Sen. Chris Murphy Did NOT Suggest "No Screening"

Appearing two days ago on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), was asked a two-part question about security vetting. You can see the video of the exchange here at about 2:27:



What he was asked:

Senator, do you see any merit in the President's actions? What do you believe should be the security screening? What should be the vetting for immigrants coming in?

Murphy's response:

Well, listen it's important to remember that no matter how many times he referenced 9/11, the four countries that were of origin for the 9/11 attackers — none of them are on this list.

And I would argue that we should go to a discussion about a—um pathway in which there's no screening. Right now people can come to the United States from Europe through the visa waiver program and we know they have extremist cells with ou-if they're citizens in Europe without almost any security vetting. And the europeans have been miserable about sharing information with eachother about threats inside that continent. So I uh I would go towards uh towards towards a European sorta bent in looking at screening.

And then maybe let's just make sure that if folks get to this country and we suspect them of having connections to terrorism that they shouldn't be able to an assault weapon.

The senator's response could have been phrased better — to say the least — but even a cursory examination of Murphy's stated positions on the topic is more than enough to realize that his inartful segue wasn't a statement suggesting that the US should abandon all vetting in favor of gun control. Rather, as he has been doing repeatedly over the last several months, Senator Murphy was pointing out the deficiencies in vetting by European countries while arguing that the real gap in vetting isn't a lack of extreme vetting, but a visa waiver program that allows poorly vetted individuals to enter the US from European countries.

Murphy Wants Visa Reforms to Fight Terrorism (3/23)

Murphy is proposing an end to visa-free travel to the U.S. if European nations are not more forthcoming with information about counterterrorism investigations.

HARTFORD — U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy reiterated his call for new restrictions on a visa waiver program that allows Europeans to travel freely to the United States.

"This is a moment for the United States to have some really tough conversations with Europe," the Connecticut Democrat said at a state Capitol press conference Wednesday morning. "The United States is vulnerable to the Europeans' inability to root out these terrorists."

Sen. Chris Murphy: America 'Founded By Religious Refugees' (9/21)

"They are gone through exhaustive interviewing process and that we're largely taking women and children through the refugee process. This idea that political refugees to this country are young males is false," he said.

Admitting to some lapse in the system, Murphy said, "The reality is that we do have some problems in our immigration system. Right now, if you're coming from Europe, you're getting almost no screen. So some of us want to beef up the screening we do for people coming from countries that are in the Visa waiver program."

In fact, later in the video (~5:47), you can hear Murphy state clearly that he is in favor of "a tight security vet" :

A lot of us have believed that that number should get bigger rather than smaller, so long you can do a tight security vet, which we do.

While everyday folks who aren't aware of Senator Murphy's very public position might understandbly have misinterpret his response, the media has an obligation to do better. A quick search showed that several right-wing media outlets ran with the misinterpretation:

Breitbart - Sen. Chris Murphy Wants ‘No Screening’ for Immigrants, More Gun Control

Washington Free Beacon - Sen. Murphy’s Refugee Plan: Adopt European Model Plus Gun Control

CNS News - Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) says less screening and more gun control would make America safer.

PJ Media - [WATCH] Sen. Chris Murphy: Gun Control Will Make America Safer Than Trump Travel Ban

To their credit, the Washington Free Beacon and CNS News both later updated their stories:

Murphy's office later clarified to the Washington Free Beacon that the senator was not suggesting that the U.S. vet refugees like the Europeans do but rather place tighter controls on people from Europe who travel to America through the Visa Waiver Program. A Murphy spokesman said the senator was arguing the current U.S. refugee program involves sufficient vetting, so the focus should be on the Visa Waiver Program.

The European model for vetting refugees has been criticized for not being thorough enough, particularly after it was reported that one of the terrorists who carried out the Paris attacks in November 2015 had used a forged Syrian passport to travel into Europe as a supposed refugee.

and CNS News (who even took the step of updating the title to Clarification: Sen. Murphy's Office Said He Didn't Mean 'Absolutely No Screening'):

(An earlier version of this report picked up on Murphy's comment "that we should go towards a discussion about a pathway in which there's absolutely no screening." Murphy's office later contacted CNSNews.com to say Murphy wasn't advocating "absolutely no screening"; he was advocating stricter screening in the Visa Waiver Program, instead of the refugee program.)

Kudos to them. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for PJ Media and the often dishonest Breitbart "News".

dissecting misinfo disinfo, as usual.
too bad the piece of disinfo spread by fake news is already gospel to their targeted audience.

s&f

"" Sen. Chris Murphy Did NOT Suggest "No Screening" ""

And yet he says just that around the 2:50 mark.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Curious how he'd ask for a stronger vetting process from countries that have literally no form of government, unless you count ISIS. Maybe he thinks we should call them and ask them if the person in question is a terrorist? Then ,if so, still let them in... but don't let them have assault weapons?

"let's just make sure that if folks get to this country and we suspect them of having connections to terrorism that they shouldn't be able to an assault weapon."

Spin it however you like to fit your agenda, this guy is an idiot.

Give it was rest already.

The Murphy's have already lost any credibility they had left.

When they call for screenings after mass shootings to out right bans.

Then ACT like they give a snip about personal liberties of people mind you that are not even US citizens.

a reply to: xuenchen

Don't let partisanship lead you to be intellectually dishonest. Do you find scoring hollow political points with misinformed/disinformed peers gratifying?

If it wasn't clear before, with the additional information I provided in the OP, it's OBVIOUS that he was pointing out the bigger security issue was the lax vetting on the European side that is allowing people to enter the US with substandard vetting under the visa waiver program.

I have to wonder if you actually care about security at all in the first place?

a reply to: bender151

What are you talking about? Where does he say anything about countries with "literally no form of government?" He's saying that EUROPEAN countries that are known to have terrorist cells are doing a poor job of vetting, a miserable job of sharing information with one another and that the visa waiver program that allows people to enter the US from these EUROPEAN countries BYPASSING our standard vetting, is INSECURE.

Do you disagree with that?

a reply to: odzeandennz

dissecting misinfo disinfo, as usual. too bad the piece of disinfo spread by fake news is already gospel to their targeted audience.

Worse than the folks who believe fake news because they don't know any better are those who know the truth and pretend otherwise to keep the disinfo viable.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No Comment.

Not in the Mud-Pit.

Sorry.

a reply to: theantediluvian

He did suggest an "assault weapons" ban is something that should be done to help fight terrorism which is just asinine. Considering the last couple attacks used box trucks, should we ban them?

a reply to: FauxMulder

What he said was:

"And then maybe let's just make sure that if folks get to this country and we suspect them of having connections to terrorism that they shouldn't be able to an assault weapon."

Though he does preface the statement in such a way that it could be taken to imply only those with connections to terror, from what I know of Murphy, he actually supports the resintatement of the AWB — which is utterly ridiculous, particularly in this context.

As you pointed out, trucks have quickly become a preferred weapon for massacring innocent people. Terrorists will utilize whatever is at their disposal. Beyond that, the AWB was largely a joke in the first place. Not only is there no evidence that it would stop mass shooting events (which despite all the fear they induce, are a VERY VERY VERY rare occurrence), the criteria for classifying "assault weapons" is largely one of aesthetics.

It's dumb. The Dems should abandon it.

That said, I think you can agree that he was not in fact saying that he thinks the US should do away with vetting let alone replace vetting with gun control?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yea I think he should have should have said that statement in a very different way.

And I would argue that we should go to a discussion about a—um pathway in which there's no screening.

That sentence right there, with a period, is where all the confusion comes from.

He should have also left his AWB stance out of the discussion. As most listening would probably focus on those two parts and ignore everything he said about European issues