I voted against. Im probably misguided in some of your eyes, but IMO, from a schooling perspective alone, we cant afford the people we have now.Pretty obvious by now these people have a legitimate reason to be fleeing their homeland. Why you'd turn them away is beyond me.
Obama really wants them. He should take them in to his future compound.Can they all live at Marco Rubio's house? Important factor for my decision.
This.Seems logistically problematic. Let Europe take care of their neighbors. We take in enough refugees as is from Mexico and Central America.
Huh? Mexican refugees?Seems logistically problematic. Let Europe take care of their neighbors. We take in enough refugees as is from Mexico and Central America.
Total number of refugees admitted to the United States from Latin America for FY 13, the most recent available data: 4,439.Seems logistically problematic. Let Europe take care of their neighbors. We take in enough refugees as is from Mexico and Central America.
Where are you getting the information that our vetting process is weak?I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.
What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
Our screening process for refugees is pretty intensive. The DoS, DHS, FBI, UN, and other agencies all are apart of the screening process. Yes, it may not be a bad idea to keep an eye on them for a period of time after they have been here. But, it's not like Syrians are knocking at the door to come in and we're just handing them a welcome package.I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.
What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
I'm out of likes, but thanks for that link.Really good read about the process of accepting refugees to the US: Is It Legal for the Governors of More Than a Dozen States to Refuse to Accept Syrian Refugees?
No problem! Very good and useful info there as well as here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/21/us/where-syrian-refugees-are-in-the-united-states.htmlI'm out of likes, but thanks for that link.Really good read about the process of accepting refugees to the US: Is It Legal for the Governors of More Than a Dozen States to Refuse to Accept Syrian Refugees?
It's all over Brietbart.Where are you getting the information that our vetting process is weak?I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.
What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
On just that point alone - we should probably be taking in more. It's pretty hypocritical of us to go over to the ME, stir up all this ####, and then turn our backs on the folks fleeing from the choas we helped to create.I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.
What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
Just this snippet from your first link is pretty interesting:Our screening process for refugees is pretty intensive. The DoS, DHS, FBI, UN, and other agencies all are apart of the screening process. Yes, it may not be a bad idea to keep an eye on them for a period of time after they have been here. But, it's not like Syrians are knocking at the door to come in and we're just handing them a welcome package.I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.
What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
After you register with UNHCR, they get referred to resettlement to a particular country. So far I think they've referred about 17, 18, maybe 19,000 Syrians to the United States. Fewer than 2,000 had arrived by the end of the last fiscal year. It takes a long time to process people. We put them through so many layers of security; every refugee has to have a face-to-face interview with the Department of Homeland Security. They're compared against three or four security databases. They have to tell their story again and again. And then if the United States has, in its allocation for refugee resettlement, a place for them, they go through their medical history, their travel arrangements. This process usually takes 18 to 24 months to complete.
Always reminds me of the screening process Tony Montana went through (warning, some salty language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZgE_sUrXFYOur screening process for refugees is pretty intensive. The DoS, DHS, FBI, UN, and other agencies all are apart of the screening process. Yes, it may not be a bad idea to keep an eye on them for a period of time after they have been here. But, it's not like Syrians are knocking at the door to come in and we're just handing them a welcome package.I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.
What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
That must also be the source for the notion that most of the refugees are young men, something I've heard repeated a lot in the last couple days. Nailed it, of course.It's all over Brietbart.Where are you getting the information that our vetting process is weak?I don't have a problem with taking them in. I DO have a problem with the way our screening process seems to currently work. From my understanding, the actual screening process is pretty lax and there is no system in place to follow-up or track these folks. Victims should absolutely be taken care of. But we need to insure that we're protecting and caring for victims and not perpetrators.
What's really a shame is that many of these folks likely wouldn't even be refugees if we had been more decisive on Syria when all of this started. Setting up a safe zone in Syria was the least we could have done to prevent this.
You already asked more questions than every Republican Governor and every Republican candidate for President.I say we take in the women and three year old children. As for young males of a potential age to have been radicalized, with them we move with far greater caution.
What I am woefully ignorant about is their fate and status once they are here. Do they automatically gain citizenship? So the children born here have citizenship, as I would expect? Once one family member is in the door do we have a policy about uniting families so that we will let others come join them? What is the limit on familial relationship for restoring families, what degree of kinship? I do not currently understand the parameters of exactly what we are talking about here. I presume others do and may enlighten me. What is not enlightening is the fear and xenophobia I have heard from the political right, nor the snotty patronizing from Obama. This is not a time for trying to score political points. this should not be a wedge issue or a chance to feed read meat to a political base. This is a time for thoughtful policy. Unfortunately we Americans are not particularly amenable to that, and in particular we are not amenable to setting aside politics during a campaign season, and it is always a campaign season.
This is also true of non-refugee immigrants. And student visas. Hell, any visa at all. No reason a terrorist couldn't pose as someone else and obtain a business or tourism visa. Perhaps we just shut our borders completely. Nobody goes in or out without a US passport. After all, American lives are top priority.No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.
You're just not following or acknowledging the issues with screening this group. It's not comparable to standard immigrant screening.This is also true of non-refugee immigrants. And student visas. Hell, any visa at all. No reason a terrorist couldn't pose as someone else and obtain a business or tourism visa. Perhaps we just shut our borders completely. Nobody goes in or out without a US passport. After all, American lives are top priority.No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.
Since most of the terrorists have been EU residents, what are the unique issues with screening Syrian refugees?You're just not following or acknowledging the issues with screening this group. It's not comparable to standard immigrant screening.This is also true of non-refugee immigrants. And student visas. Hell, any visa at all. No reason a terrorist couldn't pose as someone else and obtain a business or tourism visa. Perhaps we just shut our borders completely. Nobody goes in or out without a US passport. After all, American lives are top priority.No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.
You know most of the terrorists who committed the attacks in Paris did not pose as refugees, right? The perpetrators (both triggermen and organizers) were mostly domestic or Belgian nationals. To my knowledge there's only one person who is thought to have snuck in posing as a refugee.Not "never" but not right now. And I'm pretty shocked the "for" is winning here. If one of these refugees goes full Paris over here it's going to be very bad for the politicians beating their chests right now about wanting more refugees.
Most? One is enough man. You actually just typed that?Since most of the terrorists have been EU residents, what are the unique issues with screening Syrian refugees?You're just not following or acknowledging the issues with screening this group. It's not comparable to standard immigrant screening.This is also true of non-refugee immigrants. And student visas. Hell, any visa at all. No reason a terrorist couldn't pose as someone else and obtain a business or tourism visa. Perhaps we just shut our borders completely. Nobody goes in or out without a US passport. After all, American lives are top priority.No thanks. Too risky when you know terrorists will be infiltrating and even high ranking intelligence officials question if we can even properly screen them. American lives are top priority.
Like closing "gun Show Loopholes" after school shootings?You know most of the terrorists who committed the attacks in Paris did not pose as refugees, right? The perpetrators (both triggermen and organizers) were mostly domestic or Belgian nationals. To my knowledge there's only one person who is thought to have snuck in posing as a refugee.Not "never" but not right now. And I'm pretty shocked the "for" is winning here. If one of these refugees goes full Paris over here it's going to be very bad for the politicians beating their chests right now about wanting more refugees.
The "blame the refugee program" nonsense is IMO a normal but misguided effort to explain the inexplicable and to feel a sense of control where control is really impossible. We don't want to face the truth that these sorts of things probably can't be prevented entirely, and can be limited only by long-term thinking in foreign policy matters as well as hard work and collaborative efforts by intelligence agencies. So we try to find some small, easily understandable thing we can control and focus on that. This time around its apparently refugee admission, which is unfortunate because we (everyone, not just the US) should prioritize helping refugees, not turning them away.
No! We can't do something rash like that!Like closing "gun Show Loopholes" after school shootings?You know most of the terrorists who committed the attacks in Paris did not pose as refugees, right? The perpetrators (both triggermen and organizers) were mostly domestic or Belgian nationals. To my knowledge there's only one person who is thought to have snuck in posing as a refugee.Not "never" but not right now. And I'm pretty shocked the "for" is winning here. If one of these refugees goes full Paris over here it's going to be very bad for the politicians beating their chests right now about wanting more refugees.
The "blame the refugee program" nonsense is IMO a normal but misguided effort to explain the inexplicable and to feel a sense of control where control is really impossible. We don't want to face the truth that these sorts of things probably can't be prevented entirely, and can be limited only by long-term thinking in foreign policy matters as well as hard work and collaborative efforts by intelligence agencies. So we try to find some small, easily understandable thing we can control and focus on that. This time around its apparently refugee admission, which is unfortunate because we (everyone, not just the US) should prioritize helping refugees, not turning them away.