Since 9/11, the United States has admitted nearly 785,000 refugees under the U.S. Refugee Program.
About a dozen — .0000152 percent — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S.
None of them were Syrian. None of them committed acts of terrorism in the U.S.
This did not prevent state Sen. Martins (R-Mineola) last week from calling on Gov. Andrew Cuomo to join the 31 Republican governors who — without legal standing — said they would not accept any of the 10,000 Syrian refugees the Obama Administration has called for the United State to accept.
This at a time when Germany has pledged to accept 1 million of the 11 million Syrian refugees, France even after the Paris attacks 25,000 refugees and neighboring Canada 25,000 — 10,000 this year. Not to mention the millions of others in Greece, other European countries as well as countries in the Middle East.
In the face of this enormous humanitarian crisis the United States — alone — is incapable of accepting 10,000 we are told.
On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau personally welcomed a group of refugees, saying “We get to show the world how to open our hearts and welcome in people who are fleeing extraordinary difficult situations.”
In an column published in Blank Slate Media, Martins argued that our country’s vetting process “looks good on paper but it truly without substance” since “there is no government records, no police records, no fingerprints and often, no official paperwork at all on these refugees.”
In other words, because the situation in Syria is so horrendous — with citizens trapped between barbarians in ISIS and President Assad’s murderous government — we cannot accept any of them.
This despite an 18-month to two-year vetting process that begins with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refuges, which officials say is the most intensive process of any group arriving in the U.S.
“Among those who pass background checks, a small percentage are referred overseas for resettlement based on criteria to determine the most vulnerable case,” according to a story in Time Magazine. “This group may include survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence, targets of political persecution, the medically needs, families with multiple children and a female head of household.”
These are the people who Martins says we need to turn our backs on.
Strangely, Martins goes on to site “numerous failures” of vetting people in Afghanistan we sought for combat missions as well as problems with the vetting process in 2011 for Iraqi refugees, which was resolved within six months.
Martins did not say as Republicans presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush did that they would accept Syrian refugees who were Christian, but not if they were Muslim. Or that the U.S. should bar all Muslims from entering the country as did Donald Trump, who is leading the Republican field by a large margin.
But based on Martins logic, why wouldn’t we ban Muslims from coming into the country?
Tashfeen Malik, one of San Bernardino shooters, like the 9/11 attackers, came in on a visa, which security experts agree is a much easier way for a terrorist to enter the country. And then there is Malik’s husband and fellow attacker, Syed Rizwan Farook, who born in the United States.
Security experts say these self-radicalized U.S. citizens poses perhaps the greatest to this country’s security. The experts also note that heated rhetoric and proposed legislation singling out Muslims is ISIS’ best recruiting tool here and overseas.
Given Martins’ call for extra caution in taking in Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS and Assad, we also wonder why he made no mention to another threat that allowed the attack by Malik, Farook and dozens of others for all sorts of other twisted reasons to be so deadly — the easy access to assault weapons and ammunition. The sad fact is that a mass attack like the one committed by Farook and Malik takes place virtually every day in the U.S.
But Republicans in Congress have even blocked legislation supported by Republican Rep. Peter King to bar people on the terrorist watch list from buying firearms. Where is Martins on this issue?
Where is Martins on a national ban for military-style rifles and ammunition clips that let shooters spray crowds with up to 100-round bursts.
Why no call for universal background checks to prevent people with criminal records and history of mental illness from getting weapons?
Or eliminating the ban on the federal government from even studying the cause of gun deaths or a law that virtually bans civil suits against gun manufacturers?
If Martins wants to really make us safer, he needs to get half as tough on the NRA and he is on people fleeing ISIS.
