Anti-Terrorist Screening Guidelines Are Relaxed to Admit Syrians to U.S.
It is very curious that the administration finds it necessary to loosen the standards by which Syrians are admitted to the United States when more than two million have been torn from their homes by the civil war there.
Can 12,000-15,000 (numbers demanded by refugee resettlement hucksters) not be found who have terror-free backgrounds among the two million displaced persons?
Of course, if the White House wishes to import many more big-government-preferring Muslims to irk conservatives, the President can decide to admit hundreds of thousands of suffering Syrians, since he has that authority already.
What’s the rush? Have citizens forgotten how loose standards of who gets into America was a major contributor to the 9/11 terror attacks? Why isn’t the protection of the American people the top priority of the government? Open borders for jihadists is a really bad idea these days.
On Fox News Sunday, House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mike McCaul said, “Syria is probably the largest and most significant threat to the homeland security of the United States today.” [Watch.] He was responding to a question about US residents participating in jihad in Syria, but the effect of admitting thousands of permissively screened refugees could be similarly dangerous.
Tucker Carlson broached the policy change on a Fox show, and his mind was obviously spinning with the concept of “limited terror ties” being acceptable to Washington. His guest was retired INS Senior Special Agent Mike Cutler, who analyzed the difficulties, noting, “When someone comes from a country involved with terrorism, it’s almost impossible to adequately vet them quickly.”
The New York Times covered the important national security issue — on page A10:
Republicans Criticize Rules to Aid Syrians Seeking Asylum, New York Times, February 7, 2014
Republican lawmakers are assailing new exemptions from antiterrorism laws the Obama administration issued this week for war zone refugees seeking to come to the United States, saying the rules are examples of unilateral action by President Obama that weaken immigration security.
The administration, under pressure to respond to the crisis of more than 2.3 million Syrians who have fled the civil war in their country, published two rules on Wednesday that will exempt refugees from provisions banning terrorists. The exemptions apply if the refugees provided only minor material support, such as meals or medical aid, to armed groups that have not been officially designated as terrorist organizations, or if they gave such support under pressure.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, said the administration was “yet again abusing the powers granted to it” by Congress.
“With today’s national security threats,” Mr. Goodlatte asked, “why would we ever willingly loosen our immigration laws to allow those who have helped terrorists game the system?” [ . . . ]
Officials said the exemptions, which would immediately affect some 3,000 asylum applicants, had been in the works for years. They said the administration was acting under authority it was granted in a bipartisan compromise adopted in 2007 under President George W. Bush. That deal was struck by Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has a keen interest in refugee issues, and John Kyl of Arizona, a Republican senator at the time.