Thirty-one governors don't trust Obama's ability to screen refugees: His record proves they're right!

DALLAS, Texas—President Obama is once again faced with a problem of his own creation: when you sow disgust you reap mistrust.

For seven years the president has dismissed, demeaned and denounced those who raised legitimate concerns about his policies. And when those concerns turn out to be correct, as they often are—think “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it,” JV-team ISIS is “contained,” his promise of a post-partisan America, and so on—he ignores the evidence, berates his critics, and asserts that everything is going well. So when 31 governors already have turned thumbs down on Obama’s decision to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees and distribute them among the states, the governors were sending a message: We do not trust you and your administration to tell the truth or do the due diligence necessary to vet the refugees. Let’s be clear: Every governor knows this is a country of immigrants with a long and cherished tradition of helping refugees. And they know that the vast majority of the refugees would be honest and law-abiding immigrants, thrilled to get a chance at a new start in America. But the “vast majority” isn’t 100 percent, and that’s a legitimate safety concern.

---

But Obama, true to form, dismissed the concerns and ridiculed the critics. “Apparently they (the Republicans) are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,” the president sneered. He then claimed that the screening process would be the “most rigorous process conceivable.” Is that so? Remember Obama officials boasting how well the Healthcare.gov website would work right before its disastrous rollout? So what about refugee screening technology? Under normal circumstances, elected officials and most of the public would take the president’s word. But this president has misled the public so often that he hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt—and he isn’t getting it. The governors resisting the refugee resettlement simply don’t trust Obama’s claims of stringent security checks. And neither does the public. The Rasmussen polling firm reports that some 60 percent of likely voters “oppose the settling of Syrian refugees in the state where they live.” Even many elected Democrats are skeptical. This same president keeps trying to relocate Guantanamo detainees in the states, assuring governors the prisoners are not a threat—even though more than 100 of them who have been released rejoined the jihadists. Exacerbating the mistrust, the administration has resorted to making ludicrous statements. For example, the State Department says that only 2 percent of Syrian refugees admitted to this country since 2011 are “military-age males.” So what? Anyone watching the news can see that young and middle-age adult males make up a huge portion of those currently fleeing Syria. Even if the State Department restricted the 10,000 refugees to “widows and orphans,” widows have brothers and orphans have uncles. Wouldn’t there be a need to let other family members in, if not now then soon, in order to help provide for the resettled women and children? And, of course, some women have been suicide bombers. Here’s the point: Those who are frustrated with the refugee stalemate need to focus their ire at the president, not the governors. Obama entered the White House determined to prove that big government can do big things well. Instead, he has convinced increased Americans’ long-held skepticism about big government. Remember the IRS scandal? The EPA polluting a Colorado river? The Veterans Administration healthcare scandal? And that “red line” in Syria? I, for one, hope the administration, Congress and governors can find a solution that upholds the country’s long tradition as a haven for refugees. But the mistrust in this case isn’t targeted so much at the Syrian refugees, but at the White House.