THE BURNED OVER DISTRICT

But our ever reliable Republican Party has turned the acceptance of 10,000 Syrian refugees into the US as an opportunity to gin up another shit-ton of fear and hate. It's what they do so well.

Since President Barack Obama announced his plan to accept 10,000 vetted Syrian refugees into the country, critics have rehashed a perennial anti-resettlement argument: that enemies of the United States will exploit American hospitality to sneak in operatives and attack the country from within.

GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson aired that line over the weekend, calling Obama’s plan “a splendid opportunity for the global jihadists to infiltrate those numbers with members of their own organization,” suggesting that groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda had plans to sneak “clean skin,” or undercover, members onto U.S. soil. Carson is hardly alone; in January, a group of Republican lawmakers warned any such program could turn into a “federally funded jihadi pipeline” and urged Obama to keep refugees out.

That fear, which many would dismiss as alarmist, is a major reason why the U.S. has until now resettled such a miniscule share of those fleeing Syria — just over 1,600 — of the over 4 million refugees who have fled their country’s war. To those like Carson, incidents like the Boston Marathon bombings, which were carried out by a pair of Chechen immigrant brothers, are evidence that the U.S. security vetting apparatus is ill-prepared to handle what Obama is planning.

“How does it, you know, let people like the Tsarnaev brothers in here?” Carson asked during an ABC interview Sunday.

Separate the example of the Tsarnaevs, who had no known ties to banned groups when they were vetted 11 years before their attack, most experts say Washington’s intensive, post-9/11 security vetting regimen is more than capable of mitigating the security risks inherent in taking in people from chaotic and murky conflicts like Syria’s.

“The short answer is that the issue is overblown,” said Daryl Grisgraber, senior advocate for Refugees International. “The detailed answer is that the U.S. has been resettling refugees for over 50 years now, and ever since 9/11, there’s been an even more rigorous vetting process. It is slow and thorough, and, frankly, for the refugees, it can be quite painful.”

"It can be quite painful". That phrase highlights the Republican dilemma. Do they keep the refugees out, as the base wants. Or do they subject them to a painful process and get their rocks off thinking and dreaming about it? What's a Republican to do?!?