the govt knew about his ties and training with ISIS, but did little to stop him. If the terrorists are already there, born there, it's just a wait and see approach to when they strike. At any point, they will carry out their act, when it's least expected and to cause as much carnage as possible. Do you start arresting with anyone with ISIS ties or suspect that they do? I don't know the answer.
There was a very good interview this morning on NPR and I thought he said something very important.
He implied that when any country allows too many Muslim immigrants/migrants into their country too quickly, it overburdens an otherwise good Terrorist Intelligence gathering agency. He said over the past 5 years, Britain's interior anti-terrorism group couldn't keep up with all the added names to their watch list. That this is an example of a guy "slipping through the cracks" even though he was correctly flagged as a potential extremist/terrorist.
That is a DAMNING critique to those on the left that want to increase Muslim immigration into this country and allow a massive influx of refugees from Muslim nations. The vetting process isn't enough. Once here, many HAVE to go on watch lists to verify they are not starting to fraternize with internal anti-American groups, Mosques, etc.
Think of how many Muslims have been recently added to Germany's watch list. There is no way an agency can handle that type of increase in potentially dangerous terrorist. Even if only 1 out of a 100 Muslims end up on watch lists (and I would argue it's probably more than that), Germany has added 10,000 people to their "watch list" with likely underfunded increase to their Anti-Terrorism budget/workforce.
This is an example to all the left that open borders and increased refugee allowances is NOT the answer. Not when your internal anti-Terrorist networks can't handle the increase in workload. You are asking for trouble.
The key is and always has been assimilation. And if assimilation isn't happening, you slow the influx of that group until is does.
The 1880's isn't calling and asking for their immigration policy back. This is NOT the same situation as what our country did from 1850-1920 with immigration policy. And immigration policy isn't and has never been about altruism.
Do we need immigration? Absolutely. But when millions are asking to come here from all parts of the globe, what logical reason exists to let those in that statistically pose the most threat over those that don't? That makes no sense to me. Why is a Muslim more important to you than another Guatemalan or Filipino or Australian? Aren't all equally worthy of the privilege of an American work visa or path to citizenship? What logic exists that says we should push Muslims up the waiting list when so many others are also on that list right now? How is it not in the country's best interest to use that standard based on world-wide events and recent history?
And do not make the argument we should just increase the size of allowable immigration list to accommodate Muslims. They have not earned that privilege based on events/statistical evidence in Europe. They have not proven to me they bring more good with them vs. bad. The litmus test doesn't pass my muster. I would rather have a Guatemalan or Filipino or Mexican or Hungarian on the list. And I know those people wanting to get the privileges of America are there waiting and hoping their names are called.
