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
By the way, weren’t at least some of these suicide killers on French watch lists already? In that case, wouldn’t we at least have been given a heads up if they boarded a plane for the U.S.? (Please tell me I’m not wrong about this.) If so, then your comparison doesn’t quite apply — because the Europeans do have some idea of who is a security risk. Just because they did nothing about it on their own account doesn’t mean we would likewise need to do nothing if they came here.
(Yes, maybe this administration would do nothing… but that goes back to the mistrust that is largely behind this issue in the first place.)
Just wondering here- but should actual Americans ever get any say about who gets to live in our country? And under what conditions?
It seems that the DC elite says “no” and is as usual bitterly angry that the American public dares to express an opinion about what happens inside the United States.
But the opinion of the elite is so insane and so indefensible that even obscure governors of generally irrelevant subdivisions of the country have been moved to express an opinion.
That’s a bad sign for the elite, in my view.
You can’t really defend bringing Syrian refugees into the US, either as potential jihadis or certain welfare recipients.
Please stop.
Albert,
Not wanting refugees is not beheading people.
If you like your head you can keep your head.
Well, you ought to understand a little about the situation. First, when we developed a new Iraqi Army, after disbanding the one they had, we provided all their logistical support and focused our supplies and training on military engagement. Then, when Obama had us pull out, we handed them vehicles but without supplies and training for the difficult task of moving and keeping up with large forces and their equipment. When they mustered to fight ISIS, there was a lot of confusion and no proper organization. When some of the squads turned out to be ISIS imposters in stolen uniforms who would shoot other soldiers in the back, and no way to tell which units were supposed to be where, it became impossible to keep military discipline. They were in a really tough situation, and I find it hard to fault them for that failure.
I accept that I took personally something you didn’t mean as an insult. That’s more about me than about you. I still disagree, though, that it’s callous to say that we owe Syrians nothing, for the simple reason that we owe Syrians nothing. We don’t. That’s just the truth. We have no responsibility for Syria. That being said, I would have preferred that we had intervened militarily in Syria several years ago, in 2011 or 2012, even before Assad blew past Obama’s pathetic “red line.” I think that a great amount of suffering on the part of the Syrian population would have been avoided had we done that. Of course, I may be wrong and we’ll never know now.
I really don’t want to be callous, but it seems that we are infantilizing people in Muslim countries. On his show tonight, Bill Maher said that the real bigotry is assuming that Muslims are incapable of fighting their own wars. He is right about that. As a rule, I don’t usually believe in tough love, but we can’t save people in extremist Islamic societies if they aren’t willing to fight for themselves. And I am afraid that taking in refugees who have a track record of refusing to fight for themselves sends the wrong message.
I am not totally against American involvement, but maybe the people the want military aid from us, or any aid from us, should be required to fight their own wars. If they prove that they are willing to fight, and they want us to fight alongside them, that is something to consider. But people around the world cannot allow factions like Isis to take over their countries and then expect the U.S. to always come to their rescue. That may be callous, but why do the vast majority of Muslims allow the fanatics to rule over them? Why?
Thee reason that the French and Belgian authorities didn’t know that the terrorists were in Europe, even though they were known-extremists who held European passports, is that they came back in to Europe from Syria by posing as refugees.
But this is our war. Sure, ISIS/al Qaeda/etc is over there killing people over there, but as evidenced by 9/11, and 11/13 (Paris), 3/11 (Madrid), 7/7 (London), and many other attacks on the West, they want to kill us too.
Well, it’s come to this. We must welcome our assassins into town because they are surrounded by widows and orphans.
Hamas could not have designed it better.
I agree… ?
Think on their history with Iraq next door. We kicked S. Hussein and his Baathist tyranny out of Kuwait in 1990, and tacitly encouraged the Shias in the southeast part of Iraq to rebel, but then when they did we did nothing to aid them. Many died in that failed effort.
We invaded Iraq in 2003, brought the old regime down, but did not stabilize the country. Then we brought the Surge to win stability by fighting the restless Sunnis who were making noises about linking up with al Qaeda and also fighting restless Shias who wanted to link up with Iran.
But then Obama pulled out. He ended the war and left a power vacuum behind. Brave Sunnis and Shias found themselves at the mercy of militias who wanted to exact vengeance on “collaborators” who had helped the Americans.
So, then when the Americans show up in Syria, but in small numbers and not in force, who is going to trust us enough to work with us? We have shown that we are entirely willing to abandon our friends and allies for the sake of our own domestic politics.
Is this the same Claire Berlinski who used to lecture us on civility?
If accepting a little risk makes us a little virtuous, accepting a lot of risk makes us a lot more virtuous.
Let them all in. Don’t bother with background checks – more risk, more virtue.
The only rationale for getting involved in Syria that I would agree with would be to prevent Isis from getting nukes. And it probably will be necessary to get involved in Syria for that reason. But I do not believe that going to war in Syria will prevent another 9/11, or the type of attack which occurred in Paris. Maybe I am wrong about that, but fighting terrorism kind of seems like fighting a hydra: you cut one head off, and ten more grow back. The best thing we can do is make sure that as few terrorists as possible end up here.
So, these Muslim refugees aren’t dangerous for a few years. Don’t we have a responsibility to America itself in the future? Do we really want to strap an anvil around the neck of future Americans?
Claire, you state that, at present, the more proximate worry is the EU Muslims. You are right, really. But, someone has to worry about this long term. Why oh why are you pretending this won’t be an issue in 20 years?
First, Bill Maher is Bill Maher. You are making bad choices.
Second, Muslims fight wars. Many Muslims have died fighting each other. You just didn’t hear about it, because unless an incident has over 100 casualties or includes an American or two, it won’t make it into American media. Muslims fight all the time; witness the carnage going on in recent months in Yemen, or the disorder right now in Mali and Libya.
There are Muslims willing to fight against ISIS. In fact, around 80 % of the fighters who have been battling ISIS in Syria are Muslims. One thing they need is leadership and support, but from Team Obama they get no leadership, and only a thin broth in the way of support. Perhaps our new interest in air strikes will help things, but I doubt if that will be enough to really change the picture.
MJ Bubba: I hear what you are saying. The U.S. has done some indefensible things, and there is no question that some Iraqis fought and fight very bravely, but what percentage are they? If terrorists are only 1% or so of the Muslim world, then why do they end up in charge so much of the time? If moderate Muslims are the vast majority, why do they need so much help from us?
So, because we helped screw up their country, we have to let a bunch of them come over here and screw up ours?
Is it not interesting that Claire, who is always ready to respond to members’ posts, has remained silent this time?
I cannot fully answer those questions, but I can offer some things I think I know.
Consider how Hamas came to power in Gaza. From the Oslo Accord through the 1990s Yassir Arafat picked his council. After Arafat died there were elections. There was a sizeable portion of the Palestinians who wanted to back up and take the peace deal that Israel had offered but Arafat had spurned. A few good men registered as candidates.
One was visited with a knock on the door late at night. “We saw your grandson walking to school, and he is a pretty child; it would be a shame if something bad were to happen to him. You should reconsider whether you want to run for office.”
A couple of bad things happened, that went unnoticed by Western media. Several candidates pulled out before the ballots were finalized. In the end only the firebrands were left, which split between Fatah and Hamas.
That is the sort of thing that happens when they have no real law and order.
Europe is best equipped to administer a welfare state to tremendous amounts of people. The entirity of the syrian refugee crises represent less than 3% of the population of Europe. They have plenty of room and a constitution that requires them to help with human rights violations, let Europe deal with it.
About Claire not being here for the conversation:
Perhaps she’s having a crying jag? I was quite surprised at the tone of the OP, and wondered if perhaps her personal stress levels have reached critical?
They don’t. The area controlled by IS etc. is a tiny proportion of the Muslim world. Most countries there are run by somewhat awful, often corrupt kleptocracies which are not terrorist, and certainly not IS or AQ.
Again, in most countries they don’t. The world’s largest Muslim majority country is Indonesia. It is very moderate – albeit with some perturbing political streams – but you don’t see them mentioned in the news that much.
Media exposure automatically goes to countries with problems, but that doesn’t make their population the majority.
Edit: spell checked. Apologies to the seaweed nations.
Even editors sleep sometimes. Last night, I posted something before heading to sleep – on a completely uncontroversial topic, as it happened – and woke up wishing I had waited to post it till the next morning. But at the time, I was just glad to hit “post” and have it over with.
I realize Claire hasn’t been her usual gentle self in this OP, but I encourage folks not to read too much into details like post timing. Especially since so many of you have substantive objections to what Claire wrote.
What is the source of this claim?
It seems to be questionable from just a cursory glance at two sources here and here. If it’s taken at face value and grossly (and wildly inaccurate) then the follow up supposition that “I’d be pretty surprised if they weren’t cripples incapable of feeding of themselves unaided, no less committing terrorism” seems pretty ridiculous and based purely on emotion and not verifiable fact.
So, Claire – If you can provide us some corroborating sources that can validate that the 2% figure is real and not simply a calculated mischaracterization from the Obama administration that would be welcome. For some reason I just don’t trust figures and statistics cited by this administration as being accurate. Pretty sure I’m not alone in this. Keep in mind this is the same administration that claims the Middle East turmoil and refugee crisis has been spawned from Climate Change.
She’s asleep. It’s a little past 6 am. Happily, she’ll wake up before y’all, so you may have Claire comments to look forward to in the morning.
Thanks for asking this interesting question, Brian.
Well, and maybe I am wrong that if we had intervened in Syria in 2011/2012 (or even 2013) that we could have prevented the rise of ISIS. I do believe that if we fight them over there then they’re less likely to come here (…because they’ll be dead).
Midge,
This post was very sarcastic, and give the posts of late, bond to provoke this response.