The idea that because some of the Muslims involved in the attack on Paris were born in Europe means that that Syrian invasion is perfectly safe and can be imported to the US is absolutely ridiculous. The Muslim killers in Paris are drawn from a population less indoctrinated with radical Islam than the Syrians—they're only dangerous to the French because they're in France.

First generation immigrants from Syria will be more dangerous.  This is what Ann  Coulter was talking about in her column No “Frenchmen” Or “Belgians” Committed Paris Attacks–Only Muslim Arabs and what I was talking about when I wrote NEW YORK TIMES Blames “Belgian” For Attacks.

So because it's absolutely ridiculous, "right-wing" Washington Post immigration enthusiast blogger Jennifer Rubin [email her], believes it and is promoting it. See for yourself:

rather than Syrians we should exclude Europeans who've been back and forth to Syria. But railing vs Belgians doesnt have much sell, huh?

— Jen "We aren't going back " Rubin 🥥🌴 (@JRubinBlogger) November 19, 2015

Bravo @jaketapper "this anti-refugee position is .. popular thing ... but most of terrorists here in France appear to be French and Belgian"

— Jen "We aren't going back " Rubin 🥥🌴 (@JRubinBlogger) November 19, 2015

Obama and nativist critics both want to make Paris about immigrants -- natl security records too shabby to defend https://t.co/l7wRRvVvAw

— Jen "We aren't going back " Rubin 🥥🌴 (@JRubinBlogger) November 19, 2015

understand Case for Accepting Syrian Refugees https://t.co/3dtM9VpCDa What's the case for Belgians and French nationals who went to Syria?

— Jen "We aren't going back " Rubin 🥥🌴 (@JRubinBlogger) November 19, 2015