In the movie Mr. Saturday Night, Billy Chrystal's character tells this story: A customer in a small restaurant orders chicken soup as an appetizer. The waiter brings the soup and leaves. About a minute later, the waiter sees that the customer is not eating. He comes over to the table and asks the customer, "Is everything okay with the soup?" The customer responds, "Taste the soup." The waiter is somewhat taken aback, but replies, "Sir, I can't taste your soup. The manager would get upset." The customer looks at the waiter and says, "Taste the soup!" The waiter says "I'll get fired if I taste your soup and they see me do it. I can't." At this point, the customer raises his voice a bit and says "Taste the soup!" The waiter finally relents and says "Okay, I'll taste the soup. Where's the spoon?" The customer smiles and says "Aha!"
That story reminds me very much of the current debate over the vetting of tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who president Obama wants to bring to the USA. White House officials like Ben Rhodes tell us that the vetting will be a very robust process that will prevent any terrorists from infiltrating into the USA. As these spokesmen repeat the claim of a "robust" vetting process, I keep thinking of the customer who doesn't say "taste the soup", but rather "vet the refugee!" Just like you cannot taste the soup without a spoon, you cannot vet a refugee if you have no data against which to check out the person.
Most refugees have no papers. Even the ones who do have papers come from places where the government no longer functions. Who does one call to check out the story told by a man who says he is fleeing persecution in Syria? Who is there who will vouch for the bona fides of that prospective refugee? The simple answer is that there is no way to vet these people. If America admits 10,000 Syrian refugees and only 1% are terrorists trying to sneak into this country, then we will have 100 terrorist murderers wandering around the country. There were only 8 terrorists in Paris. Just think what 100 could do.
The idea that we should admit potential terrorists without knowing their actual background is insane. If Obama still lets these people in and there is a series of attacks across America, what will he say? "Oops?"
That story reminds me very much of the current debate over the vetting of tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who president Obama wants to bring to the USA. White House officials like Ben Rhodes tell us that the vetting will be a very robust process that will prevent any terrorists from infiltrating into the USA. As these spokesmen repeat the claim of a "robust" vetting process, I keep thinking of the customer who doesn't say "taste the soup", but rather "vet the refugee!" Just like you cannot taste the soup without a spoon, you cannot vet a refugee if you have no data against which to check out the person.
Most refugees have no papers. Even the ones who do have papers come from places where the government no longer functions. Who does one call to check out the story told by a man who says he is fleeing persecution in Syria? Who is there who will vouch for the bona fides of that prospective refugee? The simple answer is that there is no way to vet these people. If America admits 10,000 Syrian refugees and only 1% are terrorists trying to sneak into this country, then we will have 100 terrorist murderers wandering around the country. There were only 8 terrorists in Paris. Just think what 100 could do.
The idea that we should admit potential terrorists without knowing their actual background is insane. If Obama still lets these people in and there is a series of attacks across America, what will he say? "Oops?"
No comments:
Post a Comment