Sunday, December 6, 2015

Ben Carson Says After San Berandino, No More Syrian Refugees

Right because both the shooters were Syrian refugees. Wait.

"Ben Carson pointed to the San Bernardino shootings as proof that there are gaps in the U.S. immigration system during a Friday conference in Arizona. According to the Washington Post, the Republican presidential candidate said that shooter Tashfeen Malik’s easy passage through the U.S. visa vetting process should be the “end of the argument” for accepting refugees from Syria."

"If that vetting resulted in missing someone who could carry out such a horrendous crime, that should be the end of the argument right there. We shouldn’t even have to talk about this anymore," the Republican presidential told the audience at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s summit.

"Malik and her husband, Syed Farook, went on a rampage at the Inland Regional Center on Wednesday, fatally shooting 14 and injuring 21 before being killed by police in a shootout on a southern California highway."

The House Dems who voted for banning the Syrian refugees a few weeks ago-this is what the bill effectively does-are now reconsideirng. Maybe the don't feel so great about being on the same side of the issue as Dr. Ben.

"More than half of the House Democrats who voted to restrict the resettlement of Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the U.S. appear to be having second thoughts."

"At least 26 of the 47 Democrats who supported the measure have signed on to a letter urging House Speaker Paul Ryan not to include it in a must-pass omnibus spending bill likely to be voted on in the coming days, according to groups helping arrange the missive."

Read more:

This is good news. It suggest that they are getting flak from Dems in their districts. I for one found it a pretty dark day to be a Democrat.

The lawmakers assert that the U.S. has an obligation to help people seeking refuge from violence and persecution. They also reject measures being floated that would defund the U.S. refugee resettlement program, arguing that “funds available for the vetting and placement of refugees should be increased to ensure a thorough and expeditious process.”

“We should all agree that inserting wholesale changes to refugee admission policies into a year-end spending bill—where they cannot be properly debated or amended—is not the appropriate way to consider these issues,” the letter states.

The lawmakers, however, don’t say in the letter if they are willing to vote against the omnibus spending bill if the refugee legislation ultimately winds up in it.

"At least 84 Democrats total had signed the letter as of Friday evening, with more expected by Sunday night. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) who voted for the initial House bill, is helping spearhead the drive for signatures. Others who voted for the House bill but signed the letter include Reps. Steve Israel of New York and Ron Kind of Wisconsin."

"The initial House vote was simply a knee-jerk reaction in response to the Paris terror attacks," said Yasmine Taeb, a lobbyist with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group that helped organize the letter. "We are a nation of immigrants and it is simply unacceptable for our elected officials to turn their backs on innocent women, men, and children fleeing violence and persecution."

Read more:

As Josh Marshall says, one of the reasons we have had less problems with ISiS inspired terrorism in the US is that Muslims are not marginalized like they are in Europe. To have a backlash against Muslims now would be a real step backwards.

"Let's take the case of Western Europe. Over a couple decades and particularly since 9/11 we've had abundant evidence that Muslims in Europe, and particularly Muslims whose ancestry is in Muslim majority countries in the Middles East, North Africa and South Asia appear to be substantially more prone to radicalization and participation is mass casualty terror attacks than immigrants and descendants of immigrants from those countries now living in the United States. We have lots of evidence for this both in journalistic and academic studies. And we have lots of evidence in a volume of terrorist attacks. The 9/11 attacks stand alone in terms of death count. But the Paris attacks, ghastly as they were, come after London, Madrid, Charlie Hebdo, various individual attacks, assassinations, one-off attacks on Jews in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and other countries in Western Europe. Virtually everyone who has studied the matter concludes that it is this social isolation that is at the root of the greater propensity toward radicalization and willingness, albeit for a tiny subsection of the population, to commit acts of violence."

The truth is this is a case where doing the right thing and being strategic in the struggle against ISIS point in the same direction.


  1. Mike, in your title "Ben" not "Bern."

  2. Uh-oh. I am not trying to talk up Bernie Sanders

  3. O/T: Mike, did you see this?:

  4. Mike, not a good sign:

  5. You know what's a bad sign? Listening to CNN tonight. Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer are discussing how the President has done such a bad job reassuring the nation about San Bernandino.

    Again, to hear them it sounds like a purely factual discussion. This is the same network who thought that that reporter went too far in simply feeling sorry for the refugees after that House vote to allow no more refugees.

  6. Although your news is not good either, though, not surprising.