When Donald Trump outlined his latest anti-terror policy as “extreme” vetting, you can tell he really liked his ad lib. That’s because he then proceeded to double down on it — referring to it as “extreme” extreme vetting.
Here’s the scary thing. Though I was not a regular viewer of the “The Apprentice,” I saw enough of Mr. Bigley on his show to see how he vetted his goofy cast of contestants.
He read their minds. He proclaimed their motivations. He found them out and then fired the ones who were cornered by his deeply perceptive powers.
When, with a straight face, he tries to explain to us how he or anybody in his administration is going to discern the hearts of immigrants headed for this country, I am at a loss.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Idaho Statesman
I don’t want to see anybody let into this country who wants to commit mass murder in the name of some religious perversion. But where do you draw the line?
I’ll tell you where. You start with Trump, the Bigley Birther-In-Chief who — even with all of his money, business prowess and perceptive powers — could never make the case that President Barack Obama was some immigrant impostor.
Where are the tax returns, Trump? How do we know you haven’t been investing in some untoward offshore shenanigans? Show us the money and the paper trails that legitimize it, and we’ll call it good.
Let’s move on to your staff, particularly speechwriters who put your wife in a position where her first major political speech included “borrowed” words from someone else. Is that an “American value” to lift someone’s work and pass it off as their own? Just bad vetting, perhaps.
Next, there are Trump’s political confidants and supporters who, like immigrants, haven’t been convicted of anything, but “extreme extreme” vetting is called for nonetheless. Don’t you think?
Would we let in a guy such as Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, after he reportedly profited big-time from his association with Putin people we probably would put on our No Fly List? Would we let in a guy such as political buddy/adviser Roger Ailes, the former Fox News chairman ousted last month over allegations of sexual harassment?
History is rife with people who applied purity tests and were under the delusion that they could tell what was in the heart or bloodlines of another human being.
When we are arrogant enough to think that we can determine the ideology of people based on some enhanced and extreme crackpot “screening” protocols, we are losing our way.
Extreme outcomes are most likely to follow: People we really need in this country will be put off and go somewhere else; people with evil intent will figure out how to game the system.
Our biggest concern ought to be the people plotting against us who are already here.