Burgold

The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

Recommended Posts

The votes for the bill on refugees in the house

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h643

Looking at the summary of the bill.

1) I'll confess, I tend to read things like these with a very skeptical eye. I've simply seen too many pieces of widely-trumpeted legislation which has been intentionally, deceptively, written, to try to do things other than the bill's advertised claims.

2) And I confess that I'm not aware of what the existing law is. Which obviously makes it tough to compare it to the existing law.

 

But I've got to say, it seems, at the very least, excessive, to me. 

 

1)  It mandates three, separate background checks, by DHS, FBI, and the Director of National Intelligence. 

 

2)  Mandates that each of the background check requires the personal certification of said officials, that the refugee poses no security risk. 

 

3)  Mandates that the certification must be made, unanimously, by all three of those individuals. 

 

4)  Mandates that all three certifications be made "to the appropriate Congressional Committees".  For every single refugee. 

 

5)  And requires the DHS IG to audit the procedures of the three above agencies, annually, and report that information "to the appropriate Congressional Committees". 

 

6)  And (I confess, I'm having trouble deciphering this clause, so I may be misinterpreting it) mandates a report, every month, on the number of people applying, and whether they have or have not been certified risk-free.  (I can't figure out, does it require a list of those people rejected?  Or those that simply haven't been certified risk-free, yet?) 

 


 

Still, have to say, compared to simply banning all refugees, or demanding that they prove their Christianity, it looks a lot better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the summary of the bill.

1) I'll confess, I tend to read things like these with a very skeptical eye. I've simply seen too many pieces of widely-trumpeted legislation which has been intentionally, deceptively, written, to try to do things other than the bill's advertised claims.

2) And I confess that I'm not aware of what the existing law is. Which obviously makes it tough to compare it to the existing law.

 

But I've got to say, it seems, at the very least, excessive, to me. 

 

1)  It mandates three, separate background checks, by DHS, FBI, and the Director of National Intelligence. 

 

2)  Mandates that each of the background check requires the personal certification of said officials, that the refugee poses no security risk. 

 

3)  Mandates that the certification must be made, unanimously, by all three of those individuals. 

 

4)  Mandates that all three certifications be made "to the appropriate Congressional Committees".  For every single refugee. 

 

5)  And requires the DHS IG to audit the procedures of the three above agencies, annually, and report that information "to the appropriate Congressional Committees". 

 

6)  And (I confess, I'm having trouble deciphering this clause, so I may be misinterpreting it) mandates a report, every month, on the number of people applying, and whether they have or have not been certified risk-free.  (I can't figure out, does it require a list of those people rejected?  Or those that simply haven't been certified risk-free, yet?) 

 


 

Still, have to say, compared to simply banning all refugees, or demanding that they prove their Christianity, it looks a lot better. 

I wonder if the excessiveness of it will likely lead to laziness in some cases and rubber stamping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flip side is that not every corner of the world is displacing millions of people who want to desperately escape said terrorist powers.

 

I was responding Hersh's very specific statement: "Under that rationale, we should never let anyone in cause how much accurate info do we have about anyone."

 

I wasn't commenting on the issues with the rest of the world. Just pointing out his interpretation of the rationale is ridiculous.

 

You do realize that people from ALL OVER the world have pledged allegiance to ISIS and even traveled to Syria to fight with them?

 

Additionally, refugees from countries OUTSIDE the Middle East have been admitted to the United States and been charged with aiding ISIS.

 

Further, most of the terrorists who carried out the Paris attacks were French or Belgian citizens  Based on your rationale, Belgium and France could be considered "breeding grounds for terrorism" and we should not admit French or Belgians immigrants into this country.

 

So, how do you propose legally establishing which country is a "breeding ground for terrorism" and which is not?

 

Yes I do realize that. You think I don't? What does that have to do with what I said?

 

I haven't really posed my rationale anywhere. You're just painting me into that corner because I've challenged a few people on their ideals; namely that you can only be xenophobic to have an issue with admitting refugees and that only the GOP and Christians are thinking like this.

 

I'm concerned about anything middle east related because I don't trust anything involving the middle east at this point; including what our politicians are proposing/doing/saying (on either side.) There's too many moving parts and to have a really informed opinion someone has to spend a lot of time studying what is going on here; somehow I doubt majority of the people throwing around their opinions (on ES, Facebook, in the media, and even some of our politicians) have spent anything close to the required time to have anything close to an informed opinion.

 

I have as big of a problem with the people thinking there's no discussing to have here (majority of the people posting on ES about it) as i do with the idiots that think we should only let in Christians, or should close Mosques, or only spy on Muslims, or only let them in if they'll agree to be trained and sent back to fight ISIS.

 

The big difference is we don't have a whole lot of people on ES posting from the viewpoint that we should only let in christians, close mosques, etc etc. So there's not really a whole to discuss in regards to that...

 

Edit: I'm editing a bit because I realized I completely misread your last question.

As for your last question: I don't know, maybe we could look at the people that inhabit the area? You think that because I think Syria is a breeding ground of terrorism we now have to go through every country and consider labeling them as such?

 

You think I'm out on a limb saying Syria is a breeding ground for terrorism? Have you been paying attention the last 7 years?

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do realize that. You think I don't? What does that have to do with what I said?

 

I haven't really posed my rationale anywhere. You're just painting me into that corner because I've challenged a few people on their ideals; namely that you can only be xenophobic to have an issue with admitting refugees and that only the GOP and Christians are thinking like this.

 

I have as big of a problem with the people thinking there's no discussing to have here (majority of the people posting on ES about it) as i do with the idiots that think we should only let in Christians, or should close Mosques, or only spy on Muslims, or only let them in if they'll agree to be trained and sent back to fight ISIS.

 

Edit: I'm editing a bit because I realized I completely misread your last question.

As for your last question: I don't know, maybe we could look at the people that inhabit the area? You think that because I think Syria is a breeding ground of terrorism we now have to go through every country and consider labeling them as such?

 

You think I'm out on a limb saying Syria is a breeding ground for terrorism? Have you been paying attention the last 7 years?

Wasn't sure if you knew that.  I figured if you did know, you would just assume it's a rhetorical question and move on. :)

 

I never said you were going out on a limb with Syria.  Of course Syria is a breeding ground for terrorism.  So are a lot of countries.  I was just pointing out the faulty logic in your response to Hersh's question. :)

 

As far as the whole having a big problem with people who aren't "discussing" the issue, the problem there is that this is not anywhere close to an honest discussion:  it's facts on one side versus false, crazy **** that goes against everything America stands for on the other side.

Edited by Special K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't sure if you knew that.  I figured if you did know, you would just assume it's a rhetorical question and move on. :)

 

I never said you were going out on a limb with Syria.  Of course Syria is a breeding ground for terrorism.  So are a lot of countries.  I was just pointing out the faulty logic in your response to Hersh's question. :)

 

I don't think it's too much to ask to realize that certain areas of the world, at certain times, are going through unique circumstances that require unique considerations.

 

I don't think having a discussion about admitting refugees from Syria, at a time when the area is going through what it is and is what it is, means you blanket cannot admit people form anywhere at any other time. It's just nonsense to follow that to such a conclusion. It's intentionally lacking context/nuance, and intentionally putting all decision making revolving the general idea of admitting people into a vacuum when doing so is completely unnecessary. The only point of doing all that is to squash the idea that it's something to discuss to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's too much to ask to realize that certain areas of the world, at certain times, are going through unique circumstances that require unique considerations.

 

I don't think having a discussion about admitting refugees from Syria, at a time when the area is going through what it is and is what it is, means you blanket cannot admit people form anywhere at any other time. It's just nonsense to follow that to such a conclusion. It's intentionally lacking context/nuance, and intentionally putting all decision making revolving the general idea of admitting people into a vacuum when doing so is completely unnecessary. The only point of doing all that is to squash the idea that it's something to discuss to begin with.

I think we realize certain areas of the world ARE breeding grounds.  That's a no duh.  A country can be cognizant of the political landscape of other regions and increase vigilance without passing additional fear-based laws that don't do anything they're purported to do by our politicians.

 

And like I said, the problem is that this whole subject hasn't been a discussion, it's propaganda vs. facts.

Edited by Special K
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the summary of the bill.

...

Still, have to say, compared to simply banning all refugees, or demanding that they prove their Christianity, it looks a lot better. 

 

Yeah, from what little I understand/know, it honestly seems like a clever way of just banning all refugees. It seems like what they've basically done is try to hold a couple of people personally responsible for the safety of the entire country based on who they approve. They seem to have written it in such a way that it would be very hard for a person to pass all of those checks; not because they're a threat, but because of the way the system is written.

 

Which I have a problem with.

 

The more meaningful information to me is just how many people voted which way on it.

 

1/4 of the Democrats in the house voted for it, and a handful didn't care enough either way to even cast a vote. I don't know enough about the local politics, national (if that makes sense?) to know if those 1/4 are simply doing that because they're up for re-election in toss up areas, or what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, I disagree.   Appealing to populist fear, ignorance and xenophobia historically has been a rather successful electoral strategy.    :(

It's a short-term game, though, which seems to be the GOP MO right now. They're going after everything they can get right now and they're not thinking about the long-term future of their party. I don't see a lot of enthusiasm for the likes of Mr. Trump or Dr. Carson among my generation - though I'm sure it exists.

 

At this point I don't even think Donald Trump believes most of the stuff he's saying. He's just saying it so people will pay attention to him. If you do ridiculous things, people are going to call you out on it, but you're still going to get press and that will, somehow, may people admire you for your ridiculousness.

 

It's working for him right now (North Carolina polls have him just two points below Dr. Carson), but it's a short term plan that plays on people's fears - much like the right's fear mongering of most things, especially refugees. It may work in the short term, but they're going to leave their children with a terrible mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And like I said, the problem is that this whole subject hasn't been a discussion, it's propaganda vs. facts.

 

Well, if it's any consolation I definitely am as frustrated with that as you are.

 

You think it's incredible frustrated to hear someone say something like - We should only let the Christian Syrians in! - ?

 

Try being someone who wants to actually have a discussion about it, because you don't really understand how extensive these 'checks' can be given the entire situation, and just be lumped in with those people. I got in it with predicto the other day because of his ranting after I read Trump and Paul's tweets; one of which seemed perfectly reasonable. Little did I know at the time the types of people coming out of the woodwork on the issue.

 

damn near 3/4 of Americans do not support bringing Syrian refugees here (in some fashion, some of which are ridiculous ones.) the standard boogeymen of the GOP, Christians, Xenophobes, and people who hate Muslims/Think all Muslims are terrorists just doesn't account for the number of people who have an issue with admitting refugees from Syria..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was responding Hersh's very specific statement: "Under that rationale, we should never let anyone in cause how much accurate info do we have about anyone."

 

I wasn't commenting on the issues with the rest of the world. Just pointing out his interpretation of the rationale is ridiculous.

 

 

 

What matters is what is the actual threat to America these days and what is the bigger future threat. Is it the possibility of a Syrian making it through a nearly 2 year process to get refugee status and make it to America or Americans and Europeans that have travel to Syria?

 

I am assuming you are aware of the reported process Syrians have to go through. It's precisely that the US government is fully aware of what is happening in Syria that they are likely to be much more vigilant about Syrian refugees and the process than about people from Europe or South America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.

 

More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.

 

From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico.

 

Measuring migration flows between Mexico and the U.S. is challenging because there are no official counts of how many Mexican immigrants enter and leave the U.S. each year. This report uses the best available government data from both countries to estimate the size of these flows.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is intensely naive Hersh (especially your first paragraph).  Tshile nailed it, but the liberal thinking up in here just refuses to see the truth of the matter as it relates to the absolute danger it brings upon the United States to let these folks inside without being properly vetted.

 

The Congress agrees across the aisle.  They are informed.  You are not so much sir.  With respect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is intensely naive Hersh (especially your first paragraph).  Tshile nailed it, but the liberal thinking up in here just refuses to see the truth of the matter as it relates to the absolute danger it brings upon the United States to let these folks inside without being properly vetted.

 

The Congress agrees across the aisle.  They are informed.  You are not so much sir.  With respect...

 

How is it naïve? You say they are not properly vetted. How are they not probably vetted after 18-24 months and what would make them properly vetted in your mind?

 

How am I not informed?

Edited by Hersh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What matters is what is the actual threat to America these days and what is the bigger future threat. Is it the possibility of a Syrian making it through a nearly 2 year process to get refugee status and make it to America or Americans and Europeans that have travel to Syria?

 

I am assuming you are aware of the reported process Syrians have to go through. It's precisely that the US government is fully aware of what is happening in Syria that they are likely to be much more vigilant about Syrian refugees and the process than about people from Europe or South America.

 

Right.

 

I'm not really aware of the process, which is why I'm not offering solutions.

 

What I'm aware of are:

a 2-3 year process

an 'extensive' background check.

 

To which my gut reaction is:

- What does how long it takes have to do with it? That seems like an arbitrary point thrown around a lot as if it's supposed to mean something. I'm supposed to believe it taking 18 months is what's going to stop the terrorists? They're playing the long game here... I don't care if it takes 18 days or 18 years, it's the hit/miss rate on the process that interests me.

- How extensively can we possibly check the background of a person with no paperwork (or why should we trust the paperwork they have), from an area that is nothing like what we're used to dealing with when we consider background checks?

 

I'm not trying to make blanket statements about what the policy should be. If you want to write my view on the issue of as ignorant that's fine, because at least to a certain degree it is.

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

 

I'm not really aware of the process, which is why I'm not offering solutions.

 

What I'm aware of are:

a 2-3 year process

an 'extensive' background check.

 

To which my gut reaction is:

- What does how long it takes have to do with it? That seems like an arbitrary point thrown around a lot as if it's supposed to mean something. I'm supposed to believe it taking 18 months is what's going to stop the terrorists? They're playing the long game here... I don't care if it takes 18 days or 18 years, it's the hit/miss rate on the process that interests me.

- How extensively can we possibly check the background of a person with no paperwork (or why should we trust the paperwork they have), from an area that is nothing like what we're used to dealing with when we consider background checks?

 

I'm not trying to make blanket statements about what the policy should be. If you want to write my view on the issue of as ignorant that's fine, because at least to a certain degree it is.

 

Here is a good summary. Obviously I can't imagine the government sharing the very specific details with us since that would be giving a blue print to terrorist trying to get in this way.

 

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't answer the question. How are they not properly vetted?

 

 

From the FBI director.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/politics/fbi-director-james-comey-refugee-legislation/index.html

 

That seems like a rather empty article there Hersh.

 

First thought - It verifies what I said to Larry earlier about the bill. It's basically a clever (although, not so much to be honest) way to block all the Syrian refugees without saying "Block all the Syrian refugees." It's putting perosonal responsibility for something in an unfair way. You have to get all 3 people to personally put their name on every single approval process to allow a person in. It's clear what the intent is.

 

Second - the FBI director said nothing except that he firmly believes the FBI process is a good one. That's all he said, at least in that article. I wouldn't expect him to really say anything else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I did not say that, it appears you played the fool.

 

Both of ya :)

 

No idea what you are talking about but you still haven't answered my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea what you are talking about but you still haven't answered my questions.

 

 

I don't have to.  The US Congress already has answered your naive question sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.