Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

WH Refuses Governors Information on Refugees

Posted on by

Governors Press White House for Refugee Information

By

In a call with senior Obama administration officials Tuesday evening, several governors demanded they be given access to information about Syrian refugees about to be resettled by the federal government in their states. Top White House officials refused.

Over a dozen governors from both parties joined the conference call, which was initiated by the White House after 27 governors vowed not to cooperate with further resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states. The outrage among governors came after European officials revealed that one of the Paris attackers may have entered Europe in October through the refugee process using a fake Syrian passport. (The details of the attacker’s travels are still murky.)

The administration officials on the call included White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, State Department official Simon Henshaw, FBI official John Giacalone, and the deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center John Mulligan.

On the call several Republican governors and two Democrats — New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and California’s Jerry Brown — repeatedly pressed administration officials to share more information about Syrian refugees entering the United States. The governors wanted notifications whenever refugees were resettled in their states, as well as access to classified information collected when the refugees were vetted.

“There was a real sense of frustration from all the governors that there is just a complete lack of transparency and communication coming from the federal government,” said one GOP state official who was on the call.

The administration officials, led by McDonough, assured the governors that the vetting process was thorough and that the risks of admitting Syrian refugees could be properly managed. He added that the federal government saw no reason to alter the current method of processing refugees.

Florida governor Rick Scott asked McDonough point blank if states could opt out of accepting refugees from Syria. McDonough said no, the GOP state official said.

In a readout of the call Tuesday night, the White House said that several governors “expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to better understand the process and have their issues addressed.” The White House noted that “others encouraged further communication” from the administration about the resettlement of refugees.

Hassan, one of two Democrats to challenge the administration on the call, had already come out in favor of halting the flow of Syrian refugees to the United States. She expressed anger that state officials aren’t notified when Syrian refugees are resettled in their territory.

Brown said he favored continuing to admit Syrian refugees but wanted the federal government to hand over information that would allow states to keep track of them, the GOP state official said.

McDonough responded to Brown that there was currently no process in place to give states such information and the administration saw no reason to change the status quo. The non-governmental organizations that help resettle the refugees would have such information.

Brown countered by noting that state law enforcement agencies have active investigations into suspected radicals and that information about incoming Syrian refugees could help maintain their awareness about potential radicalization. He suggested the U.S. had to adjust the way it operates in light of the Paris attacks.

McDonough reiterated his confidence in the current process. While promising to consider what Brown and other senators had said, he emphasized that the administration had no plans to increase information sharing on refugees with states as of now.

Top GOP senators echoed the concerns of governors Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr joined House Speaker Paul Ryan’s call for a “pause” in the flow of Syrian refugees, which is intended to include 10,000 people by 2016. McConnell said “the ability to vet people coming from that part of the world is really quite limited.”

Democratic senators are split on the issue. Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday there may be a need for a pause in accepting Syrian refugees but they both wanted to hear more from the administration about the issue. Sen. Dick Durbin said that refugees aren’t the primary source of concern. He pointed to the millions of foreign visitors who enter America each year.

“Background checks need to be redoubled in terms of refugees but if we’re talking about threats to the United States, let’s put this in perspective,” he said. “Let us not just single out the refugees as the potential source of danger in the United States.”

The White House is trying hard to engage governors and lawmakers. Top administration officials held several briefings about the issue Tuesday on Capitol Hill. But if they don’t agree to share more with state and local politicians, the opposition to accepting Syrian refugees could quickly gain ground.

*** Meanwhile Speaker Ryan asked DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey for a Paris briefing. It happened behind closed doors, and did not go well.

TheHill:

Partisan divisions over continuing to allow refugees fleeing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) into the U.S. deepened Tuesday as Obama administration officials briefed the House on last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey offered House members a classified briefing following the Friday massacre in the French capital that killed more than 120. Senators are expected to be briefed Wednesday. Johnson said he reviewed the domestic security “enhancements” enacted in recent days following the attacks in Paris.

He further maintained that the U.S. should continue allowing vetted Syrian refugees into the country despite calls from Republicans to halt the program in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.
“I believe that a lot of countries in the world right now are looking to the United States for leadership,” Johnson told reporters after the briefing.
“It is a careful, time-consuming process. And we are committed to continuing that process with regard to Syrian refugees,” he said.
Intelligence and law enforcement officials have previously warned about “gaps” in the data that they can scan to screen refugees headed to the U.S.
On Tuesday, Republicans indicated that Johnson and Comey had not quelled their concerns about those blind spots.
The House plans to vote Thursday on legislation to require refugees from Syria and Iraq to undergo FBI background checks. The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI would further have to verify that the refugees do not pose security threats.
Both chambers are expected to adjourn Thursday for the Thanksgiving holiday recess, adding pressure on lawmakers to act quickly before they depart Washington.
There is “really very little information about these refugees’ past,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said after the briefing.
“You don’t know who they are and you don’t have anything about their past, in terms of intelligence or databases,” McCaul said.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Syrian refugees presented a risk because they “come from a terrorist country, where there’s a large amount of ISIS and al Qaeda.”
King also said he thought allowing visa waivers to Europeans who travel to the U.S. was ”definitely something that has to be looked at, because circumstances have changed.”
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) concluded: “I’m leaving this briefing far less comfortable than when I came in the first place.”
Democrats are largely standing by the president’s plan, arguing that the rigorous screening process ought to account for any gaps in security.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) emerged as one notable exception, but it appeared unlikely that any prominent House Democrats would join him in his concern.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said refugees coming into the U.S. are “very thoroughly vetted.”
“It takes two years, most times, to come through this process,” said Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
“It’s worth noting that the evidence at this point — aside from this one mysterious passport, which hasn’t been attributed to anybody — that the people who committed the attacks in France were all born in France or Belgium,” he added.
As both sides dig in, however, the effort seems destined to be largely partisan.
“Anything constructive would be welcome,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “But I think there would be a lot of resistance within the Democratic caucus on an effort to close the door on mothers and children who are fleeing the violence around the world. “
Asked whether he was concerned about Republicans potentially trying to halt the refugee program through an upcoming government spending bill, Johnson noted that the agency that vets refugee applications isn’t subject to the congressional appropriations process.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is funded through application fees.
“It’s an organization that pays for itself,” Johnson said.

AG Lynch, Law Prevents Gitmo Detainees in U.S.

Posted on by

Yippee Skippee…..Loretta Lynch got one right it testimony.

Attorney general: Law ‘does not allow’ Gitmo detainees in the US
The Hill:  The Obama administration is legally prohibited from bringing detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the U.S., Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged on Tuesday, even as the White House searches for ways to close the facility.

“With respect to individuals being transferred to the United States, the law currently does not allow that,” Lynch told the House Judiciary Committee. “That is not, as I am aware of, going to be contemplated, given the legal prescriptions.

“Certainly it is the position of the Department of Justice that we would follow the law of the land in regard on that issue.”
The attorney general noted that President Obama has said he will sign a new defense policy bill that includes additional restrictions on Guantanamo Bay, including new limits on where men at the detention camp can be sent abroad.

Still, Lynch maintained that closing the 13-year-old detention facility “is something that is a part of the administration’s policy.”

“The Department of Justice is committed to fully following that, and the closure of Guantanamo Bay is being carried out in compliance with that law,” she added.

Despite Lynch’s comments, the Obama administration is actively looking for places in Colorado and other states to relocate dozens of detainees from the facility, as part of its broader effort to close the detention facility. Of the 107 men detained at Guantanamo Bay, 48 have been cleared for release to other countries and the administration hopes they will be placed abroad.

This weekend, five Yemeni detainees at the facility were transferred to the United Arab Emirates.

The remaining detainees would need to be placed somewhere in the U.S. The list of possible facilities includes a maximum-security federal prison in Colorado, as well as Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

The president is believed to be releasing a formal plan to close Guantanamo Bay in coming weeks. It is sure to be met with vigorous opposition from Republicans, who worry that it would both entail releasing dozens of dangerous terrorists as well as endanger the communities surrounding the prisons of those who are reincarcerated.

“We would expect that to come relatively soon,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Friday.

On Tuesday, Lynch told the House panel that no one had ever escaped out of a super-maximum security prison, which Democrats have used as evidence to support the president’s plan.

“I do not believe anyone has escaped from Supermax,” she said.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), however, worried that the locations could nonetheless be placed on terrorists’ hit lists.

“If you brought terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and located them in a particular city in the United States, would it not be reasonable to conclude that that would enhance the likelihood that that city could be placed on one of these lists?” Forbes asked.

Further, Lynch was asked questions on refugees and email servers.

UPI: Lynch was asked about other issues during the hearing — such as police-related deaths, radical terrorism, the IRS investigation and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was chief of the U.S. Department of State.

Lynch also discussed a recent plan by the administration to admit a number of Syrian refugees into the United States to aid in the European migrant crisis.

“Not only the Department of Justice but all of our agencies will make every effort to vet every refugee coming into this country,” she said. “Certainly there are challenges to that process.

“We do have the benefit of having that significant and robust screening process in place — a process that Europe has not been able to set up, which renders them much more vulnerable.”

The question and answer session followed a speech delivered by Lynch, which outlined Justice Department achievements and priorities.

“Our highest priority must always be the security of our homeland, and we are acting aggressively to defuse threats as they emerge,” she said. “We remain focused on the threat posed by domestic extremists.”

Govt Tools to Deter Terrorist Travel

Posted on by

Legal Tools to Deter Travel by Suspected Terrorists: A

Brief Primer

11/16/2015

FAS: The terrorist attacks in Paris last week, for which the Islamic State (sometimes referred to as ISIS, ISIL, or IS) has claimed responsibility, have renewed concerns about terrorist travel. Following reports that at least one of the perpetrators of the attacks was carrying a Syrian passport, there has been heightened scrutiny and debate concerning the resettlement of refugees from war-torn Syria to Europe and the United States. This Sidebar provides a brief overview of some (but by no means all) of the tools the federal government employs to prevent individuals from traveling to, from, or within the United States to commit acts of terrorism. In some cases, the application of these tools may depend on different factors, including whether the suspected terrorist is a U.S. or foreign national.

Terrorist Databases and Screening

Decisions by the federal government as to whether to use a particular tool to deter an individual’s travel are often informed by information collected by various agencies that link that individual to terrorism. The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC)—administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—maintains the federal government’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), the government’s single source repository watch list record of known and suspected terrorists. TSC provides various federal agencies with subsets of the TSDB for use in combating and deterring terrorism. Some of the many screening systems supported by the TSDB include the Department of State’s Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) for screening of passports and visas; the TECS system (not an acronym) administered by Custom and Border Protection within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to screen and make eligibility determinations of arriving persons at U.S. ports of entry; the DHS’s Secure Flight system for air passenger prescreening; and the FBI’s National Crime and Information Center’s Known or Suspected Terrorist File. Of course, while the TSDB supplies these systems with information on the identity of suspected terrorists, these systems may also include information on individuals obtained independently from the TSDB consistent with the agency’s particular responsibilities.

No-Fly List and Selectee List

Information compiled by the TSDB may be used to deter suspected terrorists from using civil aircraft and other modes of transportation to travel to, from, or within the United States. The safety of air travel, particularly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is an important priority for the U.S. government. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and charged it with ensuring the security of all modes of transportation, including civil aviation. Two of the most prominent means by which TSA attempts to deter terrorist travel is via two watch lists comprised of information from the TSDB – the No-Fly List and the Selectee List. Persons on the No-Fly list are prohibited from boarding an American airline or any flight that comes in contact with U.S. territory or airspace. Those on the Selectee List are subject to enhanced screening procedures.

Criminal Sanctions

Perhaps the most severe means by which to prevent persons from traveling to, from, or within the United States for terrorist purposes is through the use of criminal sanctions. A wide range of terrorism-related conduct is subject to criminal penalty under U.S. law. Many of the most relevant criminal statutes are extraterritorial in reach, covering conduct which may occur partially or (in more limited cases) entirely outside the United States. Persons who aid and abet a criminal violation may typically be held criminally liable for the underlying offense to the same degree as the person who directly committed the violation. Attempts or conspiracies to commit proscribed conduct are also typically subject to criminal punishment. Several U.S. persons accused of attempting or conspiring to assist the Islamic State, including through either encouraging others to travel abroad to join the group or planning to join the group themselves, have been charged with terrorism offenses.

Probable cause is required to arrest a person for a criminal violation, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary to sustain a conviction. Law enforcement’s suspicion that a traveler may be involved in terrorist conduct (or associated with others who have terrorist ties) may not be sufficient to warrant the traveler’s arrest. As a result, government officials may sometimes deploy tools other than criminal sanctions to deter travel by persons suspected of terrorist activity.

Passport Restrictions on Travel to Specific Countries

Through the revocation or denial of passports, U.S. authorities could potentially impede the international travel of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist involvement or association with an enemy belligerency. Federal law provides that, except as authorized by the President, a U.S. citizen may not depart from the United States and travel to another country unless he bears a valid passport. The revocation of the passport of a U.S. citizen located abroad may also have implications for his ability to remain in a particular foreign country, or travel from there to a third country. While federal statute provides that U.S. citizens also may not reenter the country unless they bear a valid passport, U.S. citizens who travel abroad appear to enjoy a constitutional right to be readmitted back into the United States.

State Department regulations identify various grounds for which passport applications may be denied or a previously issued passport may be revoked. Several such grounds may be relevant to efforts to deter international travel by U.S. citizens suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, including those permitting the denial or revocation of passports to U.S. citizens who are the subject of outstanding felony arrest warrants or requests for extradition. The regulations also provide that a U.S. citizen’s passport application may be denied or revoked when the Secretary of State “determines that the applicant’s activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.” However, the authority to deny or revoke passports on account of national security or foreign policy concerns is not absolute. The Supreme Court has recognized that the State Department lacks statutory authority to deny a passport solely on the basis of the applicant’s political beliefs; the denial must be based in part upon actual conduct that causes serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.

In addition to regulatory authority to deny or revoke passports, State Department regulations also permit the Secretary of State to restrict the usage of U.S. passports to travel to a country or area in certain cases – including when the Secretary has determined the country or area is a place where “armed hostilities are in progress” or there exists “an imminent danger to the public health or physical safety of United States travelers.” Such restrictions have been imposed on a number of occasions, including restricting the use of a U.S. passport to travel to Iraq from 1991 until late 2003, on account of hostilities occurring in that country and the potential dangers posed to U.S. travelers.

Immigration

Perhaps the most effective and commonly employed means to deter non-U.S. nationals (aliens) suspected of terrorist activity from traveling to the United States derive from federal immigration law. Rules governing whether and when aliens may be admitted into the United States, along with the conditions for their continued presence in the country, are primarily found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA establishes several grounds for which an alien suspected of terrorist activity may be barred from admission into the United States, including persons seeking to come to the United States as refugees. Under INA §212(f), the President is also conferred with broad authority to act, by means of proclamation, to bar the entry of an alien or class of aliens into the United States if he deems their entry detrimental to U.S. interests, though usage of this authority has been relatively rare. While programs like the No-Fly List may prevent suspected foreign terrorists from coming to the United States via a particular mode of transportation, federal immigration rules and requirements may prevent such persons from traveling to the United States using any mode of transport.

The INA generally provides that aliens who are seeking initial admission into the country bear the burden of proving they are admissible. Moreover, judicial review of a decision by a consular officer abroad to deny an alien a visa to come to the United States, or a determination made by customs and border officials at a U.S. port of entry that an arriving alien is inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds, may be quite circumscribed or virtually non-existent. Aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the country might also be removed from the United States for the same terrorism-related reasons as aliens seeking initial admission into the country. In the case of lawfully admitted aliens, however, federal immigration authorities bear the evidentiary burden of demonstrating that the alien’s activities render him deportable before the alien may be ordered removed. There may also be greater availability of judicial review than in cases where an alien has not yet been lawfully admitted. Moreover, if a lawful permanent resident alien (sometimes described as an “immigrant”) travels briefly abroad and seeks to return to the United States, he may be afforded greater procedural and substantive protections than other aliens who attempt to travel to the United States.

Immigration rules and requirements do not apply to U.S. citizens. Whereas an alien suspected of terrorism-related travel to the United States may be barred from admission into the country, other methods would need to be employed (e.g., placement on the No-Fly List, criminal prosecution, passport restrictions) to deter U.S. citizens from traveling to, from, or within the United States for terrorist purposes.

 

 

John Kerry Said Charlie Hebdo Attacks Justified, What???

Posted on by

Words matter.

Yes, and this calls for Ambassadors to be recalled. Sheesh…..Was it Kerry’s bad enunciation in French or something? Jihadi are freedom fighters fighting for a cause or jobs or climate change perhaps…. Disgusting! Demand that John Kerry be recalled. ….Something tells me the motivation in Kerry’s remarks were based in pro-Iran and anti-Israel. The sub conscience speaks.

John Kerry Justifies Charlie Hebdo Slaughter

TWS: In remarks today in Paris, France, Secretary of State John Kerry justified the terror attack earlier this year that targeted the magazine Charlie Hebdo in January. This latest attack, by contrast, was different, said Kerry.

“In the last days, obviously, that has been particularly put to the test,” Kerry said, according to a State Department transcript. “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.

“This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, “Here we are.” And for what? What’s the platform? What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are? They kill people because of who they are and they kill people because of what they believe. And it’s indiscriminate. They kill Shia. They kill Yezidis. They kill Christians. They kill Druze. They kill Ismaili. They kill anybody who isn’t them and doesn’t pledge to be that. And they carry with them the greatest public display of misogyny that I’ve ever seen, not to mention a false claim regarding Islam. It has nothing to do with Islam; it has everything to do with criminality, with terror, with abuse, with psychopathism – I mean, you name it.”

John Kerry: different from Charlie Hebdo, which had “a legitimacy…not a legitimacy, but a rational”

Embedded image permalink
Hat tip to my buddy Kyle Orton:

Kyle W. Orton‏@KyleWOrton 2h2 hours ago

The full context of Kerry’s statement on Charlie Hebdo. A horrible “rough justice” whiff to it.

Embedded image permalink
    1. 2h2 hours ago

      can’t believe he said that

       
  1. 2h2 hours ago

    Might be better if Kerry doesn’t do unscripted in future. He fell for Putin’s Active Measures over Ghouta last time.

  2. 2h2 hours ago

    “a rationale” just as bad… I pray my Country will survive the next few months until we can clean house of these incompetents.

    2h2 hours ago

    . One of the attacks were against a particular entity as retaliation for an offensive act. Don’t act like there is no difference.

 

 

Courtesy of Obama: Jihad Tourism

Posted on by

Sure, not all immigrants or refugees are terrorists or connected to terrorism, but due to the fact there is no way to check and verify backgrounds from people out of the Middle East, especially Syria, it is irresponsible to even suggest all can be checked.

If one questions the pushback, then one must remember the Tsarnaev family and the Boston bombing or take a long look at Minneapolis and how that city has a history of Somalis that have left America to fight jihad.

Zacharia Yusuf Abdurahman, 19, Adnan Farah, 19, Hanad Mustafe Musse, 19, and Guled Ali Omar, 20, were arrested in Minneapolis. Abdirahman Yasin Daud, 21, and Mohamed Abdihamid Farah, 21, were arrested in San Diego after driving there in hopes of crossing into Mexico.

Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes stated that the Federal government has robust methods to verify backgrounds. That is indeed in dispute. Per Ben Rhodes, he mentioned using the National Counterterrorism Center was one of the resources, yet upon a in depth review of the website, they don’t do background checks at all.

If there is any truth at all to be told, the United Nations controls the flow and background checks of the refugees. No one wants to admit that due to the fact, an outside bureaucratic organization has control over the flow on people into countries, including the United States. The United Nations coordinates with other organizations as well including the International Rescue Committee. The UN has a wing called the Human Rights that manages who is called a refugee or those called ‘stateless’ people. In turn, the U.S. State Department has its own bureau that has charitable organizations, paid by government to place refugees in locations across the Unite States, without notice or approval of governors or mayors.

For some testimony by the State Department on the Refugee Admission Program, click here.

There is not a single person within the Obama administration that can make guarantees with full confidence that all people admitted are without any questionable background, there in lies the issue.

The White House is so panicked about so many bi-partisan governors pushing back to stop the program into their states, there is a conference call with those governors and the White House on November 17. Perhaps some will ask why no Christians but further why in America when there are other locations across the globe more conducive the migrant needs.

 

 

U.S. ‘discriminates’ against Christian refugees, accepts 96% Muslims, 3% Christians
Less than 3 percent of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far are Christian and 96 percent are Muslim, the result of a referral system that Republican Sen. Tom Cotton says “unintentionally discriminates” against Christians.

State Department figures released Monday showed that the current system overwhelmingly favors Muslim refugees. Of the 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far, only 53 are Christians while 2,098 are Muslim, the Christian News Service reported.
Mr. Cotton and Sen. John Boozman, both Arkansas Republicans, called Monday for a moratorium on resettlements, a White House report on vetting procedures, and a re-evaluation of the refugee-referral process.

“[T]he United States’ reliance on the United Nations for referrals of Syrian refugees should also be re-evaluated,” said Mr. Cotton in a statement. “That reliance unintentionally discriminates against Syrian Christians and other religious minorities who are reluctant to register as refugees with the United Nations for fear of political and sectarian retribution.”

The current system relies on referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Syria’s population in 2011 was 90 percent Muslim and 10 percent Christian, CNS said.
At a news conference Monday in Turkey, President Obama described as “shameful” the idea of giving religious preferences to refugees, apparently referring to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s suggestion that the United States should accept Christian refugees while Muslim refugees are sent to majority-Muslim countries.
“That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” Mr. Obama said.

Figures from the State Department Refugee Processing Center updated Monday showed that 96 percent of the Syrian refugees accepted so far are Muslim, while less than 3 percent are Christian. The other 33 identified as belonging to smaller religious faiths or said they had no religion.

Ben Rhodes, Obama deputy national security adviser, said Sunday that the White House still plans to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees despite last week’s deadly terrorist attack on Paris. Republicans have countered that it’s all but impossible to conduct background checks on those seeking refuge.
Mr. Cotton and Mr. Boozman called Monday for a temporary moratorium on resettlements and “a requirement that the President certify the integrity of the security vetting process as a condition of lifting the moratorium.”

“The American people have long demonstrated unmatched compassion for the world’s persecuted and endangered. But when bringing refugees to our shores, the U.S. government must put the security of Arkansans and all Americans first,” Mr. Cotton said. “No terrorist should be able to take advantage of the refugee process to threaten the United States.”