Are you for or against taking in Syrian refugees? (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

 

[RBM]

House should be passing a bill today that puts the program on hold to review the screening process to make sure it's as strong as it needs to be.

Of course ####### cry baby Obama is threatening to veto. Guy sucks.

Im not a fan of Obama, but why does he suck in this case? Show me a president that wouldnt veto a bill they dont like. Its kind of how the process works.

They're not shutting the door on the thing, they're just pausing it to make sure the screening process is as strong as it can be. That's just being responsible.

No it isn't. Not unless evidence can be presented that the screening process is weak right now and that terrorists have gotten here because of it. Is there such evidence? Because absent that, this is actually irresponsible.

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

 

[MattFancy]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Probably all over the world. Most of the refugees we bring in are from Asia. Last year alone, we brought in 70,000 refugees.

The US used to accept a lot of refugees. This chart shows what happened.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

In that case, I STRENUOUSLY vote against.

 

[Fennis]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

http://abc27.com/2015/11/19/facts-and-numbers-refugees-in-the-u-s-world/

In 2015, 35.1 percent of refugee arrivals came from Near East/South Asia regions, which includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan and Afghanistan, 32.1 percent came from Africa and 26.4 percent came from East Asia, which includes China, Vietnam and Indonesia.

 

[timschochet]

House should be passing a bill today that puts the program on hold to review the screening process to make sure it's as strong as it needs to be.

Of course ####### cry baby Obama is threatening to veto. Guy sucks.

Im not a fan of Obama, but why does he suck in this case? Show me a president that wouldnt veto a bill they dont like. Its kind of how the process works.

They're not shutting the door on the thing, they're just pausing it to make sure the screening process is as strong as it can be. That's just being responsible.

No it isn't. Not unless evidence can be presented that the screening process is weak right now and that terrorists have gotten here because of it. Is there such evidence? Because absent that, this is actually irresponsible.

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

In that case, I STRENUOUSLY vote against.

:(

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Probably all over the world. Most of the refugees we bring in are from Asia. Last year alone, we brought in 70,000 refugees.

The US used to accept a lot of refugees. This chart shows what happened.

I see. People are muddying the waters with that 85k number.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

In that case, I STRENUOUSLY vote against.

:(

Well, I 'spose exceptions can be made. We Minnesotans are already bordered on at least two sides by foreign countries. What's a few more outsiders?

 

[RBM]

House should be passing a bill today that puts the program on hold to review the screening process to make sure it's as strong as it needs to be.

Of course ####### cry baby Obama is threatening to veto. Guy sucks.

Im not a fan of Obama, but why does he suck in this case? Show me a president that wouldnt veto a bill they dont like. Its kind of how the process works.

They're not shutting the door on the thing, they're just pausing it to make sure the screening process is as strong as it can be. That's just being responsible.

No it isn't. Not unless evidence can be presented that the screening process is weak right now and that terrorists have gotten here because of it. Is there such evidence? Because absent that, this is actually irresponsible.

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

OMG those articles left you confident? Sorry they didn't say that exact phrase you needed to see. Now you're being dishonest.

 

[Ignoramus]

Reminds me of the general after Pearl Harbor who said something to the effect that the fact that there was no evidence of Japanese American sabatoge was in itself entirely suspicious.

There is no way to argue against paranoia. It just has to run its course like the flu.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE THE FLU KILLS EVERY YEAR!?!?! WE NEED TO STOP EVERYTHING UNTIL WE ELIMINATE THAT THREAT, NOBAMA!!!

 

[Fennis]

Reminds me of the general after Pearl Harbor who said something to the effect that the fact that there was no evidence of Japanese American sabatoge was in itself entirely suspicious.

There is no way to argue against paranoia. It just has to run its course like the flu.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE THE FLU KILLS EVERY YEAR!?!?! WE NEED TO STOP EVERYTHING UNTIL WE ELIMINATE THAT THREAT, NOBAMA!!!

The flu is worse than ISIS

 

[Greco]

In. ### #### it.

 

[otello]

If they come in through by legal means, yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[AAABatteries]

For. I'm sure that someone else has pointed this out but one of the ways to fight the Islamic radicals is to show the rest of the Islamic population that Daesh is wrong and that Western civilization isn't out to destroy Islam. This cuts off their ability to recruit. Education and information is one of our greatest tools to combat this "war".

And before somebody says that's crazy - I'm all for traditional war tactics too. Some bombing and possibly even ground fighting is required. Additionally, cyber warfare will be big.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

In that case, I STRENUOUSLY vote against.

:(

Well, I 'spose exceptions can be made. We Minnesotans are already bordered on at least two sides by foreign countries. What's a few more outsiders?

Tempting. Hottest woman I ever dated now lives in Minnesota.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

In that case, I STRENUOUSLY vote against.

:(

Well, I 'spose exceptions can be made. We Minnesotans are already bordered on at least two sides by foreign countries. What's a few more outsiders?

Tempting. Hottest woman I ever dated now lives in Minnesota.

Me too. I wonder if it was the same woman. The initials of mine are L.D.

 

[timschochet]

House should be passing a bill today that puts the program on hold to review the screening process to make sure it's as strong as it needs to be.

Of course ####### cry baby Obama is threatening to veto. Guy sucks.

Im not a fan of Obama, but why does he suck in this case? Show me a president that wouldnt veto a bill they dont like. Its kind of how the process works.

They're not shutting the door on the thing, they're just pausing it to make sure the screening process is as strong as it can be. That's just being responsible.

No it isn't. Not unless evidence can be presented that the screening process is weak right now and that terrorists have gotten here because of it. Is there such evidence? Because absent that, this is actually irresponsible.

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

OMG those articles left you confident? Sorry they didn't say that exact phrase you needed to see. Now you're being dishonest.

Those articles don't justify a halt. And yeah the fact that we have improved our efforts does make me more confident.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

For. I'm sure that someone else has pointed this out but one of the ways to fight the Islamic radicals is to show the rest of the Islamic population that Daesh is wrong and that Western civilization isn't out to destroy Islam. This cuts off their ability to recruit. Education and information is one of our greatest tools to combat this "war".

And before somebody says that's crazy - I'm all for traditional war tactics too. Some bombing and possibly even ground fighting is required. Additionally, cyber warfare will be big.

Agree, but how do you do the bolded?

 

[TobiasFunke]

House should be passing a bill today that puts the program on hold to review the screening process to make sure it's as strong as it needs to be.

Of course ####### cry baby Obama is threatening to veto. Guy sucks.

Im not a fan of Obama, but why does he suck in this case? Show me a president that wouldnt veto a bill they dont like. Its kind of how the process works.

They're not shutting the door on the thing, they're just pausing it to make sure the screening process is as strong as it can be. That's just being responsible.

No it isn't. Not unless evidence can be presented that the screening process is weak right now and that terrorists have gotten here because of it. Is there such evidence? Because absent that, this is actually irresponsible.

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

OMG those articles left you confident? Sorry they didn't say that exact phrase you needed to see. Now you're being dishonest.

The articles said we have gaps but have made improvements on a system that has resulted in exactly zero US deaths in terrorist attacks attributable to refugees. How can that NOT leave you confident? They're improving something that's already been sufficient to cause fewer US deaths over the last decade than tigers that have escaped from zoos.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

Will they invite me over for a turkey dinner?

 

[RBM]

House should be passing a bill today that puts the program on hold to review the screening process to make sure it's as strong as it needs to be.

Of course ####### cry baby Obama is threatening to veto. Guy sucks.

Im not a fan of Obama, but why does he suck in this case? Show me a president that wouldnt veto a bill they dont like. Its kind of how the process works.

They're not shutting the door on the thing, they're just pausing it to make sure the screening process is as strong as it can be. That's just being responsible.

No it isn't. Not unless evidence can be presented that the screening process is weak right now and that terrorists have gotten here because of it. Is there such evidence? Because absent that, this is actually irresponsible.

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

OMG those articles left you confident? Sorry they didn't say that exact phrase you needed to see. Now you're being dishonest.

Those articles don't justify a halt. And yeah the fact that we have improved our efforts does make me more confident.

Ok.

I'm worn out.

 

[TobiasFunke]

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

OMG those articles left you confident? Sorry they didn't say that exact phrase you needed to see. Now you're being dishonest.

Those articles don't justify a halt. And yeah the fact that we have improved our efforts does make me more confident.

Ok.

I'm worn out.

Advocating for a "pause" to basic human decency due to misguided paranoia can be exhausting.

 

[Sinn Fein]

"Sorry, we are not accepting refugees."

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

In that case, I STRENUOUSLY vote against.

:(

Well, I 'spose exceptions can be made. We Minnesotans are already bordered on at least two sides by foreign countries. What's a few more outsiders?

Tempting. Hottest woman I ever dated now lives in Minnesota.

Me too. I wonder if it was the same woman. The initials of mine are L.D.

Nope. Guess there are two hot chicks in Minnesota. Who knew?

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

Will they invite me over for a turkey dinner?

Not unless you live in East L.A.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

Will they invite me over for a turkey dinner?

Not unless you live in East L.A.

Damn it.

 

[jonessed]

We've taken in something like 750,000 refugees since Sept 11th, 2001.

Do you know how many have been involved in terrorism?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that a number of people who were of serious concern slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. Theres no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting, he said.

Although Comey said the process has since improved dramatically, Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. If we dont know much about somebody, there wont be anything in our data, he said. I cant sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that theres no risk associated with this.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard conflicting numbers as to how many refugees Obama wants to take in.

Does anyone know what they are- from the house's mouth?

85,000.

10,000 of which are from Syria

Where are the others from?

Louisiana.

Will they invite me over for a turkey dinner?

Not unless you live in East L.A.

Damn it.

Just kidding. We will totally fry a turkey for strangers for no reason. It's just fun.

 

[TwinTurbo]

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

OMG those articles left you confident? Sorry they didn't say that exact phrase you needed to see. Now you're being dishonest.

Those articles don't justify a halt. And yeah the fact that we have improved our efforts does make me more confident.

Ok.

I'm worn out.

Advocating for a "pause" to basic human decency due to misguided paranoia can be exhausting.

The level of corruption and fraud is so rampant in Syria, that pretty much anyone could bribe a government official to provide a document saying they are somebody else without any security checks. It's not misguided paranoia, it's an actual vulnerability that can be exploited. It's also basic human decency to protect your existing citizens against legitimate threats to their safety, especially when the enemy has proven they are capable of carrying out the threats.

 

[MattFancy]

We've taken in something like 750,000 refugees since Sept 11th, 2001.

Do you know how many have been involved in terrorism?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that a number of people who were of serious concern slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. Theres no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting, he said.

Although Comey said the process has since improved dramatically, Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. If we dont know much about somebody, there wont be anything in our data, he said. I cant sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that theres no risk associated with this.

Understood. But, IMO, no matter what, there would always be some sort of risk with someone coming in from any country. Hell, there's risk with people already in the country. I don't think there's a 100% perfect fool-proof solution. However, the process we have in place does currently seem to be working.

 

[shadrap]

We've taken in something like 750,000 refugees since Sept 11th, 2001.

Do you know how many have been involved in terrorism?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that a number of people who were of serious concern slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. Theres no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting, he said.

Although Comey said the process has since improved dramatically, Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. If we dont know much about somebody, there wont be anything in our data, he said. I cant sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that theres no risk associated with this.

Understood. But, IMO, no matter what, there would always be some sort of risk with someone coming in from any country. Hell, there's risk with people already in the country. I don't think there's a 100% perfect fool-proof solution. However, the process we have in place does currently seem to be working.

okie dokey:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrorists-refugee-program-settle-us/story?id=35252500

 

[TobiasFunke]

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

OMG those articles left you confident? Sorry they didn't say that exact phrase you needed to see. Now you're being dishonest.

Those articles don't justify a halt. And yeah the fact that we have improved our efforts does make me more confident.

Ok.

I'm worn out.

Advocating for a "pause" to basic human decency due to misguided paranoia can be exhausting.

The level of corruption and fraud is so rampant in Syria, that pretty much anyone could bribe a government official to provide a document saying they are somebody else without any security checks. It's not misguided paranoia, it's an actual vulnerability that can be exploited. It's also basic human decency to protect your existing citizens against legitimate threats to their safety, especially when the enemy has proven they are capable of carrying out the threats.

Sure, but this is true of any number of countries from which we accept refugees. It's also true that there are a variety of other means by which we allow people to enter the country- non-refugee immigration, student visas, travel and tourism. And if all that fails there's always the option of an illegal border crossing, where we all know the security is imperfect. If you extend your logic of "shut it down unless we can be 100% sure that we've eliminated the vulnerability" you end up with a country that's walled itself off from the rest of planet earth and spent a ridiculous amount of money to do so.

Calling out this one particular method of entry- one which has yet to result in any terrorist incidents inside the US, seems to have been only marginally related to the Paris attacks at most, and one which goes to the very core of our nation's principles and also helps us win the war on terror long term by helping to win over hearts and minds- is definitely misguided paranoia.

 

[Amused to Death]

"Sorry, we are not accepting refugees."

I'm sure if they had the chance to go back and do it again....

 

[TwinTurbo]

When top intelligence people are saying it needs reviewed only a sniveling little arrogant SOB wouldn't listen. Basically your average know it all liberal.This is not about the refugees for him. He is only interested in standing his ground politically.

This is the second time you've made this charge. Who are these top intelligence people? Are they actively working for our government?

Not hard to find. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/syrian-refugee-crisis-intelligence-gap/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Neither of those reports back up your claim that experts say it should be halted and reviewed. In fact the first article says that the experts say it has greatly improved.

OMG those articles left you confident? Sorry they didn't say that exact phrase you needed to see. Now you're being dishonest.

Those articles don't justify a halt. And yeah the fact that we have improved our efforts does make me more confident.

Ok.

I'm worn out.

Advocating for a "pause" to basic human decency due to misguided paranoia can be exhausting.

The level of corruption and fraud is so rampant in Syria, that pretty much anyone could bribe a government official to provide a document saying they are somebody else without any security checks. It's not misguided paranoia, it's an actual vulnerability that can be exploited. It's also basic human decency to protect your existing citizens against legitimate threats to their safety, especially when the enemy has proven they are capable of carrying out the threats.

Sure, but this is true of any number of countries from which we accept refugees. It's also true that there are a variety of other means by which we allow people to enter the country- non-refugee immigration, student visas, travel and tourism. And if all that fails there's always the option of an illegal border crossing, where we all know the security is imperfect. If you extend your logic of "shut it down unless we can be 100% sure that we've eliminated the vulnerability" you end up with a country that's walled itself off from the rest of planet earth and spent a ridiculous amount of money to do so.

Calling out this one particular method of entry- one which has yet to result in any terrorist incidents inside the US, seems to have been only marginally related to the Paris attacks at most, and one which goes to the very core of our nation's principles and also helps us win the war on terror long term by helping to win over hearts and minds- is definitely misguided paranoia.

The level of passport fraud from Syria might be more than all of the other countries combined at this point. Also nowhere in my post did I say to shut it all down, nor did I say to block all refugees from Syria. I'm saying you are seriously underestimating the problem by dismissing it as misguided paranoia, simply because it hasn't resulted in any incidents inside the US yet. There are thousands of potentially fraudulent passports being sold by the Syrian government every month and then resold on the black market. Good luck with that.

 

[Harry Manback]

We've taken in something like 750,000 refugees since Sept 11th, 2001.

Do you know how many have been involved in terrorism?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that a number of people who were of serious concern slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. Theres no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting, he said.

Although Comey said the process has since improved dramatically, Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. If we dont know much about somebody, there wont be anything in our data, he said. I cant sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that theres no risk associated with this.

Wow! 2 of 750,000.

That's like, .000002%

How many people did these monsters kill? What were they convicted of? Or are these more boogeymen that racist old white men use to justify their cowardice?

 

[Henry Ford]

We've taken in something like 750,000 refugees since Sept 11th, 2001.

Do you know how many have been involved in terrorism?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that a number of people who were of serious concern slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. Theres no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting, he said.

Although Comey said the process has since improved dramatically, Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. If we dont know much about somebody, there wont be anything in our data, he said. I cant sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that theres no risk associated with this.

Wow! 2 of 750,000.

That's like, .000002%

How many people did these monsters kill? What were they convicted of? Or are these more boogeymen that racist old white men use to justify their cowardice?

They probably killed a bunch of people in Iraq and pled guilty to terrorism charges. One got life in prison, the other got 40 years.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I have no doubt that terrorists can enter this country. They can cross borders illegally. They can enter legally on various visiting visas. I also have no doubt that folks already here, whether natives or naturalized, can be radicalized to becoming terrorists. I try not to focus on any one low level likelihood, or possibility if the word "likelihood" seems excessive. We are inevitably going to have more plots carried out no matter our best efforts.

Accepting that fact I then ask if extreme efforts on our part to prevent the inevitable, or probably more precisely to reduce the inevitable by a small incremental percentage, is worth the price of cowering before the inevitable, of living in fear, of reflecting fear in our lives and our national policies. As a general question or a philosophical argument I do not see that we should cower. I appreciate, however, the point of view of those who have personalized the question rather than viewing it as a general question. For some the question is how would I, or they, individually feel if the death that might have been prevented by incremental improvement is one that directly and personally effects me or them.

In answer, I am sure were that to be the case I would be angry, likely looking for scapegoats, likely I would lash out, I would be assigning blame. Now that personal experience, anomalous as it would be, is not necessarily something that should effect national policy, but I would feel it nonetheless. Given that, I try to respect the opinions of those I happen to disagree with on this subject. They are not wrong, foolish, or ignorant. They are not opinions I would mock. They are opinions I might well share based upon future events largely beyond my control. Those opinions are the opinions of persons who view this differently than do I, but whose viewpoint is reality based, if unlikely. The question they ask, should our government's first and only priority be the protection of Americans, is not some nut job question. It differs from my question only in that while I agree our first priority should be protection of citizens, I don't happen to believe that this should be our only priority.

 

[NutterButter]

I'm proud of you FFA.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sure, but this is true of any number of countries from which we accept refugees. It's also true that there are a variety of other means by which we allow people to enter the country- non-refugee immigration, student visas, travel and tourism. And if all that fails there's always the option of an illegal border crossing, where we all know the security is imperfect. If you extend your logic of "shut it down unless we can be 100% sure that we've eliminated the vulnerability" you end up with a country that's walled itself off from the rest of planet earth and spent a ridiculous amount of money to do so.

Calling out this one particular method of entry- one which has yet to result in any terrorist incidents inside the US, seems to have been only marginally related to the Paris attacks at most, and one which goes to the very core of our nation's principles and also helps us win the war on terror long term by helping to win over hearts and minds- is definitely misguided paranoia.

The level of passport fraud from Syria might be more than all of the other countries combined at this point. Also nowhere in my post did I say to shut it all down, nor did I say to block all refugees from Syria. I'm saying you are seriously underestimating the problem by dismissing it as misguided paranoia, simply because it hasn't resulted in any incidents inside the US yet. There are thousands of potentially fraudulent passports being sold by the Syrian government every month and then resold on the black market. Good luck with that.

That's a whole lot of "mights." And do you think the people responsible for the extensive screening process are unaware of passport fraud with Syrian passports? If you know about it I think it's fairly safe to say that they know about it and have accounted for it in their screening process, no?

Of course someone could slip through the cracks. But someone could slip through the cracks of any of the other means of entry into the US too. I call it misguided paranoia because I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates that this is some huge vulnerability that could be easily exploited where other means of entry could not be. If you weren't paranoid about our issuance of student visas or travel visas before I don't see why you would be paranoid about this, a human rights/aid program that would require terrorists to hide among the very people who are running from them for years and through several layers of screening.

Nothing is foolproof, but why is this somehow more risky than say the student visa program, which was how several 9/11 perpetrators got here? And assuming it's not, why do we value providing education to people from other countries more than we value taking in refugees? Especially considering the benefits in the war on terror that are likely achieved by doing so? IMO the answer is simple- awful politicians playing up peoples' fears for their own gain.

 

[joffer]

On the list of policy loopholes, vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and cracks that could potentially lead to violence against American citizens, this one isn't even a blip on the radar.

 

[TobiasFunke]

LOL

 

[MattFancy]

We've taken in something like 750,000 refugees since Sept 11th, 2001.

Do you know how many have been involved in terrorism?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that a number of people who were of serious concern slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. Theres no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting, he said.

Although Comey said the process has since improved dramatically, Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. If we dont know much about somebody, there wont be anything in our data, he said. I cant sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that theres no risk associated with this.

Understood. But, IMO, no matter what, there would always be some sort of risk with someone coming in from any country. Hell, there's risk with people already in the country. I don't think there's a 100% perfect fool-proof solution. However, the process we have in place does currently seem to be working.

okie dokey:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrorists-refugee-program-settle-us/story?id=35252500

Ok and they were caught.

 

[MattFancy]

On the list of policy loopholes, vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and cracks that could potentially lead to violence against American citizens, this one isn't even a blip on the radar.

How about the one where people on the terrorist watch list aren't prohibited from getting guns? Maybe we should look at that vetting process first.

 

[Harry Manback]

We've taken in something like 750,000 refugees since Sept 11th, 2001.

Do you know how many have been involved in terrorism?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that a number of people who were of serious concern slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. Theres no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting, he said.

Although Comey said the process has since improved dramatically, Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. If we dont know much about somebody, there wont be anything in our data, he said. I cant sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that theres no risk associated with this.

Wow! 2 of 750,000.

That's like, .000002%

How many people did these monsters kill? What were they convicted of? Or are these more boogeymen that racist old white men use to justify their cowardice?

They probably killed a bunch of people in Iraq and pled guilty to terrorism charges. One got life in prison, the other got 40 years.

Let's send the other 99.99999% back then. Obviously the system is broken.

BTW, did you know Albert Einstein was a refugee? Too bad we didn't turn him away. That troublemaker.

 

[moleculo]

Sure, but this is true of any number of countries from which we accept refugees. It's also true that there are a variety of other means by which we allow people to enter the country- non-refugee immigration, student visas, travel and tourism. And if all that fails there's always the option of an illegal border crossing, where we all know the security is imperfect. If you extend your logic of "shut it down unless we can be 100% sure that we've eliminated the vulnerability" you end up with a country that's walled itself off from the rest of planet earth and spent a ridiculous amount of money to do so.

Calling out this one particular method of entry- one which has yet to result in any terrorist incidents inside the US, seems to have been only marginally related to the Paris attacks at most, and one which goes to the very core of our nation's principles and also helps us win the war on terror long term by helping to win over hearts and minds- is definitely misguided paranoia.

The level of passport fraud from Syria might be more than all of the other countries combined at this point. Also nowhere in my post did I say to shut it all down, nor did I say to block all refugees from Syria. I'm saying you are seriously underestimating the problem by dismissing it as misguided paranoia, simply because it hasn't resulted in any incidents inside the US yet. There are thousands of potentially fraudulent passports being sold by the Syrian government every month and then resold on the black market. Good luck with that.

That's a whole lot of "mights." And do you think the people responsible for the extensive screening process are unaware of passport fraud with Syrian passports? If you know about it I think it's fairly safe to say that they know about it and have accounted for it in their screening process, no?

Of course someone could slip through the cracks. But someone could slip through the cracks of any of the other means of entry into the US too. I call it misguided paranoia because I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates that this is some huge vulnerability that could be easily exploited where other means of entry could not be. If you weren't paranoid about our issuance of student visas or travel visas before I don't see why you would be paranoid about this, a human rights/aid program that would require terrorists to hide among the very people who are running from them for years and through several layers of screening.

Nothing is foolproof, but why is this somehow more risky than say the student visa program, which was how several 9/11 perpetrators got here? And assuming it's not, why do we value providing education to people from other countries more than we value taking in refugees? Especially considering the benefits in the war on terror that are likely achieved by doing so? IMO the answer is simple- awful politicians playing up peoples' fears for their own gain.

this is a good post, but in your analysis you neglect the possibility that rejecting the refugees may actually increase ISIS's recruitment efforts, thereby making the situation worse.

Of course, that's a much harder thing to demonstrate, especially after the fact.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sure, but this is true of any number of countries from which we accept refugees. It's also true that there are a variety of other means by which we allow people to enter the country- non-refugee immigration, student visas, travel and tourism. And if all that fails there's always the option of an illegal border crossing, where we all know the security is imperfect. If you extend your logic of "shut it down unless we can be 100% sure that we've eliminated the vulnerability" you end up with a country that's walled itself off from the rest of planet earth and spent a ridiculous amount of money to do so.

Calling out this one particular method of entry- one which has yet to result in any terrorist incidents inside the US, seems to have been only marginally related to the Paris attacks at most, and one which goes to the very core of our nation's principles and also helps us win the war on terror long term by helping to win over hearts and minds- is definitely misguided paranoia.

The level of passport fraud from Syria might be more than all of the other countries combined at this point. Also nowhere in my post did I say to shut it all down, nor did I say to block all refugees from Syria. I'm saying you are seriously underestimating the problem by dismissing it as misguided paranoia, simply because it hasn't resulted in any incidents inside the US yet. There are thousands of potentially fraudulent passports being sold by the Syrian government every month and then resold on the black market. Good luck with that.

That's a whole lot of "mights." And do you think the people responsible for the extensive screening process are unaware of passport fraud with Syrian passports? If you know about it I think it's fairly safe to say that they know about it and have accounted for it in their screening process, no?

Of course someone could slip through the cracks. But someone could slip through the cracks of any of the other means of entry into the US too. I call it misguided paranoia because I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates that this is some huge vulnerability that could be easily exploited where other means of entry could not be. If you weren't paranoid about our issuance of student visas or travel visas before I don't see why you would be paranoid about this, a human rights/aid program that would require terrorists to hide among the very people who are running from them for years and through several layers of screening.

Nothing is foolproof, but why is this somehow more risky than say the student visa program, which was how several 9/11 perpetrators got here? And assuming it's not, why do we value providing education to people from other countries more than we value taking in refugees? Especially considering the benefits in the war on terror that are likely achieved by doing so? IMO the answer is simple- awful politicians playing up peoples' fears for their own gain.

this is a good post, but in your analysis you neglect the possibility that rejecting the refugees may actually increase ISIS's recruitment efforts, thereby making the situation worse.

Of course, that's a much harder thing to demonstrate, especially after the fact.

Yeah, I've been pretty much a broken record on that point throughout the thread. At this point I don't know how else to get that message across.

Maybe we should start referring to people who oppose Syrian refugee emigation as ISIS Sympathizers, since their efforts are providing support to ISIS, intentional or not. "Today Michigan Governor and ISIS Sympathizer Rick Snyder announced that his state will refuse to admit Syrian refugees until further notice."

 

[jonessed]

We've taken in something like 750,000 refugees since Sept 11th, 2001.

Do you know how many have been involved in terrorism?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that a number of people who were of serious concern slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. Theres no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting, he said.Although Comey said the process has since improved dramatically, Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. If we dont know much about somebody, there wont be anything in our data, he said. I cant sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that theres no risk associated with this.

Wow! 2 of 750,000.That's like, .000002%

How many people did these monsters kill? What were they convicted of? Or are these more boogeymen that racist old white men use to justify their cowardice?

 

[B-Deep]

I just want everyone to remember that you don't have to live like a refugee.

sure, somewhere somehow somebody might have kicked you around some

but it don't make no difference to me....EVERYBODY'S got to fight to be free

 

[timschochet]

I just want everyone to remember that you don't have to live like a refugee.

sure, somewhere somehow somebody might have kicked you around some

but it don't make no difference to me....EVERYBODY'S got to fight to be free

Dont back down.