Stop Whining About Non-Existent Civil Liberties, and Check Migrants’ Social Media–Public and Private

That’s not who we are.” – President Obama when his mouth is open

Sometimes, I feel like Obama is a robot experiencing a software glitch; he’ll get stuck on a subject or a phrase and it just doesn’t stop. I suppose it’s endemic to all politicians, but if I hear the president say “That’s not who we are” just one more time, I may have to drive a pair of screwdrivers into my own ears.

The most recent variation of this phrase came when he was speaking of vetting incoming migrants.

According to ABC News:

“Fearing a civil liberties backlash and ‘bad public relations’ for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.”

Now the administration is claiming that social media is checked to some degree in some cases. Not good enough. Even the Democrats are pretending to be angry.

Reuters reports:

“On Tuesday, two dozen Senate Democrats sent a letter to Johnson calling on DHS to require social media background checks as part of the visa screening process.”

You know when the Democrats pretend to care about something important, it’s a big deal.

Friday, Obama said:

“The issue of reviewing social media for those who are obtaining visas I think may have gotten garbled a little bit. Because there may be—it’s important to distinguish between posts that are public, social media on a Facebook page, versus private communications through various social media or apps…If it’s not posted publicly, then there’s going to be feasibility issues that are probably insurmountable at some level and it raises questions about our values…Keep in mind, it was only a couple of years ago where we were having a major debate about whether the government was becoming too much like big brother. And overall, I think we’ve struck the right balance in protecting civil liberties and making sure that U.S. citizens’ privacy is preserved…”

I’m sorry, what? We were concerned about mass metadata collection of our information because as Americans, we have the Bill of Rights, you goon. Our government was violating our rights. Emphasis on the word “our.” That’s why we were concerned. Incoming immigrants–specifically from nations with large, Sharia-loving populations–are by definition not yet Americans, and are therefore not under the protective umbrella of our Bill of Rights.

Moreover, this is what Obama does all the time. He gets confused. He never seems to have the appropriate response to the situation at hand. Terrorist attack? He talks gun control. Terrorist attack? He talks about climate change. Terrorist attack? He talks about civil rights–wait a minute! Maybe he has an agenda! *clutches pearls* He doesn’t like talking about radical Islamic terrorism…because that’s not who we are.

Really though, why aren’t we checking private social media communications of incoming immigrants if they’re coming from a country where the possibility of them being radicalized is substantially higher?

According to the Associated Press, we already request documents from incoming refugees. Then we ask them very important questions. Do you plan on supporting a terrorist organization? That’s an actual question, by the way. But we don’t want to violate their non-existent civil liberties by taking a gander at their public and private social media messages because what if they don’t have intent to take down an airliner? Then they’ll feel sad.

If they have nothing to hide, and they want to come to this country, they should be more than willing to have their social media scrutinized.

It’s analogy time!

There’s a bank being robbed by multiple plain-clothes assailants, the identities of whom are unknown. The bank has two dozen hostages. The police are surrounding the building, and five people walk out of the front door.

Perhaps the assailants released five hostages, or maybe one or more of the criminals is among those people. At this point, the police have no idea, and for safety reasons, they tell everyone to get on the ground, put their hands behind their heads, and submit to weapons checks.

These people’s rights aren’t being violated. It’s a necessary precaution.

Take this concept and apply it to migrants. The countries are the banks, the hostages are the peaceful people who simply want to come to America, and the assailants are the Sharia-loving jihadists.

As Chuck Schumer–of all people–said:

“Had they checked out Tashfeen Malik, maybe those people in San Bernardino would be alive.”

He’s right. Though it’s been revealed that Malik’s social media communication were private messages, it’s the same story. Why didn’t we check them? Oh, it’s too cumbersome to check everyone’s social media! Really? Tell that to the San Bernardino 14–shoot, they’re all dead because you didn’t check Malik’s private messages. Better luck next time!

Stop squirming in your panties about making people feel sad about their non-existent civil liberties, and get the job done.