“useful”
His ex-wife knew he was a nutcase.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/omar-mateen-suspected-orlando-night-club-shooter/story?id=39790797
“judged negatively”
A second opinion might be requested.
An new employee might get a bank of five second-opinion requests when he/she starts work, one for every twenty cases, plus one for each case where the examiner’s adverse opinion is shared.
A committee might make the final decision in doubtful cases.
Note: The killer was born in the USA.
We are talking two different things.
In this case, it is clear there were plenty of flags ignored by someone who was nearly completely out of control behavior-wise.
And this is someone who it seems was ignored by people whose job it is to look for people like him.
In the case of people being evaluated for refugee status, one has to consider that if it fails now with a guy jumping up and down in his high school class at the sight of 9/11, completely bugging out his co-workers with his terrorist viewpoints he isn’t hiding from anyone, how likely is it that some bureaucrat with a rubber stamp in his hand is going to be misled by muslim who is not throwing up behavioral flags, but is instead being polite, saying “I abhor violence” and also says things like “Israel is a small country that deserves to exist. We in the Arab world should learn how to co-exist with them” or “I do not believe Sharia Law should be implemented in the United States.”
If someone knows in advance what kind of responses are going to cause a bureaucrat’s eyes to glaze over in boredom and result in the rubber stamp “Approved for refugee status” and what kind of responses are going to cause someone to pick up a phone or send an email for follow-up, it isn’t hard to imagine what someone will say, expecially someone who is not only allowed by his religion to lie, but is encouraged to do so to further the goals of Islam.
It will not work.
What is the failure rate? 5%? 10%? Those don’t seem like outrageous failure rates on the basis of an unscientific process managed by overworked bureaucrats, especially ones who get an email from their bosses:
“Dear State Department/INS Employee:
We will now have a tribunal method of evaluating each and every applicant for immigration. We are not allowed to profile people because of their Muslim religion, so ALL applicants will be subject to this process.
We cannot hire more people, so everyone will be assigned to a team, and you will rotate the tribunal task by team every week. You will, of course, be expected to complete all the other work you are now responsible for, so good luck.
And remember, you must give each candidate the benefit of the doubt, because it is un-American to refuse refugee status because of a small doubt. You must be certain if you refuse, and your denial rates will be evaluated as a result. Good luck!”
So let’s say it is 5% failure rate. That is 5,000 people we let in who want to kill us. Is that too many? What if were only a 1% error rate. Could 1,000 well organized terrorists find a way to kill innocent people?
If one “homegrown terrorist” can kill 50 people, I am certain 1,000 well coordinated people can do far worse.