Immigration editorial ignored vetting concerns

Even when I disagree with their conclusions, I typically find the Chronicle’s editorials on local topics informative. But when the subjects venture farther afield, as with your recent editorial about bringing Syrian refugees to Montana (“No place for fear in Montana politics,” Aug. 26), it seems that your editorial board members often know next to nothing about the subject and won’t stir themselves to learn.

For example, you assured us that the Congolese refugees recently brought to Missoula “had been vetted for three years before being admitted to the United States, the same vetting process other refugees granted asylum in the U.S. must undergo.” This overlooks several salient facts about the U.S. refugee program that are well known to people who do their homework:

1. Processing time isn’t investigation time. As Kelly Gauger of the State Department’s Refugee Admissions office explained last October, “We’re not spending 18 months doing security checks. … At any given time, we’ve got something like a quarter-million people churning through the system.” So it’s actually like everyone’s experience at the motor vehicle department—you’re in line for an hour, yet your own business takes just a few minutes.

2. In the administration’s mad dash to import Syrian refugees, they’ve chopped “vetting” time to a scant three months. Coupled with routine federal incompetence (e.g. recall TSA airport screeners’ 95-percent failure rate at detecting test contraband), that’s appalling.

3. Last fall, FBI Director James Comey flatly told Congress that his agency can’t screen Syrian refugees, since relevant databases are essentially non-existent.

The editorial goes on to comment that, “Immigration is a serious issue that demands serious attention.” Yes, indeed, and that requires a serious editorial board.