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

[bcl05]

This whole topic is so depressing and disappointing.

 

We are a young melting pot of a nation that has historically assimilated people from more diverse backgrounds and more effectively and more smoothly than any other country (a low bar for sure).  Not that there haven't been issues with immigrants/refugees in the past, but this is an area where we can generally be proud and where we can hold a moral high ground.  We welcomed Vietnamese refugees in the 60's and 70's.  We welcomed Somali refugees in the 90's.  We welcomed Kurdish and Sudanese refugees in the last decade.  These are just a few examples.  

 

I think we need to view this refugee crisis in the context of the larger culture war that we are fighting.  ISIS is promoting a violent, repressive, horrible, apocalyptic vision of the future.  This vision is winning converts who see no place or hope for themselves in the prosperous outside world.  I think that the way we defeat radical jihahdism at the root is by showing that all have a place and an opportunity in the multicultural, peaceful vision of the world that we aspire to here in the US.  

 

It is certainly true that if we allow refugees in to the US that some small number may wish us harm, and may even succeed in an attack.  Preventing that by pushing away the masses may win a battle, but we lose the war.  Bringing them in and welcoming them warmly (and simultaneously destroying the ISIS true believers) is how we win the war.  

 

Bringing in a large group of refugees won't be easy - it hasn't been in the past either.  That shouldn't stop us.  We've done better with harder challenges in the past.  I think this country can handle it.  I hope.  

Edited November 20, 2015 by bcl05

[bcl05]

Also - 

The vast majority of these refugees are fleeing violence (fleeing ISIS - not collaborating with them).  They are incredibly desperate and are facing incredible odds.  We should help. 

 

Watch this video:  https://www.facebook.com/SamaritansPurse/videos/10153016512126809/?fref=nf

 

There are many good charitable organizations.  I have a lot of personal experience with Samaritan's Purse (I've been on a number of medical mission trips with them in East Africa).  They would be a good one to choose if you are looking to help.  I'm sure there are others, but I would personally vouch for them.  

[Going Commando]

There is a downside in showing you are an unprincipled coward, which is what those Democrats did.

Willingness to knowingly pass bad laws out of cowardice means you shouldn't be a congressman.

[thebluefood]

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

We've got Christians organizations of all varieties - from Evangelicals to mainline/liberal Protestant to the national council of Roman Catholic Bishops - telling politicians who support these anti-refugee measures they're wrong. Not to mention Jewish organizations, which is especially interesting since many conservatives in this country can't seem to support Israel enough.

 

This is going to lead to some interesting outcomes in primary elections. How important is this issue to religious voters, especially those on the right? Are they going to fall in with organizations welcoming refugees - organizations their churches are supporting - or are they going to side with candidates that affirm hard-line stances? Furthermore, how important is this issue going to be for the organizations, especially those on the evangelical side of the spectrum? Is this going to be a "deal breaker" issue for them with some candidates they'd, other, favor?

 

When we really get into the swing of things in March, it's going to be very interesting to see how much we remember this and how people will react to it when they turn in their ballots. I'm especially interested since I live in a swing state that gets early primaries (North Carolina).

[Alaskins]

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.

That's great if your are only worried about your seat/reelection.  But maybe, just maybe there are actually Democrats that think for themselves and truly believe that this is a real threat...

 

I.E. Feinstein who is in no danger WHAT SO EVER of losing a reelection.

There is a downside in showing you are an unprincipled coward, which is what those Democrats did.

Willingness to knowingly pass bad laws out of cowardice means you shouldn't be a congressman.

Are you talking about the ones that voted for the resolution...  If so, see above.

 

The Democratic party is not the OBAMA party.  They are allowed to think for themselves and to vote on what they think is in the best interest of the country.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Alaskins

[China]

I posted this on FB and got ROASTED. Lost a ton of friends. It's hard to be courageous and compassionate.

 

Friends?

 

[Duckus]

Ted Cruz in 2014.

 

"We have welcomed refugees -- the tired, huddled masses -- for centuries. That’s been the history of the United States," he told Fox News in a video featured on Cruz's website. "We should continue to do so." He added: "We have to continue to be vigilant to make sure those coming are not affiliated with the terrorists, but we can do that."

 

 

 

 

In 2015....

 

"It is nothing less than lunacy,” Cruz said on Saturday, citing security concerns. "It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be bringing in refugees who our intelligence cannot determine if they are terrorists here to kill us or not. Those who are fleeing persecution should be resettled in the Middle East in majority Muslim countries."

 

 

[mistertim]

I am absolutely shocked that Ted Cruz is an absolute hypocrite.

[Special K]

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.

I'd bet (with a HIGH level of confidence) that about 99% of the American population doesn't know this.  I mean, I had a discussion with several family members at dinner tonight, all with a Master's level of education or higher, and none of them hadn't the slightest clue what the refugee application process consisted of until I explained to them the basic outline and highlights...

[No Excuses]

Our politicians on both sides really are a bunch of pansies. Instead of leading, educating and shaping public policy, they are a bunch of reactionary fools who propagate the foolishness of the general public. What a shame.

[Springfield]

I get the impression that the only reason for refusing Syrian refugees is fear. Fear that they will bring terrorists among them. Fear of another terrorist attack on US soil, against soft targets.

Let us not be cowards.

[Alaskins]

I get the impression that the only reason for refusing Syrian refugees is fear. Fear that they will bring terrorists among them. Fear of another terrorist attack on US soil, against soft targets.

Let us not be cowards.

  I'm an independent, and I DON'T GET THIS, this "cowards" talk.  Didn't we elect these folks to do their jobs?

 

We saw earlier in this thread that Democrats that voted for the measure were called "unprincipled cowards."  

 

Once again it is not the OBAMA PARTY it is the Democratic party.  Do you think , just possibly, MAYBE, that folks that are in the inner circles of the US INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.  Like perhaps Chuck Schumer are better briefed than you and I?  These are the people that supported the measure,

 

If you'd like to read about more on why they supported it, please see here:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/syrian-refugees-democrats-paris-216032

 

Despite the republican rhetoric, it is not mutually exclusive to be a Democrat and a Patriot.  It's not also mutually exclusive to be a Democrat and not agree with Obama's edicts.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Alaskins

[Hersh]

  I'm an independent, and I DON'T GET THIS, this "cowards" talk.  Didn't we elect these folks to do their jobs?

 

We saw earlier in this thread that Democrats that voted for the measure were called "unprincipled cowards."  

 

Once again it is not the OBAMA PARTY it is the Democratic party.  Do you think , just possibly, MAYBE, that folks that are in the inner circles of the US INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.  Like perhaps Diane Feinstien are better briefed than you and I?  These are the people that supported the measure,

 

If you'd like to read about more on why they supported it, please see here:

 

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-senators-warn-terrorists-could-exploit-visa-waiver-program/3065590.html

 

Despite the republican rhetoric, it is not mutually exclusive to be a Democrat and a Patriot.  It's not also mutually exclusive to be a Democrat and not agree with Obama's edicts.

 

The article you posted talks about working on the visa waiver program and that people are starting to come to the conclusion that the Syrian refugee program is down the list on where possible weaknesses are in the system.

 

This is what a lot of people on here have been saying so thank you for backing us up.

I'd bet (with a HIGH level of confidence) that about 99% of the American population doesn't know this.  I mean, I had a discussion with several family members at dinner tonight, all with a Master's level of education or higher, and none of them hadn't the slightest clue what the refugee application process consisted of until I explained to them the basic outline and highlights...

 

It's why I'm disappointed in so many of these so called leaders. (Especially Democrats) Always in a rush to do something for the sake of doing something rather than taking the time to get informed.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Hersh

[Going Commando]

I'm an independent, and I DON'T GET THIS, this "cowards" talk.  Didn't we elect these folks to do their jobs?

 

We saw earlier in this thread that Democrats that voted for the measure were called "unprincipled cowards."  

 

Once again it is not the OBAMA PARTY it is the Democratic party.  Do you think , just possibly, MAYBE, that folks that are in the inner circles of the US INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.  Like perhaps Diane Feinstien are better briefed than you and I?  These are the people that supported the measure,

 

If you'd like to read about more on why they supported it, please see here:

 

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-senators-warn-terrorists-could-exploit-visa-waiver-program/3065590.html

 

Despite the republican rhetoric, it is not mutually exclusive to be a Democrat and a Patriot.  It's not also mutually exclusive to be a Democrat and not agree with Obama's edicts.

I'm guessing you didn't read the article you linked. It states the refugees are not the concern, that the visa waiver program is where the gap is.

The law is horse****. It does nothing to make us safer. It's just an attempt to block the refugee resettlement process. It was a stupid knee-jerk reaction to the Paris attacks, a chance for the Republicans to pretend like they're doing something to be tough on terror, and the Democrats that voted yes knew this and that it was a ****ty, ignorant law. They were just too ****ing spineless to vote no. They're not interested in actually leading against misinformation and panic. I hope all of them get primaried.

[mistertim]

There was an inter

 

I get the impression that the only reason for refusing Syrian refugees is fear. Fear that they will bring terrorists among them. Fear of another terrorist attack on US soil, against soft targets.

Let us not be cowards.

There was an interesting post earlier with a graphic about who has surrendered to ISIS. It was a bit overblown, as those things are, but it wasn't far from the truth.

[Springfield]

I pulled this from Facebook. It was a very compelling read, but given the source I can't vouch for its accuracy. If anyone else has better info on the refugee process then please feel free to refute the quote below.

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 want actual 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.

[Springfield]

I'm an independent, and I DON'T GET THIS, this "cowards" talk. Didn't we elect these folks to do their jobs?

We saw earlier in this thread that Democrats that voted for the measure were called "unprincipled cowards."

Once again it is not the OBAMA PARTY it is the Democratic party. Do you think , just possibly, MAYBE, that folks that are in the inner circles of the US INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. Like perhaps Diane Feinstien are better briefed than you and I? These are the people that supported the measure,

If you'd like to read about more on why they supported it, please see here:

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-senators-warn-terrorists-could-exploit-visa-waiver-program/3065590.html

Despite the republican rhetoric, it is not mutually exclusive to be a Democrat and a Patriot. It's not also mutually exclusive to be a Democrat and not agree with Obama's edicts.

I'm an independent also.

I don't get why we want to stop accepting refugees. The only reason I can figure is the fear that we will let bad people in. Can we agree on that?

Is there any other reason to stop accepting refugees?

As far as congress, my opinion is that we elected them to look out for our local issues primarily. Things like insuring that our roads are fit to travel. That their district is prosperous.

This whole refugee topic is reactionary like the Patriot Act was after 9/11. We should be a nation of action, not reaction. Think ahead, not behind. Lead the world.

[thebluefood]

Quote that's been playing in my head for awhile now...

 

 

"Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, and close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one."

 

I was 10 when 9/11 happened and since then, I feel like I've been living in a world dominated by fear, especially of people who adhere to Islam and/or are from the Middle East. That's nearly 15 years of my life - the majority of my life - where fear has been playing constantly in the background.

 

I'm getting sick of it. I'm getting sick of fear. I'm getting sick of being afraid to speak and express and, worst of all, to serve and show compassion.

 

Don't you think I realize compassion makes me vulnerable? Don't you think I know I could reach out my hand out to someone and draw back a bloody stump? Don't you think that's happened to me before? Do you think that makes me want to stop?

 

I'm trying to love my neighbor over here and I keep being told it's against our national security interests and I'm sorry, one is more important to me than the other. I don't want to get blown up and I don't want my family and friends to die in a hail of gunfire, but compassion is risky and that's a risk I'm willing to take.

[Hersh]

I'm an independent also.

I don't get why we want to stop accepting refugees. The only reason I can figure is the fear that we will let bad people in. Can we agree on that?

Is there any other reason to stop accepting refugees?

As far as congress, my opinion is that we elected them to look out for our local issues primarily. Things like insuring that our roads are fit to travel. That their district is prosperous.

This whole refugee topic is reactionary like the Patriot Act was after 9/11. We should be a nation of action, not reaction. Think ahead, not behind. Lead the world.

 

I wish this were the case but all these politicians care about is the next election. There never seems to be action on any issue until it's a crisis. Unfortunately many voters eat up short term thinking...well, those that care enough to vote in primaries and general elections.

[Larry]

Still, as panic driven political reactions go, I suppose this is better than the PATRIOT act.

[Redskins Diehard]

The dialogue in this place just keeps getting less and less productive. Good luck to the 2 teams.

[Hersh]

The dialogue in this place just keeps getting less and less productive. Good luck to the 2 teams.

 

Not in this thread. There has been good back and forth and a presenting of information about the Syrian Refugee process. No sure what else you want. Maybe articulate it?

[Springfield]

Not in this thread. There has been good back and forth and a presenting of information about the Syrian Refugee process. No sure what else you want. Maybe articulate it?

No, he wants to complain without adding anything of any value to the discussion because he feels as though he's being oppressed. Therefore he will passive aggressively show his displeasure with the whole entire board.

[Redskins Diehard]

No, he wants to complain without adding anything of any value to the discussion because he feels as though he's being oppressed. Therefore he will passive aggressively show his displeasure with the whole entire board.

Exactly what I am talking about. Your post is ignorant stuff about someone you don't know. In the name of being righteous

[DogofWar1]

I don't think either side needs to get hostile. That being said, this thread is an excellent repository of information on the subject, and the weight of the evidence is on the side that the present system works and that there are not really false negatives crawling out of places.

That evidence in turn directs the discussion on the vote, specifically how much of the rhetoric surrounding the vote appears to stand apart from the evidence of the process' effectiveness.