“Why are we letting them in?” New video ad dismantles case for refugee influx

President Obama has ordered his administration to bring in ten thousand more refugees from the Syrian civil war over the next year alone. This represents nearly a tenfold increase in the number of refugees resettled in the United States since the beginning of that war, yet all in a single year. And that’s not all. Secretary of State Kerry says that, under this administration, the United States is “committed” to increasing the number of refugees it will accept. After a closed-door meeting with the President, Kerry made clear that Obama is personally invested in the United States taking “a leadership role” in the refugee issue. The Associated Press reminds us in its report on Kerry’s remarks that the United States took more than a million refugees after the fall of Vietnam, and speculates that the Obama administration may raise the annual limit above 70,000 refugees a year. Democratic leaders are already asking the President to consider a figure of 65,000.

The plan is strongly opposed by the American people. Nearly two thirds of state governors have taken formal steps to refuse to accept more refugees from Syria. The administration rejects their concerns. President Obama and his administration have repeatedly said that they recognize no legitimate state interest in the question, and that the President alone shall have power to decide how many refugees are put in their states.

The President says that Americans opposed to his plan are “shameful” for applying a “religious test” to American hospitality. He said that the Americans opposed to the plan, a strong majority of Americans according to polls, are cowards who are afraid of “widows and orphans.” In fact, the American people are chiefly concerned that the Syrian refugees may bring with them radicals and terrorists. More than half say that they have no confidence in the Federal government’s vetting program. That concern is echoed by no less than the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey. The FBI itself knows it cannot vet ten thousand refugees, coming from a place where any records of their lives will have been destroyed.

More, the truth is that the Obama administration already has a terrible record where refugee terrorism is concerned. Two Iraqis brought by the Obama administration in 2009 turned to terrorism within two years, attempting to send sniper rifles, Stinger missiles and cash to Al Qaeda. During the investigation one of them confessed to having been an insurgent in Iraq who destroyed American military vehicles and participated in attacks on US troops.

Just this year, six Bosnian immigrants were arrested in St. Louis for sending money and military equipment to terrorists including the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. This was more than a plan. They managed to fund and equip terrorist fighters who are some of the worst enemies of the United States of America.

And, of course, the female shooter in the recent San Berinadino terrorist attack actually had been vetted by the Federal government and she was approved. The process somehow completely failed to reject her despite her ties to a very radical Pakistani mosque, but instead waved her in on a fiancée visa. This process requires certification from police agencies in all the countries in which she lived, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Unlike Syria, those countries’ police services are intact and could plausibly produce evidence of radicalization. The American Federal vetting process itself turns out to be unreliable.

No wonder that, in a recent Congressional hearing on refugee resettlement, administration officials were silent on the question of how we could be sure that we were not bringing in terrorists who had infiltrated the flow of Syrian refugees. We simply cannot be sure. Please watch our video on this question, and contact your Senators and Representatives today. Let them know that you are not afraid of widows or orphans, but of the proven danger of terrorism slipping past American defenses that have grown feeble under this President.