Vetting Obama's Claims About Syrian Refugees

President Obama and Democrats are openly mocking Americans who have expressed concerns about the impending flood of Syrian refugees into the country.  Opponents of the Obama refugee doctrine have been dismissed as intolerant, anti-immigrant, bigoted and hateful.

The vitriolic verbal attacks are aimed at shutting down legitimate debate over the president's plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 more in 2017 after Mr. Obama leaves office. About 2,200 Syrian refugees have been granted asylum in the last four years.

In ridiculing his critics, the president has made statements about the extensive vetting process for refugees designed to deter potential terrorists from entering the U.S.  His claims have mostly gone unchallenged by a sympathetic media.  However, the facts don't support Mr. Obama's rhetoric.

Here is a list of Mr. Obama's assertions with the accompanying facts that offer contradictory evidence to the president's statements.

"People should remember that no refugee can enter our borders until they undergo the highest security checks of anyone traveling to the United States," the president has steadfastly maintained.    

The security vetting process is flawed and offers no guarantee terrorists will be blocked from entering the country. As proof, Senator Jeff Sessions recently released a list of 12 refugees who were allowed into the country this year and were subsequently arrested for conspiring to commit terrorism or for providing support to terrorists.

Moreover, FBI Director James Comey acknowledged last month that federal agencies had no fool-proof method to conduct background checks on refugees.  "If we don't know much about somebody, there won't be anything in our data," he confided.  "I can't sit here and offer anybody absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this."

Unlike many Middle Eastern refugees, Syrians are more likely to sympathize with ISIS.  A recent opinion poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies shows that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold positive views of the terrorist group.  That is an alarming number that underscores the need for a thorough vetting.

In the last week, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo on the Texas border revealed that groups of Syrians are already slipping into the U.S. from Mexico, surrendering to Border Patrol and requesting political asylum.  The new arrivals can skip the vetting period and have the right to settle wherever they want in the U.S. under current immigration policy, asserts Cuellar.

The Congressman warns that likely more Syrians will use the same route into the United States and called for federal action to prevent a potential flood of Middle Eastern refugees through America's porous southern border.

Mr. Obama and other Democrats often contend that refugees are "not a burden" on America and represent "valuable, hardworking" additions to our communities.

While it is understandable that refugees may have difficulty securing a job, many are winding up on the government dole.

According this year's Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 39 percent of refugees received public assistance, 56 percent went on Medicaid, 74 percent signed up for food stamps and 23 percent obtained public housing assistance in fiscal year 2013. This year the ORR agency has spent nearly $1 billion ($999.4 million) to resettle and provide benefits to refugees.

"But they're (Republicans) scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion," Mr. Obama has argued.  

Mr. Obama acts as if Republicans want to limit the number of refugees coming to America.  Not many people are aware that it is the president who sets a ceiling each year on refugees.  For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Obama fixed the number at 70,000.  He made that decision, not Congress.

This assertion about widows and children is a canard used by Mr. Obama to tar his opponents.  He knows it is not true. Republicans and many Americans are frightened of the prospect of adult refugees entering the country with the intent to kill and maim citizens.

For example, in 2013 two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky were arrested after they made claims they used explosive devices to kill U.S. soldiers in their country and were plotting attacks on our homeland.  In another case, a Uzbek refugee in Idaho was found guilty of stockpiling explosives in support of a terrorist organization.

The Boston marathon bombers, who immigrated from Chechnya, were granted asylum in the United States, before killing three and injuring more than 250 people.  Authorities claim they were fully vetted before being allowed in the country.  That suggests the current system is unreliable.

The recent massacre in San Bernardino, California, was another wake-up call for the country's terror guardians.  One of the killers, Tashfeen Malik, entered the country on a fiancee visa after being screened for jihadist connections.  

How many more examples does the president need before he owns up to the fact there is no way to assure Americans that not a single Syrian refugee who enters in the country is a potential terrorist?

This is a rhetorical question.  Mr. Obama knows that even the world's best vetting system cannot identify every terrorist threat.  It would be refreshing to hear the president admit it.  Instead, he disparages those with relevant apprehensions, spawning divisiveness over the issue.

Before another Syrian refugee is granted asylum, the United States needs to bolster its vetting process, implement increased screening for Middle Eastern applicants, improve the sharing of terrorist data across government agencies and enhance monitoring of the resettlement process.

Without these changes, no one, including President Obama, can assure Americans that newly arriving refugees will not pose a terrorist threat to the country.