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

[No Excuses]

LoL!  The Director of the FBI serves at the President's pleasure.  He is a puppet.  Congress disagrees with you and every other major world government.

 

Stats, which show that our refugee vetting process works great, disagree with you and the moronic Congress catering to the ignorant.

[mistertim]

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...

So ANY possibility of something not working 100% every time forever means it should be thrown out? Should we close our borders to people fleeing terrorists because maybe some day there could potentially be a not 0% chance of a potential terrorist getting through? Even though our process is quite robust? What about potential radicalized people from France, or Germany, or some other country? Considering that most of the people involved in the Paris attack were European and how widespread ISIS's recruiting is, focusing on Syria alone (and deciding to deny any refugees fleeing terrorism there) is not just illogical, it stinks of something much nastier (see Carson comparing Syrian refugees to dogs and Trump saying we should be shutting down mosques and tracking Muslims in this country...even potentially giving them special "IDs").

 

Congress isn't "informed", especially the Democrats voting for this. It is mostly pure political cowardice. None of them want to have the possibility of being labeled "soft on terrorism", though this whole thing in reality doesn't have much to do with actual terrorism, just fear mongering and misinformation.

 

Also...why would terrorists try to come in as refugees? That is pretty much the HARDEST way to do it. They would have to wait 1-2 years and go through extensive interviews and processes. Why do that when they could get some sort of work visa or visit the country in some other way? It would be far easier to do that and then turn into some sort of sleeper cell. This whole thing is idiotic.

Edited November 20, 2015 by mistertim

[Hersh]

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...

 

More information on 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.

 

[tshile]

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/

 

Let me preface this by saying I understand why someone might view my comments about this article as unreasonable. I do not think they are, however...

 

- There's a lot of mentions of extensive background checks but we don't know what those actually are. We're back to the issue of how do we really verify who these people are, considering where they're coming from. Do we have some close working relationship with the Syrian government?

 

- I don't care that it takes 2 years, seems irrelevant.

 

- We "know the refugees aren't terrorists" because they're not on existing suspected terrorist lists that we have. Well.. that doesn't seem like all that great of a requirement, to be honest. Unless I'm significantly underestimating our intelligence agencies' ability to catalog all the extremists in the middle east.

 

- The only reassuring thing I read in that article is that only 2% of the people admitted are single males of "combat age". I don't know that I like that 'single male' had to be put in as a qualifier, but it's at least reassuring on some level. It's almost enough to completely change my view, but I'd want to see how that number changes when you remove the 'single' qualifier. I'd also like to see the number for women because I think it's becoming a mistake to continue to profile the extremists as males; I think that may be changing...

[Hersh]

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

 

Oh, so any time Congress passes a bill that means they have all the answers...noted.

 

Thanks for not actually answering any questions. That speaks for itself.

[The Evil Genius]

Stop feeding the troll, hersh.

 

And then we can get back to the adults talking, somewhat civilly. 

[@DCGoldPants]

whoops, meant for ISIS thread

Edited November 20, 2015 by @SkinsGoldPants

[tshile]

More information on the process.

I'm out of likes, so you'll have to settle for a simple thank you

[The 12th Commandment]

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

The US Congress. The one that has a 15% approval rating.  

 

You sir are 

[Hersh]

Let me preface this by saying I understand why someone might view my comments about this article as unreasonable. I do not think they are, however...

 

- There's a lot of mentions of extensive background checks but we don't know what those actually are. We're back to the issue of how do we really verify who these people are, considering where they're coming from. Do we have some close working relationship with the Syrian government?

 

- I don't care that it takes 2 years, seems irrelevant.

 

- We "know the refugees aren't terrorists" because they're not on existing suspected terrorist lists that we have. Well.. that doesn't seem like all that great of a requirement, to be honest. Unless I'm significantly underestimating our intelligence agencies' ability to catalog all the extremists in the middle east.

 

- The only reassuring thing I read in that article is that only 2% of the people admitted are single males of "combat age". I don't know that I like that 'single male' had to be put in as a qualifier, but it's at least reassuring on some level. It's almost enough to completely change my view, but I'd want to see how that number changes when you remove the 'single' qualifier. I'd also like to see the number for women because I think it's becoming a mistake to continue to profile the extremists as males; I think that may be changing...

I'm enjoying the conversation (except with Event Horizon) cause having a back and forth is thought provoking.

 

My biggest problem with what Congress is doing and what my Governor and many other governors are doing is that they are responding in a knee-jerk fashion without gathering facts. I also worry about the drum beat of war being amped up in a major way. I would rather see those questioning the policy say they asked the administration to give Congress 30 days to review this process and other visa processes and see what may need strengthening.

[Darth Tater]

The strategy of preventing refugees from coming into your country to prevent terrorist from coming is a bad one. The strategy of keeping open your borders in this case is also a bad one. You are either left with deciding which strategy is least bad or implementing a strategy no one seems to have come up with.

[Event_Horizon]

I am simply telling the truth Hersh but you can't see it for some reason.  You certainly are not more informed than Congress and our Intel Agencies and the Intel Agencies around the world... so keep making fun of me and propagate your liberal agenda.  I realize the Congressional vote rubs a lot of you the wrong way, but they know things you do not.

 

Expand the screening process.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Event_Horizon

[Bang]

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

These are the same guys that keep voting down veteran benefits, right?

I guess it's better PR in the long run that they don't assist refugees while they're actively ****ing over Americans who have sacrificed for this country.

 

 

~Bang

[Event_Horizon]

These are the same guys that keep voting down veteran benefits, right?

I guess it's better PR in the long run that they don't assist refugees while they're actively ****ing over Americans who have sacrificed for this country.

 

 

~Bang

 

 

Apples and Oranges Bang... C'mon man....  really?

[DogofWar1]

The Bill's contents aren't totally unreasonable, but are still likely superfluous and don't really address the concerns that some are mentioning.

 

Really it just adds some additional reporting requirements, which I guess isn't bad, but it's pretty much just adding more bureaucracy to the process.

 

If there's an intelligence gap because Syria's system sucks, adding extra reporting requirements doesn't really do much.

 

Of course, there seemingly isn't a large intelligence gap in the first place.

 

Frankly though, if I was the President, I'd sign this, just so that if anyone slipped through, however unlikely that is, you've got political cover.  It's a zero sum game if you don't, but if you do, you can come out okay even if an attack happens through a refugee vector, again, despite the lack of likelihood of that happening.

[tshile]

I'm enjoying the conversation (except with Event Horizon) cause having a back and forth is thought provoking.

 

My biggest problem with what Congress is doing and what my Governor and many other governors are doing is that they are responding in a knee-jerk fashion without gathering facts. I also worry about the drum beat of war being amped up in a major way. I would rather see those questioning the policy say they asked the administration to give Congress 30 days to review this process and other visa processes and see what may need strengthening.

 

I'm enjoying it too, even though I'm coming form the admitted perspective of being ignorant on it. You're giving me information instead of just calling me stupid for not knowing, which you're not really obligated to do

 

I agree with you. The bill the house passed is absurd. And I say that as someone who's not exactly for bringing in the refugees (and thought that way before the Paris attacks) because I just do not trust anything about the middle east right now (or what our politicians say about it.)

 

The problem is that the fear is real. It's not based in unfounded paranoia. The reality is that these groups are relentless, they are vicious, and they have time on their side. Their cause is one they believe comes from a God that will reward them in the end. They have nothing but time to come up with ways to do things, which is why this 18-24 month process bullet point is meaningless to me. Many people seem to only follow attacks against The West. But if you've been following what these group shave been doing to other Muslims (which is far worse, arguably, and definitely at a significantly higher rate than what is done to The West) it's really disturbing and scary.

 

That said, the idea of not letting in refugees is still heart breaking. It's not an easy decision to make for me. The whole situation is just sad, infuriating, and heartbreaking all at the same time.

 

Of course, I have the luxury of deciding without having any say in the actual policy. There are no real ramifications for my opinion. Which makes considering either side and putting aside the emotional/moral side of the issue, and arguing on the internet ( ), easier.

Edited November 20, 2015 by tshile

[mistertim]

Apples and Oranges Bang... C'mon man....  really?

What, specifically, makes you think member of the House are actually super informed? And I think Bang's point is that the place is FULL of pure political cowardice and political opportunism. I think this is the same situation. They don't want to be labeled as soft on terrorism, especially if it could impact their chances of staying in Congress.

Edited November 20, 2015 by mistertim

[The Evil Genius]

These are the same guys that keep voting down veteran benefits, right?

I guess it's better PR in the long run that they don't assist refugees while they're actively ****ing over Americans who have sacrificed for this country.

 

 

~Bang

 

There is a long list of bipartisan supported vet benefit programs that GOP Senators Mitch McConell and Tom Coburn  (and their ilk) have either tabled or hijacked into death. I provided a list of a few a few days ago.

 

The GOP message here isn't really about spending the dollars elsewhere (like on veterans rather than on refugees). That's just the convenient out for them to repeat so that they don't have to really say what they think.

Edited November 20, 2015 by The Evil Genius

[The 12th Commandment]

Good Post DogofWar1.  

Frankly though, if I was the President, I'd sign this, just so that if anyone slipped through, however unlikely that is, you've got political cover.  It's a zero sum game if you don't, but if you do, you can come out okay even if an attack happens through a refugee vector, again, despite the lack of likelihood of that happening.

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.

Edited November 20, 2015 by KAOSkins

[Larry]

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.

Although I can certainly see how that MIGHT be an accurate description of the law, I'm not sure I want to jump to that conclusion.

For example, the summary at least implies that the DHS part of the background check is already happening. (At says that it's simply adding an FBI part).

And for all I know, the "certify that this person is not a threat" is the existing standard.

But yeah, it's certainly POSSIBLE that a law that mandates that the heads of three federal agencies must personally certify that each individual refugee is not a threat, in writing, to Congress, is not an attempt to make us safe, but rather a setup so that if something happens, Congress can play politics with tragedy on a much larger scale than they're doing, right now.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Larry

[Zguy28]

Apples and Oranges Bang... C'mon man....  really?

Then tell all your crazy friends on Facebook to stop using it as an argument against refugees. Thanks.

[Bang]

Apples and Oranges Bang... C'mon man....  really?

 

Well, i don't see it that way.

If you're just going to make a statement that it makes sense because Congress said so,, then it's open.

 

Congress is not on your side.

Or my side, either.

 

I mean, unless you're a gun manufacturer or a weapons manufacturer or any of the other giant lobbies that will make a ton of cash off of fear and war.

 

Knee jerk reactions based on rampant and spoon-fed paranoia is plain stupid.

 

All of us are in this country because our ancestors fled something.

Occasionally we have n intrepid immigrant who comes here for opportunity,, but mostly it's because opportunity where they left is scarce or has been removed.

If you look back far enough, your ancestors got you here because they fled something else.

Famines, wars, religious or ideological zealots.. we're here for the exact same reasons they are now at the door.

 

I do agree the chance exists that terrorists will use them for cover.

"A wolf in sheep's clothing" is cliché for a reason,, it's a tactic as old as war.

 

And we can overcome that.

 

~Bang

Edited November 20, 2015 by Bang

[mistertim]

I think the current bill is more political theater and posturing than anything else. As others have pointed out, it doesn't seem to really add that much to an already robust process. Though I admit I haven't read the whole bill, just summaries. I could be wrong though...if Congress is good at anything (big IF), it is slipping nasty things into innocuous seeming bills.

 

Feels like this is mostly Republican politicians playing to the xenophobes and some Democrats being cowards and not wanting to be labeled soft.

[Zguy28]

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.

[tshile]

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)