text: “You have the migration because Syria is such a disaster. And now I hear we want to take in 200,000 Syrians, right? And they could be, listen, they could be ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. I don’t know.” 
   
   — Donald Trump, campaign rally, Keene, N.H., Sept, 30, 2015 
   
   “So when I heard 10,000 and 3,000, a number, you know, from one of you — I’d say all right. But now we’re talking about 200,000. Obama is getting carried away again with this whole thing about immigration. And now we hear 200,000 and it could very well be ISIS.” 
   
   — Trump, interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,”, Oct. 1 
   
   “Obama wants to — listen to this — he wants to take in 200,000. You know, 200,000. That’s like an army. Now I’m looking the other day. It’s all men. Like, where are the women? They’re very strong men. Why aren’t they back there fighting for their country?” 
   
   — Trump, campaign event in Franklin, Tenn., Oct. 3 
   
   “Now I hear we want to take in 200,000. We don’t know where they’re coming from. We don’t know who they are. They could be ISIS. It could be the great Trojan Horse…. And I’m saying we’re going to take in 200,000 people that we have no idea where they come from?” 
   
   — Trump, interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Oct. 4 
   
   Like a broken record, businessman Donald J. Trump keeps repeating a statistic with little basis in fact — that the Obama administration wants to accept 200,000 refugees from Syria. 
   
   Our colleagues at FactCheck.org and PolitiFact have already weighed in with fact checks, but given that Trump keeps saying this, we figured it was worth putting the question to the Pinocchio test. 
   
   The Facts 
   
   We do not know where Trump gets his numbers — his campaign rarely responds to fact check queries — but the only thing close to a 200,000 figure is an announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry that the United States was prepared to boost the number of total refugees accepted in 2016, from 70,000 to 85,000. Then, in 2017, Kerry said that 100,000 would be accepted. 
   
   That adds up to 185,000 over two years. But this would be the total number of refugees, not the number of refugees from Syria. 
   
   By law, the president every fiscal year sets the maximum number of refugees the United States can accept in a year. Over the past decade, the annual limit has been between 70,000 and 80,000, according to the Congressional Research Service. So, 100,000 in 2017 would be a big jump, assuming Obama goes through with the pledge to authorize that level. 
   
   But for Syria, Obama has only directed the United States to accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next year. That’s an increase of six times from 2015, but it’s hardly the flood that Trump worries about. In fact, in the interview with MSNBC, Trump indicated he would be fine with just 10,000. 
   
   So his worries appear to be based on a misunderstanding. 
   
   As Emily Litella would say, “Oh, that’s different. Never mind.” 
   
   The Pinocchio Test 
   
   Trump needs to quit using the 200,000 figure for the number of Syrians the administration has signaled it would accept — and reporters need to challenge him when he repeats it. In the meantime he earns Four Pinocchios. 
   
   Four Pinocchios 
   
   
   
   
   
   (About our rating scale) 
   
   Send us facts to check by filling out this form 
   
   Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook ||||| Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   America has just lived through another presidential campaign week dominated by Donald Trump’s racist lies. Here’s a partial list of false statements: The United States is about to take in 250,000 Syrian refugees; African-Americans are responsible for most white homicides; and during the 9/11 attacks, “thousands and thousands” of people in an unnamed “Arab” community in New Jersey “were cheering as that building was coming down.” 
   
   In the Republican field, Mr. Trump has distinguished himself as fastest to dive to the bottom. If it’s a lie too vile to utter aloud, count on Mr. Trump to say it, often. It wins him airtime, and retweets through the roof. 
   
   This phenomenon is in fact nothing new. Politicians targeting minorities, foreigners or women have always existed in the culture. And every generation or so, at least one demagogue surfaces to fan those flames. 
   
   Here’s Donald Trump on Sunday: “When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country, we don’t know if they’re ISIS, we don’t know if it’s a Trojan horse. And I definitely want a database and other checks and balances. We want to go with watch lists. We want to go with databases. And we have no choice. We have no idea who’s being sent in here. This could be the — it’s probably not, but it could be the great Trojan horse of all time, where they come in.” 
   
   Photo 
   
   Here’s Joseph McCarthy in 1950: “Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down — they are truly down.” 
   
   Here’s Donald Trump last Tuesday: “We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” 
   
   Here’s George Wallace in 1963: “We must redefine our heritage, re-school our thoughts in the lessons our forefathers knew so well, in order to function and to grow and to prosper. We can no longer hide our head in the sand and tell ourselves that the ideology of our free fathers is not being attacked and is not being threatened by another idea ... for it is.” 
   
   Mr. Trump relies on social media to spread his views. This is convenient because there’s no need to respond to questions about his fabrications. That makes it imperative that other forms of media challenge him. 
   
   Instead, as Mr. Trump stays at the top of the Republican field, it’s become a full-time job just running down falsehoods like the phony crime statistics he tweeted, which came from a white supremacist group. 
   
   Yet Mr. Trump is regularly rewarded with free TV time, where he talks right over anyone challenging him, and doubles down when called out on his lies. 
   
   This isn’t about shutting off Mr. Trump’s bullhorn. His right to spew nonsense is protected by the Constitution, but the public doesn’t need to swallow it. History teaches that failing to hold a demagogue to account is a dangerous act. It’s no easy task for journalists to interrupt Mr. Trump with the facts, but it’s an important one. ||||| THE GROWING ugliness of Donald Trump’s campaign poses a challenge to us all. We have seen the likes of him before, in the United States and elsewhere: narcissistic bullies who rise to prominence by spreading lies, appealing to fears and stoking hatred. Such people are dangerous. 
   
   Like many Americans, our first inclination was to ignore Mr. Trump. The Huffington Post, you may recall, announced that it would feature him in its Entertainment section, not in its coverage of politics. He was a buffoon, a disseminator of ludicrous rumors about President Obama’s birthplace. He lacked the qualifications, experience or knowledge to be president. He was running to promote his brand. We wouldn’t give him the satisfaction. 
   
   Our assessment of Mr. Trump was correct, but the tactical response was not. His popular support has hung steady at about 30 percent of Republicans, and his candidacy has tugged the debate toward divisiveness as his bigotry has drawn cheers and many of his rivals have strove to mimic him. Now some detractors opt again to disregard his lies, but for a different reason: Criticism from establishment politicians and tough questions from establishment journalists, it is feared, will only fuel his self-portrayal as the truth-telling outsider. 
   
   That may be so, but it cannot justify silence. Just in the past few days, Mr. Trump has repeated the lie that President Obama intends to admit 200,000 Syrian refugees; the correct number is 10,000. He spreads the lie that thousands of American Muslims openly celebrated the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center; in fact, there were no such celebrations. He tweeted a false statistic that blacks are responsible for 81 percent of murders of white victims; in fact, 82 percent of whites are killed by whites. 
   
   These are not random errors. All of them appeal to the basest instincts in supporters; they reinforce fears and prejudices. All of them, Mr. Trump knows by now even if he did not know when he first stated them, are false, but he does not care. The amplification of the lies is accompanied by growing intolerance in his campaign, with Mr. Trump praising supporters for beating a protestor, crudely denigrating anyone who challenges him and penning reporters into designated zones so that they cannot speak with his followers. And all of this matches the brutality of his policies: mass deportation of longtime U.S. residents, torture of foreign detainees, expulsion even of refugees who are here legally . 
   
   A few candidates, such as former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have spoken out against some of Mr. Trump’s more outlandish comments. Many more, sadly, duck and cover, hoping to avoid Mr. Trump’s insults or to ingratiate themselves with his backers. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is probably the most egregious of these second-rate flatterers, but he’s far from alone. Asked about the mythical cheering crowds, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, “I think if it had happened, I would remember it, but, you know, there could be things I forget, too.” 
   
   No, that is not something Mr. Christie would have forgotten, and he ought to say so. Other Republican leaders should speak up too: the speaker of the House and majority leader of the Senate, for example, and former president George W. Bush. The more reticent such leaders are, the more successfully Mr. Trump can brand their party and, to a disturbing extent, the nation with his demagoguery. The only way to beat a bully is to stand up to him.
target: – This may not displease Donald Trump, but he has most definitely drawn the ire of two media establishment heavyweights over recent comments on three issues in particular—his claim that big crowds were cheering the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey, that President Obama plans to bring in at least 200,000 Syrian refugees, and that African Americans are behind most white homicides. All are lies, say the newspapers, and both back up their use of that word. A sample of their scathing editorials: Washington Post: "The growing ugliness of Donald Trump's campaign poses a challenge to us all," write the editors. Trump is deliberately spreading lies and appealing "to the basest instincts in supporters," as "narcissistic bullies" always do. It's time for the virtual silence from his fellow candidates and GOP leaders to end. "The only way to beat a bully is to stand up to him." Full editorial is here. New York Times: The editorial draws comparisons between Trump's "racist lies" to statements uttered by the likes of Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace. "His right to spew nonsense is protected by the Constitution, but the public doesn’t need to swallow it," write the editors. "History teaches that failing to hold a demagogue to account is a dangerous act. It’s no easy task for journalists to interrupt Mr. Trump with the facts, but it’s an important one." Full editorial is here.