Sarah Halzack’s article provides frightening insight into the State Department’s approval of Tashfeen Malik’s K-1 visa. Had the State Department done its job, San Bernardino might not have happened. When Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, examined the State Department’s documentation for Malik’s application, Chairman Goodlatte found that “immigration officials had not sufficiently vetted the information that Malik provided in her efforts to obtain a visa. He said the materials in the file did not conclusively show that Malik and her future husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, had met in person, a requirement for a foreigner who is seeking a K-1 fiancee visa.”
It’s stunning that “Goodlatte’s review found that Malik’s application contained two items to show that the couple had met before: a statement from Farook and copies of pages of each of their passports that showed visas to visit Saudi Arabia” but didn’t find proof that they’d met or even that they were there at the same time:
Malik’s passport pages show that she arrived in Saudi Arabia around June 4, 2013. A translator who attempted to decipher the partially illegible Arabic-language passport stamps was unable to determine what date Malik left the country, although her visa was valid for 60 days.
Meanwhile, Farook’s passport stamps show that he entered Saudi Arabia on Oct. 1, 2013, and left around Oct. 20. Goodlatte said this “would cast doubt” on whether they were in Saudi Arabia at the same time. The stamps also do not prove that the pair spent time together during those trips.
The worst part of this is the State Department’s doublespeak in attempting to cover up their incompetence:
A State Department spokesman said Saturday that “all required procedures were followed in the K-1 visa case for Ms. Malik. There were no indications of any ill intent at the time that visa was issued.”
The people won’t sleep easier knowing that State Department procedures aren’t corrupt. That’s because they’ll be upset that the State Department is incompetent.
This matters because the same State Department insists that their vetting of refugees is thorough despite the fact that there isn’t a paper trail for large numbers of so-called refugees. Why should people believe that the State Department doesn’t give refugee applicants the same half-hearted effort before green-lighting the people without really investigating whether the people are who they say they are or whether they’re ISIS terrorists?