Presidential Debate

The GOP Candidates Go Bonkers on Syrian Refugees

Even Rubio has lost his marbles on this issue

|

Not a single GOP candidate in the clusterfuck that was the main debate tonight had the balls to stand up for Syrian refugees. Even Marco Rubio, may be along with Jeb Bush the GOP's least nuts candidate on immigration at this point, said that he won't let Syrian refugees in. "If we allow 9,999 Syrian refugees into the United States, and all of them are good people, but we allow one person in who's an ISIS killer, we just get one person wrong, we've got a serious problem," he croaked.

But the fact of the matter is that ISIS would have to be dumber than any of these assclowns — which would be really

Syrian Toddler
UNHCR Photo Download / Foter / CC BY-NC

saying something — to try and use the refugee process to enter America. That's because, as I have pointed out previously, of all the legal options available, this one is the longest, riskiest, most arduous and uncertain. It would be better for them to get airdropped by human coyotes in Langley than to use this route.

It takes even non-Syrian refugees about two years from the time they approach a US embassy abroad or an intermediary such as United Nations before they are referred to authorities up the food chain here. But because Syrians are coming from ISIS land they are subjected to a special third-degree that can take another two to three years. After that, the refugee still has a dozen or so other hurdles to cross. These include, as per USCIS website: Background checks by various agencies including the FBI/State Department/Customs and Immigration Officials at the port of entry, several in-person interviews, medical screening, finger printing etc etc etc…

Given that the vast majority of applicants get rejected after negotiating all the red tape, this would hardly be the method of choice for a really motivated ISIS agent with anything more than a room temperature IQ, especially since the odds that they'll be discovered and put away are so great.

But even as Rubio argued to slam the door on Syrian refugees, he called for US boots on the ground to aid local forces in the fight against ISIS. "We will have to embed additional American special operators alongside them to help them with training, to help them conduct special missions, and to help improve the air strikes," he lectured.

In other words, Rubio won't let victims of ISIS into America even though the risk they pose to American life is miniscule. But he will send American soldiers to ISIS and have them face the far greater risk of getting gassed, shelled, beheaded or burned alive.

NEXT: Pretend Answers on Terror

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ‘Not a single GOP candidate in the clusterfuck that was the main debate tonight’
    ‘But the fact of the matter is that ISIS would have to be dumber than any of these assclowns ‘
    Deep insightful commentary, now only available in the comments section.

    1. “Even Marco Rubio, may be along with Jeb Bush”
      “It would be better from them”
      It’s got comment section grammar, too.

      1. And better splling then the hedline.

    2. Assclown? With that zinger you’ve gone and totally redeemed yourself.

      1. More fun than a Shriner’s convention in Baalbek

    1. It’s just late enough that this thread may not turn into a shitfest. Maybe…

      1. They mostly come at night… mostly.

  2. Shit, Shikha. This article is a hot mess.

    Rubio “croaked”? Like a frog?

    And let’s call a spade a spade here. The govt cannot properly vet these Syrian refugees. Didn’t we learn that the govt didn’t even check Islamic Bonnie’s public Facebook page which would have alerted them to her radical streak? Our govt is incompetent.

    Do you realize that if they do arrive here they are eligible to receive lifetime benefits, Medicare and will draw from Social Security? I sure as hell don’t want to pay for that.

    1. Your logic and reasoning are like screaming in outer space to assclown clusterfuckers like Shikha.

  3. I’m sure there’s a good argument for importing refugees from countries we are currently bombing; its just that i don’t see it here.

    “It takes even non-Syrian refugees about two years from the time they approach a US embassy abroad or an intermediary such as United Nations before they are referred to authorities up the food chain here. But because Syrians are coming from ISIS land they are subjected to a special third-degree that can take another two to three years. After that, the refugee still has a dozen or so other hurdles to cross. These include, as per USCIS website: Background checks by various agencies including the FBI/State Department/Customs and Immigration Officials at the port of entry, several in-person interviews, medical screening, finger printing etc etc etc’

    These details all seem to suggest that Canada is probably a better destination, for their own sake. Or perhaps France.

    1. The problem is that that the rigorous screening process has some pretty obvious holes in it. The same people who say they need all the phone and bank records for every American in order to protect America can’t be bothered to check the Twitter feed of someone from a country known for Islamic extremism because that would be wrong for some reason.

      So the NSA knows more about my bad weekend in Vegas, than Horatio Sanz in a burqa, who basically tweeted out “Yay Jihad,” before killing 14 people.

      1. Well in all fairness your ‘bad weekend’ violated several intergalactic standards of sentient conduct, and nearly started a war on Proxima 7

        1. Meh, toss the dog a cheese sandwich and you can stop an interstellar war.

          1. Jesus Christ, I’ve gone peak nerd.

        2. Also, to be fair, the Proximans, they asked me to share that was most valuable to me. I didn’t realize it was that kind of party, so I had to stick my dick in the Potatoes.

          1. Those weren’t potatoes…

  4. Fuck Syrians. They don’t have a right to come here. They don’t have a right to be here. And we don’t need them. It’s not about them. It’s about us. Americans (remember us?) don’t want them, so they can GTFO.

    1. AND NO IRISH

      1. Yeah, what’d the Irish ever to America?

        Besides voting for FDR four times and cementing the new deal – but other than that, what’d they do?

    2. Making Sikha the rational one. Congrats.

      1. Because Dalmia wins the FEELZ award.

  5. Its not that you are wrong Shikha, it’s just that as issues go this is no where near as important to most people as it is to you. 10k is a drop in the bucket which indicates that its nothing more than a political gesture. There are other lots of options available to help them without bringinging them here. And while I don’t really have a problem with bringing them, it’s not an issue that would have any impact on who I vote for one wayvor the other. Obama is bringing them here anyways regardless of what anyone else wants because you know he’s king.

  6. Good article, Shikha. Like you, I’m a libertarian who thinks government should minimize the amount of red tape required to cross national borders. The hoops that we force people fleeing oppression and ISIS are certainly high enough and are a disproportionate response to the threat that Syrian refugees pose– if there is any threat.

    Check out Bernie Sanders position on military force. Hopeful?

    Move away from a policy of unilateral military action, and toward a policy of emphasizing diplomacy, and ensuring the decision to go to war is a last resort.
    Ensure that any military action we do engage in has clear goals, is limited in scope, and whenever possible provides support to our allies in the region.
    Close Guantanamo Bay, rein in the National Security Agency, abolish the use of torture, and remember what truly makes America exceptional: our values.

    1. “Close Guantanamo Bay, rein in the National Security Agency, abolish the use of torture, ”

      Obama already did all this, right?

      “and remember what truly makes America exceptional: our valuables”.

      Govt free shit for all!

    2. The government needs to stop using force to compel citizens to provide financial support for those crossing national borders.

      Maybe then we can discuss minimizing the red tape involved in the process.

      Until then taking in refugees is nothing more than an direct expansion of the welfare state.

      Which is not exactly libertarian.

    3. abolish the use of torture

      What about the reeducation camps, comrade?

  7. And this shit show can’t properly start without Agile

    *looks around while waving glow sticks*

  8. Yeah…. given a chance to talk forcefully about liberty and protecting the 4th amendment from the Patriot Act excesses, Rand chose to attack Rubio as being too loose on immigration. I suppose he’s trying to triangulate Trump and appeal to the primary voter, but I really enjoy him more when he’s the libertarian firebrand decrying government intrusions into our lives. Cruz was better on this question than Paul, even though he was following Paul’s lead in the senate on the legislation.

  9. “Not a single GOP candidate in the clusterfuck that was the main debate tonight had the balls to stand up for Syrian refugees.”

    It’s not a lack of balls, it’s just that they don’t agree with you.

    1. This, the GOP candidates are most likely standing up for what they believe in on this situation.

  10. Shiva makes a strong case for banning Indian immigration.

    1. Still not as bad as Californian immigration though…

    2. Perhaps India would like some more Muslims?

  11. Getting the facts about the Tsarnaevs out of the MSM is like pulling teeth, but this is what, according to the MSM, is what happened.

    There’s two ways to be allowed to live in the U.S. as a refugee.

    The Tsarnaevs’ dad came to the U.S. on a tourist visa, meaning he would have had to leave after a few months. But once he got to the U.S. he applied for asylum, meaning that he faced persecution if he went back to Chechnya. The immigration bureaucrats believed him, and granted him asylum. Then he brought his family in, including the infamous brothers.

    If someone applies for asylum while in the U.S., IIRC they have a couple options. They can show they *will* be persecuted, in which case there’s a presumption they should get asylum, or they can show they *might* be persecuted, in which case an asylum grant is discretionary with the immigration bureaucrats. In either case, if you have terrorist ties you’re supposed to be denied. But I don’t think Dad had terrorist ties. Also, I don’t think you’re allowed to pass through a third country before coming to the U.S. and seeking asylum. I’m not sure if Dad did this.

    1. Another method to live in the U.S. as a refugee is the route being taken by Syrians in the refugee camps abroad – apply for a refugee visa. There’s no *right* to such a visa, in that even those found to be refugees don’t need to be let in to the U.S. The definition of refugee, though, is the same as in asylum applications – that you face persecution in the country you fled from. But even actual refugees – or those the bureaucracy certifies as refugees – have to wait in line and aren’t guaranteed U.S. residence.

      Now, can someone with a bit of knowledge of the system confirm whether I got it right or not? It’s been a while since I studied this, so I may be misremembering, or the law may have changed.

      1. But the underlying issue is that the definition of refugee in each case is pretty much the same.

        If you can fool the bureaucracy when applying for refugee status in the U.S., what’s to stop you from fooling the bureaucracy when applying from a refugee camp?

        Smugglers help out people who want to live in the U.S., providing them with fake stories of persecution. Or you could make up a story on your own. With the stakes so high, you’re going to have a lot of fake claims.

        And the Tsarnaevs got into the U.S. because their Dad snookered the immigration bureaucracy with a false claim.

        So, yes, to the extent it shows you can get a fake refugee application approved and end up living “legally” in the U.S., then yes, you bet the Tsarnaev case is relevant to current debates.

        1. The MSM likes to lecture the ignorant public about its confusion – “ha ha, you paranoid rubes, the Tsarnaev dad didn’t enter the U.S. as a refugee, he entered as a tourist and *then* he got asylum status by persuading the immigration people he was a refugee. So it’s, like, totally different!”

  12. “Rubio won’t let

      1. Alright, now the squirrels are just fucking with me.

  13. Let’s at least take ISIS out of the refugee argument. ISIS has no interest in the U.S. or anywhere else not contiguous with their caliphate.

    1. Except that has been shown to be demonstrably false, or that they believe their califate to include the whole world.

  14. This may be the worst article I’ve read here. The kind of hysterics and emoting I would expect on a SJW site. Zero actual analysis of the situation, costs, or principles. Sikha feels that the U.S. should pay to import people from Syria – and that’s all that matters apparently.

    1. They Syrians are victims, see. And victims are always the winners of any governmental largesse to be had.

      Of course, that that largesse is drawn directly off the backs of citizens does not qualify them as victims.

      1. It is written as if this audience buys into the Social Justice victimology assumptions.

  15. Holy shit, will you look at this

    “‘Just wait?’ Islamic State reveals it has smuggled THOUSANDS of extremists into Europe

    “AN OPERATIVE working for Islamic State has revealed the terror group has successfully smuggled thousands of covert jihadists into Europe….

    “The lethal ISIS gunmen use local smugglers to blend in and travel amongst a huge tide of illegal migrants flooding Europe….

    “From Turkish port cities like Izmir and Mersin, thousands of refugees venture across the Mediterranean aiming for Italy, he said.

    “Then the majority make for more welcoming nations like Sweden and Germany, turning themselves over to authorities and *appealing for asylum.* [emphasis added]…

    “Two Turkish refugee-smugglers backed up the claims made by the ISIS Syrian operative.

    “One admitted to helping more than ten trained ISIS rebels infiltrate Europe under the guise of *asylum seekers.* [emphasis added].”

    1. No way! Shikha says they are all harmless widows and really cute orphans. And all are going to be vetted through the big database of people from third world crap-holes that we have – by the same people who couldn’t launch an insurance website.

      1. I had a plan to make the process easier. It’s barbaric, but it would narrow the field.

        Plain statement – “If you come here without a visa, we will let you stay, but we will also surgically remove your reproductive organs, whatever they may be, as a precondition to living here.” Most will simply refuse the condition, allowing you to more thoroughly investigate the handful who are desperate/mad enough to accept. If done properly, you won’t even have to perform that many operations (if at all).

        Side benefit – no migrant rape crisis.

      2. Women and children are never a danger. Reason is just pathetic on this issue.

        Look at the bright side, letting Syrians in might give us police scandals Reason is not interested in covering.

        http://historybuff.com/mark-tw…..were-buds/

        1. Who didn’t know Tesla and Twain were friends. There was even a plan for Twain to peddle Tesla’s death ray if he ever got it working. (Memorable for the image of Twain selling death rays…)

    2. Your ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ are just propaganda spewed by the patriarchy to hurt Shiza’s feelingz.

  16. “But because Syrians are coming from ISIS land they are subjected to a special third-degree that can take another two to three years. ”

    (Citation needed)

  17. “In other words, Rubio won’t let victims of ISIS into America even though the risk they pose to American life is miniscule. But he will send American soldiers to ISIS and have them face the far greater risk of getting gassed, shelled, beheaded or burned alive.”

    Not to argue against the overall sentiment that something is amiss, but the fact is that the soldiers agree to risk their lives. Based on the democratic process, American citizens may not agree to risk their lives when letting refugees in. A separate question concerns purpose, effectiveness, and risk of military operations. What goods are pursued, and what goods are risked by (non-)intervention?

    1. Syrians caught crossing our southern border, the FBI saying its impossible to vet any Syrian refugee, the immigration department failing to catch the San Bernadino female terrorist’s nonexistent home address, leads me to believe we do have a serious security problem.
      Do you really believe with the numerous drug tunnels under our border that for a $25,000 price a terrorist would have any problem entering our country?

      1. It’s not just getting in.
        Refugees get immediate legal status and access to all government benefits, including housing, welfare, connections to community organizations, etc. We make life so much easier than if you sneak in and have to live “in the shadows”.
        All of the 9/11 hijackers came in through legal means and ISIS has promised to embed some of theirs with the Syrians.
        What’s to lose?

  18. Let’s back up and ask a fundamental question:

    Why does the United States have any fundamental obligation to take in any refugees from anywhere in the Middle East at all?

    It seems to me that the other countries in that region such as Saudi Arabia should be the ones to obligated to take in refugees – not the United States – or Europe for that matter.

    1. How about a more fundamental question: by what right do we forcibly turn them away?

      1. The citizens ownership of the country.

        It’s not one iota different than an individual’s right to control who has access to his own private property.

        Just as there is no inherent right of anyone else to be on my private property, there is no inherent right of non-citizens of the country to be within the territorial limits of the United States if the legal citizens of the United States do not wish to allow it.

        There is no such thing as an inherent global right to be absolutely anywhere on the planet that you happen to want to be.

        1. Yes, collective national ownership, such a nice libertarian way to think about it!

          Your argument is ‘the citizens own the country like a person owns private property, so the former can decide who comes in and out just like the latter.’

          Of course the latter can decide other things too, like whether to allow certain speech on their property, or certain activities, or possession of items like handguns. How does your analogy work now?

          1. “Yes, collective national ownership, such a nice libertarian way to think about it!”

            You are incapable of proving me wrong about it.

            “Of course the latter can decide other things too, like whether to allow certain speech on their property, or certain activities, or possession of items like handguns. How does your analogy work now?”

            It works just fine. The government (i.e. the collective) is constrained by the Constitution as to what it can impose on individuals. On the other hand, individuals are perfectly free to make their own conditions for allowing someone else access to their private property. Those who do not wish to comply with the conditions offered can stay off the property.

            You are sucking wind – as usual.

          2. ‘the citizens own the country like a person owns private property, so the former can decide who comes in and out just like the latter.’

            Citizens certainly own the public goods of the country in common. Secured borders and the military would be among the many which are included in this — much as the citizenry can and should be able to decide how and when the military is used over against a particular citizen’s desire to use the military, so too they should be given priority when it comes to allowing people and goods over their borders.

            It might be *preferable* for the citizenry to invite people over those borders, as I believe it is in most cases — but this needs to be established to the satisfaction of the citizenry. In particular, the benefits of inviting a large population of culturally- and religiously-illiberal refugees who will be supported at taxpayer expense are very dubious.

  19. It’s nice to see that on the discussion board of one of the leading libertarian voices one can depend on most of the comments joining the Trump crowd in dumping on one of the oldest libertarian tenets (freedom of movement, going back to the original LP platform and Nolan Quiz) and collective treatment of entire groups (unless its a group the poster is a member of, like white males, gun owners, Christians, etc). Never change, HR commentariat, never change!

    1. Aren’t you dead? I heard you suffered a fatal overdose and were on a slab in the morgue. Did they install wifi in the mortuary?

      1. As is the case for much of your information, you’re incorrect.

      2. He’s mostly given up on this character, but not totally. Alas.

        1. Here we go.

        2. I muted this handle long ago, so I just see little pink bars instead of whatever new drivel he writes.

          1. It doesn’t work on phones. Alas.

          2. See, he’s ignoring me by asking me a question!

            You really are a government employee I guess.

    2. Please refer my to the part of “freedom of movement” ideology that says I’m supposed to pay for the movement of others. Seems kind of the opposite of a libertarian position.

      Seriously haven’t heard one proponent of paying to relocate refugees here explain that other than some vague unreferenced bullshit about it being good in the long-term.

  20. Is someone intent upon killing a bunch of people, and probably themselves in the process, going to try to get into the country legally over the course of years, or come over illegally without the wait?

    Banning legal immigration to stop terrorists is like putting up a gun-free-zone sign at a school. It assumes that murderers will be deterred by more laws. It’s asinine.

    1. And sarcasmic has the most reasonable comment! I have been gone a while! Next you’ll be telling me the Jets look playoff bound.

    2. Banning legal immigration to stop terrorists is like putting up a gun-free-zone sign at a school.

      Not a great analogy, since gun-free zones actually increase the risk of mass shootings.

      1. I wouldn’t go that far. It is true that if someone is going to commit a mass shooting, that they’re likely to choose a gun-free-zone, but gun-free-zones don’t cause mass shootings.

        My point remains though:

        Is someone intent on committing mass murder going to be worried about penalties for ignoring a gun-free-zone sign? I think we can agree that that’s a no.

        Now why would someone intent on committing mass murder be worried about penalties for entering the country illegally?

        In fact, why would they even bother spending years doing it legally when they can sneak right in?

  21. Shikha, you ignorant slut. If you knew anything about libertarianism, you’d know that it means being terrified of dirty foreigners. They carry disease, you know.

  22. From a libertarian perspective, Paul’s performance was one of his better ones, but I don’t think the GOP is buying civil libertie. They’re more afraid of Muslims and Mexicans collectively than our own government, so they’re sidling up to the latter and begging it to take out all the stops to protect them from the former. Cruz actually did a good job last night of at least nodding to civil liberties while feeding the base their required rhetoric.

  23. But because Syrians are coming from ISIS land they are subjected to a special third-degree that can take another two to three years. After that, the refugee still has a dozen or so other hurdles to cross. These include, as per USCIS website: Background checks by various agencies including the FBI/State Department/Customs and Immigration Officials at the port of entry, several in-person interviews, medical screening, finger printing etc etc etc?

    And do we any reason to believe that this vetting process will be any more effective than the vetting process for admitting people’s prospective brides from terrorist hot spots?

    My initial stand was to vet and admit Syrian refugees. But, Bonnie Jihad made pretty clear that our vetting process isn’t up to that task. If we can’t adequately vet people moving here from Saudi Arabia, it’s highly unlikely that we’re going to be able to do so from the middle of a war zone.

    San Bernadino revealed that our immigration vetting process doesn’t work very well. It was a catastrophic fail. Pretending that we have this super vetting process that will screen out potential terrorists when you’ve just been given evidence that it doesn’t work makes you look like you’re immune to empirical reality.

    1. My initial stand was to vet and admit Syrian refugees.

      Even if we could vet them adequately, why should we spend taxpayer money to bring these people here and support them?

  24. I don’t like the idea of bringing people (of any religion) here from an anti-American, terrorist cesspool any more than the next guy, but these Republican candidates are mostly trying to define themselves against anything and everything Obama is doing. They’re positioning themselves to co-opt Trump’s supporters once he drops out of the race, and that’s basically Trump’s appeal right there: He’s the anti-Obama.

    And as soon as Trump has to start spending his own money, he will drop out of the race.

  25. Let’s not forget that people are using “Syrian refugees” as shorthand for a much larger migration, that has relatively few Syrians or refugees, as far as anyone can tell.

    “Muslim migrants” would almost certainly more accurate, although not perfectly accurate.

    1. Clicked too soon.

      I applaud Reason for continuing to use non-representative photos of women and children to illustrate the migration. When we know that the bulk of the refugees are young men.

    2. I’d also add that it’s nice to see Reason hiring writers that support expansion of the welfare state.

      And by “nice” I mean horrible. It’s becoming apparent that this outfit is mainly concerned with Kultur War and doesn’t really give a damn about economics.

      It’s one thing if these people wash up on the shores, it’s another to actively seem to import them. And should we just completely ignore the idiotic foreign policy that has created the situation in the first place? Should we just ignore the fact that our “allies” in Turkey and Saudi Arabia refuse to take ANY refugees? This is religious sectarian violence initiated by our “allies” and we’re supposed to volunteer to take all the fallout of their pogrom? Shit, at least Hitler was considered an enemy. With friends like this, we don’t need enemies.

  26. “Not a single GOP candidate in the clusterfuck that was the main debate tonight had the balls to stand up for Syrian refugees.”

    Why it’s almost as if they are running for president of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or something…

  27. Considering parts of Syria is controlled by ISIS and those areas did have numerous government passport application sites, forgeries would be a major concern. Then, catching Syrians crossing the porous US southern border is not a good sign. Finally, the US government immigration agency didn’t catch the nonexistent home address of the San Bernadino female terrorist leads me to believe a moratorium needs to be put in place for any immigration until such problems are fixed.
    If your tire is running flat, you don’t keep driving on it. You stop and fix it, then continue driving.

  28. Here’s what I would do. Stand aside and let Obama own this good or bad, whatever happens. The left justifies it by claiming they’re all Fullbright Scholars who will work for gay marriage and universal health care. Maybe they will. But if they don’t that’s on them too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.