If screening of refugees is so thorough, how did they just discover two Iraqi refugees guilty of terrorism last week in California and Texas, who were brought in nearly five years ago when they were not inundated with fleeing migrants?

When one was given legal status, then commits a treasonous act, why are they still afforded the protection of an American citizen? When the other is still in refugee status, then commits acts of terror against the enemy of his home country, the country of America who is housing him, is it considered an act of war or an act of treason?

In either case, they should both be stripped of all rights and considered enemy combatants and be housed at the only logical place - Gitmo!

Then to top the week, a U.S. born citizen pledges allegiance to ISIS and attempts to kill a police officer in Philadelphia, a textbook case of treason which in the past was cause for execution. Citizens who betray their own country should also be stripped of citizenship and treated as enemies of the State, and no better place than Gitmo to house them.

But then, the President himself is aiding the enemy by releasing the highest risk terrorists from Gitmo, to go back to the battlefield to fight against Americans. May I ask, whose side is he on?

Then the State Department claims as a “win,” “Bringing peace and security to Syria in 2015.” May I ask why must we risk taking any refugees?