[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

That really is a false equivalency to this particular ethnic group here and now. The perpetrators behind the recent crimes in Paris entered the country disguised as refugees. By accepting these people, we cold be posing a potential security risk, and I don't have faith in the Malloy administration to competently run the appropriate screenings and background checks. The leadership of this state has a deeper concern with appealing to people's sense of political correctness than genuinely doing the right thing in terms of economics and (in this case) exercising basic common sense. Even traditionally liberal states like Massachusetts are saying no to this, so it really isn't a partisan issue.

I would be more inclined to welcome to these people if they were willing to assimilate to our way of life. While there are indeed many who come here from mideastern nations seeking better lives for themselves and their families, and want to confirom to the idea of work hard and propser while still maintaining your traditions, there are nonetheless some who bring with them an antithetical set of values, and their attitude seems to be, "We are simply biding our time, until you do things our way." If that sounds like an exaggeration, take a moment to examine what's happened in European cities like Birmingham. The latest wave of migrants there expect longstanding residents to adapt to THEIR way of thinking, and this has been met with steep resistance (and understandably so).

If America really wants to extend a hand to those in need, may I suggest we start by first helping the nearly 50,000 homeless vets in this country? If we really want to re-claim this notion of American Exceptionalism (a concept that outlived its usefulness eons ago), we can start by addressing this problem first.

Only one of the perpetrators has been identified a coming into Europe as a refugee. Jay

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by mikefromct

if america really wants to extend a hand to those in need, may i suggest we start by first helping the nearly 50,000 homeless vets in this country? if we really want to re-claim this notion of american exceptionalism (a concept that outlived its usefulness eons ago), we can start by addressing this problem first.

yes +1000000.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Only one of the perpetrators has been identified a coming into Europe as a refugee. Jay

And look that what happened. What happens when there are 5 of them? Malloy just wants to let them in (after vetting of course ).

I don't care if there was 50. Over 500 people lost lives in the last week thanks to them. Beirut, Russia (in Egypt) and Paris. It only takes 1.

[SeaDoo342]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Only one of the perpetrators has been identified a coming into Europe as a refugee. Jay

ONLY?!

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by wolf39us

The states not "accepting" refugees don't have a choice in the matter. They can whine all they want.

I don't understand why this is much different than when we accepted Cuban refugees, or Vietnamese refugees etc. I'm willing to bet that if these people were white Christians there wouldn't be as much of a problem!

Those refugee situations were many years in the past and in a totally different geo-political environment (the Cold War). So I don't see how there can be a comparison with the current Syrian situation.

There is potentially a tremendous amount of downside letting them in. All it takes is just one refugee to commit a terrorist act or be caught in a terrorist plot and outcry against the refugees would be severe. Potentially violent. And while that reaction would be unfair and unjustified, its the reality of human nature. Plus the political fallout for the Democrats would be huge, especially in the upcoming election.

If the administration decides to go ahead with this, they need to be totally transparent about the screening process. They need to put people's fears to rest and how they will mitigate the terrorist risk. Just saying "its the right thing to do" and other platitudes will not work and will just ensure the inevitable backlash.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Those refugee situations were many years in the past and in a totally different geo-political environment (the Cold War). So I don't see how there can be a comparison with the current Syrian situation.

There is potentially a tremendous amount of downside letting them in. All it takes is just one refugee to commit a terrorist act or be caught in a terrorist plot and outcry against the refugees would be severe. Potentially violent. And while that reaction would be unfair and unjustified, its the reality of human nature. Plus the political fallout for the Democrats would be huge, especially in the upcoming election.

If the administration decides to go ahead with this, they need to be totally transparent about the screening process. They need to put people's fears to rest and how they will mitigate the terrorist risk. Just saying "its the right thing to do" and other platitudes will not work and will just ensure the inevitable backlash.

You don't need refugees for terrorist acts to be committed.

Only one of the Paris attackers were refugees.

None of the 9-11 attackers were.

Jihadists will get in one way or another if they are intent on attacking, they will.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

And look that what happened. What happens when there are 5 of them? Malloy just wants to let them in (after vetting of course ).

I don't care if there was 50. Over 500 people lost lives in the last week thanks to them. Beirut, Russia (in Egypt) and Paris. It only takes 1.

Of course they will be "vetted". The CBS News had a segment on it this morning. They cannot just walk into our country like they could in others. There is a rigorous process that they have to go through. In all it takes 18 to 24 months and includes multiple background checks, interviews, classes and screenings. Jay

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

You don't need refugees for terrorist acts to be committed.

Only one of the Paris attackers were refugees.

None of the 9-11 attackers were.

Jihadists will get in one way or another if they are intent on attacking, they will.

I agree with you. But what you or I may think is pretty much irrelevant when over 90% of the populace is against letting the refugees in. As I said before, all it takes is "only one" refugee to be involved in a terrorist plot for a political s--tstorm to erupt. So if they do this, they have to do it right. There will be no room for errors or mistakes in this process.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Of course they will be "vetted". The CBS News had a segment on it this morning. They cannot just walk into our country like they could in others. There is a rigorous process that they have to go through. In all it takes 18 to 24 months and includes multiple background checks, interviews, classes and screenings. Jay

There are plenty of large homes in Glastonbury, I'll email Malloy and tell him that Glastonbury is the perfect town for them.

Don't worry, they will be vetted.

[CTDex]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Of course they will be "vetted". The CBS News had a segment on it this morning. They cannot just walk into our country like they could in others. There is a rigorous process that they have to go through. In all it takes 18 to 24 months and includes multiple background checks, interviews, classes and screenings. Jay

The same way they "vetted" the Boston Marathon bombers? The Russian security forces continued to provide American authorities with info that they were up to no good while visiting Russia and were completely ignored!


The "vetting" process is often not as rigorous as people think as bored officials rubberstamp many of the applications and simply go through the motions.


In a situation like this it is impossible to get an accurate background as many of the refugees have no documentation at all and cannot substantiate any of their stories or their backgrounds.

The Europeans are finding that the majority of supposed "refugees" are lying about their identity just to get in the door. The same would almost certainly happen here!


Bringing them to CT is a HUGE liability with no gain. They should be left in the camps in the Middle East where they are already provided for.