The Visa Waiver Program, including the K-1 Fiancé Visa Waiver, predates the Obama Administration and, likewise, so does the Islamic ideal of a Global Caliphate predate the existence of the U.S. Prison at Guantanamo, Cuba. Point being: Despite the stated use of “vigorous vetting” and the President’s claim that aggressive actions by the U.S., in even the most basic applications of security protocols, are somehow “recruiting tools” for various Terror-Driven Ideologues.
The facts remain that it has been a specific directive of the Administration to NOT perform social media activities of applicants. Further, let’s be clear, it is the very existence of the “West” that is the causal force behind the Caliphate and where ISIS, and the various Jihadist derivatives, is concerned their very existence is itself the rallying cry (a.k.a., “recruiting tool”) for any Islamic-Radical looking for a fight to wage.
Interpreting the Administration’s stance, if only to consider their radical view of State Security (as an extension of Foreign Policy) & his position on Guantanamo Prison, the conclusion one arrives with can only be described as follows:
(1) You can bomb from the air a target on the ground you claim doesn’t exist.
(2) You can acknowledge “gun violence” but you dare not target who’s pulling the trigger.
(3) You can tell the American public they’re secure so long as they avoid areas being targeted.
(4) You can claim your Agencies are “vigorously vetting” people wanting entry into the U.S. so long as no one questions the “vetting” process that didn’t occur prior to an attack.
(5.) You can continue to release dangerous and known terrorists from Guantanamo so long as one is willing to re-orientate their thinking to believe they are less dangerous than the jihadists you’ve previously released.
There’s no concealing the trail of evidence indicating that the Administration’s practices are as deeply flawed as the risks are massive. Is the Administration simply inept or is it that their political philosophy’s tone-deaf to the reality that the loss of a few American lives is not worth the preservation of an irrational ideological fantasy? Either choice is not particularly comforting.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder