On MSNBC today, Andrea Mitchell inadvertently let slip exactly what the liberal point of view on the Syrian refugees amounts to. Which isn't very much. The bottom line? They know the risk is high, they just don't care.
In the above video clip, Mitchell is discussing the bill that went up for a vote and passed the House today regarding changing the procedure for for vetting refugees before they come to America (a bill which President Obama vowed to veto) with Democrat, Army Reserve Major and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who supported the bill.
Mitchell first airs the left's grievance with the bill, shaking her head no and in every possible way expressing how amazed she is at how stupid it is, then asks Rep. Gabbard somewhat incredulously if she intends to vote for it. Gabbard says she will, and then explains exactly what it will do.
There's been a lot of talk in the media about what it does and doesn't do, but it's actually a very short and simple bill for those who have actually read it. It just requires one thing as you mentioned. It requires that, through the current vetting process that refugees need to go through, that the agencies responsible for that vetting will certify that the refugees who are being allowed to come here do not pose a threat to the American people or the United States.
A reasonable explanation for a reasonable bill, owing to which simplicity and good sense it passed today with plenty enough Democrats for overriding that promised veto. But Mitchell wasn't prepared to leave it at that, still making the liberal, bleeding heart, lefty case against the reasonable security measure.
But in fact what it boils down to though, Congresswoman, is an individual certification because no cabinet secretary is going to say these people are okay without having all of the data. You would have Jeh Johnson and Jim Comey and General Clapper spending all of their time going over, individually, each Syrian refugee.
And there is where she gives up the game. Here is her argument, each of the three cabinet members would have to check each Syrian individually, because they would not be comfortable signing their name to a document certifying that the refugee was not a threat. They would not be comfortable because they had not done the vetting personally.
Andrea Mitchell's argument is literally, the heads of these agencies can't trust the vetting process. They couldn't be comfortable certifying the vetting results because they can't trust that the person they are certifying is, in fact, not a danger.
Well then why should the American people trust that, Andrea? If Jeh Johnson doesn't feel confident signing his name to a document saying the refugee is not a threat, why should an American citizen feel comfortable sitting next to that refugee on a bus? Or walking into a mall with them? If you don't trust the vetting why should we?
This is, of course, the exact reason for the bill, and certainly the exact reason it passed. There has to be accountability. If the heads of these agencies aren't comfortable enough with the vetting process to certify it, then they should fix the process, not dodge the signature. It's common sense.
But liberals, especially media liberals, aren't really known for that.