Elessar78 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Feels like this is mostly Republican politicians playing to the xenophobes and some Democrats being cowards and not wanting to be labeled soft. Yup, that's what we've been reduced to: Gotcha! and Catch-22 politics. Somebody go and ****ing LEAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 So, the FBI director sparked this whole national wild fire of outrage over vetting by questioning its effectiveness publicly, and now he wants to back off when Congress wants to put him on the hook to vouch for the refugees. Maybe he should've kept his mouth shut. From my understanding he said something to the affect that there is no comprehensive database on everyone to simply check to see if this person or that person is a terrorist. That kinda seems like a no brainer that that would be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Good Post DogofWar1. What if the motivation is just trying not to add to the additional problems that a theoretical mother with small children who has lived a hell, the last few years, that none of us could ever imagine, already has. You know, humanity and all that. Never figured myself for much of a bleeding heart but that must be how I seem to many, I guess. I don't have a problem with taking some risk, and I acknowledge that it's real and it's there but it seems relatively small in this case, in order to help some people that really, really need it. Oh, it definitely sucks for the refugees. We're either creating a backlog or a rubber stamp, the former will delay refugees and the latter won't improve the process. Heck, it could be both, and then we've REALLY screwed up with the bureaucracy. But as sad as it is to say, it's important to not let fears be validated, or else the refugee situation will get even worse. If there's an attack from a refugee vector now, it's going to bolster the fearful wing, and we'd likely see a long term policy of not taking people from war torn countries where there's any sort of anti-American group (which is probably most war torn countries, let's be honest). And that would be a terrible result. The best way to avoid that, obviously, is to not get attacked, but on the off chance we do, having bi-partisan legislation in place that makes the system "more" robust would help push back against the appearance that the Ds are weak. And keeping Ds from looking weak if an attack happens is crucial to ensuring that the damage to refugee programs long term isn't massive and generational. It sucks because basically we're playing politics and electioneering with people's lives on the line, but a penny of political capitulating now could be worth a pound of avoided xenophobic policy in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Wait, was it the current FBI director that questioned it? I thought it was a former director or former assistant director? It's hard to keep it straight because they all come out with commentary when stuff like this happens, even ones that haven't actually been close to the process for years (but imply they are an authority figure on the subject) This was in a Breitbart article: FBI Director James Comey famously admitted last month that the U.S. government has no real way to conduct background checks on refugees. “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them,” Comey explained, quite sensibly. He contrasted this lack of solid information with the screening of Iraqi refugees after the war: “With respect with Iraqi databases, we had far more because of our country’s work there for a decade. This is a different situation.” It should be noted, however, that even the vastly superior security situation for Iraqi refugees was not sufficient to prevent some hair-raising mistakes. In 2013, for example, ABC News reported on several dozen suspected terrorist bomb-makers admitted to the United States as refugees, including a pair of Iraqi al-Qaeda insurgents living in Kentucky who admitted attacking American soldiers in Iraq. What was the Obama Administration’s response to the discovery of those bombers living in Kentucky? The State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugees for six months… http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/18/no-good-answers-allegedly-exhaustive-syrian-refugee-vetting-process/ Interesting, I did not know about the Iraqi part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Gosh, can't believe this is almost 20 years old All origins are accidentalYou've got no papers and no roads lead homeAnymoreChance is the root of all place positionAll maps are random all scales are wrongLegal illegal no passion for the differenceLegal illegal false premise forge the nationMay all your borders be porousFree transmission smear geneticsC'est la vie yawn yawn yawnI can't stifle my boredomSo why not act your ageFear of contagion the violence of a fence builder's dreamThat masks the phrasing of "all the pleasures of home"Legal illegalI want to go home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/20/donald-trump-backs-a-federal-database-to-track-muslims-but-not-gun-sales/ Donald Trump backs a federal database to track Muslims, but not gun sales Because the statistics clearly show that there are far more people in the USA killed by Muslim extremists than guns each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 Yes, it does answer the question perfectly. The current system was porous hence the action today by Congress sir. It's porous because... we have had a tremendous number of successful terrorist attacks over the last five years spurred by refugees or immigrants? Why do you think it's porous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/20/donald-trump-backs-a-federal-database-to-track-muslims-but-not-gun-sales/ Donald Trump backs a federal database to track Muslims, but not gun sales Because the statistics clearly show that there are far more people in the USA killed by Muslim extremists than guns each year. No you silly. It's because gun rights are in the Constitution, but freedom of religion isn.. err.. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) Edit. Got beaten to it. Edited November 20, 2015 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Saw this on FB from an immigration attorney, thought it was worth a re-post. It's long, but worthwhile. Scott Hicks Yesterday at 9:54am · Edited · Most of my friends know I practice Immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you wantactual information about the process, keep reading. I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue. The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked. First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process. Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States. We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority. First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO). Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan. Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS. Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States. The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived. At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family. Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel. Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country. Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination.This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years. The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center) Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan.Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa.Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center) Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Event_Horizon Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 It's porous because... we have had a tremendous number of successful terrorist attacks over the last five years spurred by refugees or immigrants? Why do you think it's porous? This cannot be a serious question Mr. Mushroom. I mean really? You missed this I think: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/things-syrian-refugees-vetting-process-35297847 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 This cannot be a serious question Mr. Mushroom. I mean really? You missed this I think: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/things-syrian-refugees-vetting-process-35297847 Why haven't we had more terrorist attacks from refugees? If it is so easy to beat the system then that makes no logical sense given the number of refugees and others we've let into the country in the past x years. What is your explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Event_Horizon Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 ^^ This cannot be serious.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 ^^ This cannot be serious.... Please tell us your theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 This cannot be a serious question Mr. Mushroom. I mean really? You missed this I think: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/things-syrian-refugees-vetting-process-35297847 I don't think that link supports your position, frankly. The only thing that remotely suggests weakness is the FBI director's explanation that certain aspects of the program are limited by Syrian records. But that stuff seems to be countered by these things: The process is directed by the Homeland Security Department and involves the State Department and U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Refugees submit to in-person interviews overseas, where they provide biographical details about themselves, including their families, friendships, social or political activities, employment, phone numbers, email accounts and more. They also provide biometric information about themselves, including fingerprints. Syrians are subject to additional, classified controls, according to administration officials, who briefed reporters this week on condition that they not be identified by name to publicly discuss confidential details about the process. As for concerns about potential refugees lacking documents to prove who they are, the administration officials said Syrians as a population tend to provide extensive documents involving their day-to-day lives. They often arrive with family histories, military records and other information that can be useful for American authorities investigating them. Refugees who spent years waiting for approval to come to the United States said authorities asked detailed questions repeatedly in multiple interviews, including pressing them about their backgrounds and reasons for fleeing Syria. Nedal Al-Hayk, who was resettled in suburban Detroit with his family after a three-year wait, said officials interviewed him and his wife in separate rooms, asking repeatedly and in different ways where they were born, where their parents were born, what they did before and during the war or whether they were armed, part of a rebel group, supportive of the government or even politically outspoken. The process has no guarantee of approval and takes so long — Syrians wait nearly three years for approval to come to the U.S. — that experts said it would be a longshot for an extremist group to rely on the refugee program as a way to sneak someone into the United States. The Islamic State group has had far more success appealing to people already living inside the United States to commit or conspire to commit violence. Really, the only negative to the process the article talks about is that it's imperfect, but that's true of all manners of immigration, and the refugee process is significantly more robust than most if not all other forms of immigration, and Syrians are watched even more closely than usual refugees. Basically, if they can get an infiltrator in via the refugee process, that person was getting into the US one way or another, because literally every other possible process has a higher success rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Please tell us your theory. I think it has something to do with precious bodily fluids 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 Really, the only negative to the process the article talks about is that it's imperfect, but that's true of all manners of immigration... or any process really. What we always wrestle with his the tug of war between freedom and safety, but more often what we're really fighting over is the battle between rights and the illusion of safety. You can not make a perfect system. No vetting will ever be fool proof. The question is what is right for the situation, those suffering and the host nation itself. Once you decide on that, you do your homework as well and full as possible and proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I posted this on FB and got ROASTED. Lost a ton of friends. It's hard to be courageous and compassionate. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I posted this on FB and got ROASTED. Lost a ton of friends. It's hard to be courageous and compassionate. How dare you suggest that we try to live up to some of the most cherished and fundamental tenets of our nation? ****ing commie terrorist lover. But seriously, I don't even bother with any of this stuff on FB nowadays (insofar as I actually even get on there anymore). It is a cesspool. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Why some Democrats voted for the bill. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/564f5607e4b0879a5b0ac4f7?95ecow29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Why some Democrats voted for the bill. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/564f5607e4b0879a5b0ac4f7?95ecow29 Not surprised. It's simple election math. The odds of facing a primary challenger over the vote vs. the odds of losing to an R over the vote. Political cover votes can't be underestimated. If I'm surprised at anything, I'm surprised more Ds didn't vote for it. Or abstain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Saw this on FB from an immigration attorney, thought it was worth a re-post. It's long, but worthwhile. Such an informative post. Maybe the most important thing on there is that the refugee doesn't pick where they end up. That further reduces the odds of a terrorist being able to use the refugee program to get into America. I would bet 75% or more of the population does not know that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission speaking up against anti-refugee crowd. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/conservative-christian-leader-blasts-anti-refugee-rhetoric-c?utm_term=.ieG5yl4vV#.tneEpB7XM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Not surprised. It's simple election math. The odds of facing a primary challenger over the vote vs. the odds of losing to an R over the vote. Political cover votes can't be underestimated. If I'm surprised at anything, I'm surprised more Ds didn't vote for it. Or abstain. Further complicating the issue: Obama comes out and says he'll veto it before there is any vote. As a Democrat in fear of having a Nay vote held against you, there's no downside. You won't have it held against you, and the President already told you he'll veto it if it passes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Such an informative post. Maybe the most important thing on there is that the refugee doesn't pick where they end up. That further reduces the odds of a terrorist being able to use the refugee program to get into America. I would bet 75% or more of the population does not know that. Yeah. And I'm not even sure if they have a say on where in the US they resettle. Most of these attacks are unsophisticated, but it becomes really tough to pull off if the 5 guys are resettled in states an average of 1000 miles apart each. Further complicating the issue: Obama comes out and says he'll veto it before there is any vote. As a Democrat in fear of having a Nay vote held against you, there's no downside. You won't have it held against you, and the President already told you he'll veto it if it passes. Yeah. There's not really any downside to voting yay, and plenty of potential downside to voting nay. Even if there was no attack, there's no bonus points in saying "I voted against this because it was unnecessary and overkill, and the lack of attacks demonstrates the system we had in place works" because probably 90% of voters in your district didn't hear you say it, and 70% of those who heard it probably didn't hear past the first three words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now