorists, especially since, again, a cell need only be few people?
Do you honestly believe the idea of having to wait 1-2 years to get in to our country is really a serious deterrent to a motivated terrorist for whom being part of a hit on the US would be the most glorious sort of attack a jihadist could carry out?
I have lots more, but let’s start with those dubious points in your contemptuous argument.
No, that wasn’t it. What was it…?
Oh, yes.
Terry,
My bad.
It’s been a long time since I read on this, but as I recall 9/11 was years in the planning.
By the way, I take your point that our visa procedures with regards to Europe are just as likely a path for terrorists. And that’s a legitimate issue — and moreover maybe over in Europe they should be discussing that whole European Union concept again? (And maybe the Brits should be thinking about it as they look forward to their referendum?)
But in accusing people of demagoguery you’re first forgetting how the human mind works. We’ve been letting people from the EU in for years. We’re used to it, to not thinking about it. This issue has come up as a new potential threat, so naturally people — including politicians — think of it differently.
And, second, governors don’t usually talk about visa issues, but evidently they have a little more effective power to influence this particular procedure.
We should take as many as the House of Saud and if they’re harmless we can build camps on the lawn just outside the White House where they can dine with the First Lady eating her wholesome school lunches and building clocks for the admiring glance of King Barack of No Frack a Lot.
Rick Snyder isn’t engaging in disgusting demagoguery, Claire.
He couldn’t be a demagogue if he tried.
I do agree that the U.S. should re-settle some Syrian refugees, though.
I find this very offensive. I am not callous, or a disgusting demagogue as Claire put it; I have legitimate concerns about safety. Those who are in favor of taking in refugees do their cause no help by insulting the people they disagree with.
I liked the idea I read somewhere that a law be passed requiring all of the refugees be housed in the Hamptons.
You mean the Sauds, our allies?
In high school, I knew two girls from Saudi Arabia. One was a native and spoke of the beautiful Red Sea. The other was an American’s daughter raised in a compound for Western businessmen and their families. She spoke of tightly restricted TV stations that mostly broadcast Wahhabi propoganda.
Agree, particularly since Rachel is comparing us to “our enemies.” Good grief!
So Ricochet editors past and present go after rank in file?
She went after governors. To be fair, I don’t think she intended to direct this at Ricochet members. Governors are presumably supposed to get briefings and know things about the process and about security threats that we wouldn’t. She’s assuming (inaccurately, I think) that they should be comparing the threats in the same way she does — and that in focusing on the one and not the other they’re playing sheer politics.
I support 100% any efforts to do more screening on people coming here from Europe; Europeans should not automatically be given a visa, no questions asked. Not after what happened in Paris.
I understand that the vast majority of Muslims pose no threat to us. The problem is that the vast majority of Muslims don’t pose a threat to Islamic extremists, either. After the way the Iraqi army cut and ran when faced with Isis, I find it very difficult to feel responsible for what happens in the Muslim world. Those Iraqis who helped the U.S. should definitely be allowed to come here, immediately, and I have the utmost respect for the Kurds, who have fought valiantly against Isis. But I remember hearing that the U.S. found it very difficult to find moderates in Syria to arm and train. I take that to mean that either there aren’t many moderates there, or the moderates who are there are not willing to fight for their country. Either way, I am leery of them.
Those are some lucky Yazidis.
There are lots of refugees that make it to America as legal immigrants but who come as sponsored legal immigrants and not through the Refugee Resettlement program. Your two families were probably hooked up with a church that served as a sponsoring agency, either through a missionary or through a relative who immigrated several years ago. (Yes, lots of churches will sponsor non-Christian refugees, out of Christian charity.) They are only half-likely to be part of the Refugee Resettlement Program, which took in 213 Yazidis from Oct 1, 2014 through Sept 30, 2015.
One must assume that you expected the reception this post has gotten since there are other recent posts that demonstrate the suspicion many of us here have of the administration’s plans for resettling refugees in the U.S. What, then, is to be gained from insulting your readers? Certainly not a reasoned discussion. I see a rather desperate attempt to convince, but it does not work. High moral dudgeon hardly ever does. I hope you will reconsider your modus operandi.
I didn’t think she was comparing anyone to our enemies. I thought meant that literally. We (Americans, the West) should not be as callous as our enemies (ISIS).
Seems rather odd that Obama stated “We do not do religous tests, that’s not who we are.” makes one ponder, Why the rush ?
There are such tests in Federal Statutes for sound reasons. Also note that when the results or passing grades for refugees was requested – All were denied. And these actions will increase trust in government when so little currently exists ? Or the blatant dissmissal of law at whim ?
It is one thing to have a big heart, reality is a shade more brutal and painfull. Therefore ignored.
I don’t mean that as a blanket insult towards anyone who expresses any concern about refugees. Some people are pretty callous though. “We owe Syrians nothing” seems pretty callous, for instance. The fact that they’re humans, and suffering, is enough reason to give them some consideration. The fact that our nation bungled this whole situation is another reason.
Also: it is tempting to be callous when we know that our dear leader is, and that the refugees represent a pitiful “play” on his part. But part of my point is, we should endeavor not to be sucked into his callous game, even though it’s tempting and easily done.
If you’re referring to Rachel, then FYI she was never an editor…