The administration tells us what a great job of vetting Syrian refugees the UN and State department does.?

US screening has nothing to do with who gets into France, and no one ever claimed the UN does screening.

Someone entered Europe with a forged Syrian passport and a month later one of the Paris terrorists carefully placed that passport where everyone would see it. That's part of ISIS's strategy to alienate muslims and everyone else and launch a full scale war of civilizations. You can either oppose ISIS, or you can help their cause by demonizing all muslims.

I haven't heard about the other passport, but if the person was in a refugee camp awaiting screening, not allowed free movement in the country, then the system worked as it's supposed to.

The US doesnt screen refugees heading to Europe. They screen refugees heading to the US. The procedure in Europe is more akin to what happens with illegal immigrants in the US. These people just show up on the borders and no one checks them.

Refugees who are coming to the US from a country like Syria have to undergo an extensive series of background checks in foreign countries, including being screened by US immigration, the FBI, and the CIA. Only AFTER they pass all these checks are they allowed to enter the US. Syrian refugees being resettled in the US are the most heavily screened of any stream of people coming to America. On average it takes 1.5-3 years for someone to get approval to come to the US as a refugee. That means that if ISIS decided, today, to send someone to pose as a refugee and infiltrate the US they wouldn't arrive here until mid 2017 at the earliest and 2019 at the latest.

Infiltrating refugees is not an effective way for ISIS to infiltrate fighters into the US. Of all the Islamic terrorism committed, or attempted, in the US, none was committed by sleeper agents posing as refugees. Most of it has been committed by natural born American citizens or by people who arrived here on various types of visas. If ISIS wanted to attack the US using foreign operatives then the easiest thing for them to do would be to get one of their sympathizers from a visa waiver country like the UK, France, or Canada to fly to the US, no questions asked. The least efficient thing they could do would be to send one of their fighters, who they desperately need on the battlefield, to Jordan or Turkey to pose as a refugee and then spend one to three years sitting in a refugee camp where they will be interviewed numerous times by the UN and the US and their entire background scrutinized for radical contacts. Heck, there's no guarantee that at the end of that three year process ISIS will even be around or that their operative will still be willing to give up their life in a terrorist attack on US soil.

The smartest thing for the US to do is to encourage refugees. The refugee flow out of Syria is a public relations nightmare for the Islamic State. They portray themselves as a new Caliphate, and Islamic government which is supposed to represent all Muslims. They argue that they are the tip of the spear in a war between the West and Islam and that they represent a paradise for their fellow Muslims. But the fact that millions of Syrian Muslims are fleeing the Islamic State shows that that's a lie. It shows that life under ISIS is awful and that their claims to being a great place for Muslims are all lies.

One has nothing to do with the other, France's failure to vet proves nothing about our ability to vet.

That said, I agree with Trump - no refugees until we understand what the hell is going on.

The DHS vets refugees by asking them questions like, "Are you skilled at making improvised bombs?". They apparently believe people will be murderers but not liars.

Paris refugee procedures are obviously not the same as US State Dept. procedures.

So why are you trying to compare the two?

Well I can see your getting real picky here. Like using fact.

Makes it hard to spin doesn't it.