Out of over 2,000 “violent extremist investigations… about 300 of them are people who came to the Unites States as refugees,” former director of the FBI, James Comey, said in testimony last week.
This is in direct opposition to the claim from Democrats that refugees pose no threat to our national security. Claiming that they are “vetted” is a terrible defense, because vetting alone can’t weed out the bad from the good, as Comey admitted in 2015:
“The only thing we can query is information that we have. So, if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, they’ve never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there and so it will be challenging.”
Mark Krikorian over at National Review had this to say about refugees and terrorism:
So 15 percent of the FBI’s terrorism cases are refugees – far more than their share of the immigrant population, let alone the general population. And that denominator of 2,000 presumably includes people with no immigration nexus at all – skinheads, antifa, Klan, environmental and animal rights extremists, et al. So the refugee share of immigration-related terrorism investigations is more than 15 percent, perhaps much more.
If vetting alone doesn’t work and banning travel from selected countries is merely a band-aid, what’s left? Simple: The U.S. can’t allow refugees to resettle here. Unless it is an extraordinary emergency, as Krikorian poses, but “even the UN refugee agency acknowledges that emergency cases make up only 0.4 percent of its resettlement referrals.”
“Help refugees where they are – our money goes much, much further and we can keep the security threats off shore,” Krikorian concludes.