ShareThis Page
‘Vetting’ refugees: A dubious U.N. link |

‘Vetting’ refugees: A dubious U.N. link

| Saturday, November 21, 2015 9:00 p.m

The dangerous game of refugee roulette that the Obama administration is determined to play with Middle East migrants next year is worrisome enough. Never mind the agency that actually chooses the refugees for U.S. consideration.

The selections are made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, according to the State Department’s report, “Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016.” As of mid-2015, the U.N. refugee agency had selected 15,000 Syrians for the United States, according to Investor’s Business Daily.

That’s reason enough for Congress to speed legislation to put some teeth into refugee screening, despite President Obama’s empty assurance last week that Syrian refugees are no more threatening than “tourists.”

Security protocols for the Syrians supposedly include “biographic name checks” and “biometric (fingerprint) checks,” according to State. But exactly how are those thousands of fingerprints checked, since there are no databases in war-torn Syria?

And then there’s this: The U.N. refugee organization works with an international Islamic group, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, whose founding charter supports jihad, according to Investor’s Business Daily.

With the contemptible United Nations playing a key role in the so-called “vetting” process, Congress must provide the safeguards that are sorely missing from President Obama’s refugee plan.

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.