Hillary’s careless Syrian-refugee policy |
Featured Commentary

Hillary’s careless Syrian-refugee policy

Yousif Shikhmous, migrant from Syria holding his baby named Merkkel in an improvised camp on the border line between Macedonia and Serbia near the northern Macedonian village of Tabanovce, Friday, March 11, 2016. About 1,500 refugees remain stranded at the Macedonian border with Serbia as the borders on the Balkan migrant route are closing.


A recent story about Hillary Clinton’s Syrian-refugee policy doubles as a museum of her character flaws. This piece confirms that she is unfit for the Oval Office.

The Daily Caller’s Alex Pfeiffer reports that Clinton proposes that America more than sextuple its admissions of Syrian refugees. President Obama invited 10,000 Syrian refugees onto U.S. soil in fiscal year 2016. Clinton wants to balloon this figure to 65,000. Never mind that she knows this could be deadly.

Pfeiffer details why voters must bar Clinton from the White House.

First, Clinton is as transparent as a bank vault. Pfeiffer quoted her remarks to the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago in October 2013. Why are 3-year-old lunchtime comments news? Because Clinton has concealed them since. These now are on the record only because WikiLeaks just publicized excerpts of her address.

Second, in another WikiLeaks revelation, voters learned how terminally duplicitous Clinton is. As she told the National Multifamily Housing Council in 2013, for political victory “you need both a public and a private position.”

Here, too, Clinton is as two-faced as the Roman god Janus. Publicly, she reassures voters that America can welcome Syrians safely.

“Look, we’re facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II, and I think the United States has to do more,” Clinton told CBS’ “Face the Nation” in September 2015. “I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000 and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in.”

But, privately, she says something completely different.

Middle East nations are coping “with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria,” Clinton told the Jewish group in Chicago. “Jordan, because it’s on their border, and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees, and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees, so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.”

So, privately, Jordan “can’t possibly vet all those refugees,” from Syria. Yet, publicly, America should increase Syrian refugee inflows six-fold and assume that we can screen them effectively.

ISIS brags about blending jihadists among innocents fleeing battle-scarred Syria. Through this perfect camouflage, terrorist killers have emerged.

“Over the past six months, more than three dozen suspected militants impersonating migrants have been arrested or died while planning or carrying out terrorism,” Anthony Faiola wrote in The Washington Post last June. “They include at least seven directly tied to the attacks in Paris and Brussels.”

ISIS terrorists murdered 130 people in Paris in November and 32 in Brussels in March.

And, in yet another secret speech exposed by WikiLeaks, Clinton told Banco Itaú in May 2013 that “My dream” includes “open borders” across the Western Hemisphere.

All of this proves that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was absolutely right when he told NBC in April why Hillary Clinton never should become president: “In terms of her judgment, something is clearly lacking.”

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor with National Review Online.

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.