Question for those who approve of the plan to let Syrian immigrants in... (Christmas, Somali)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Syrian refugee family who went through 18-24 months of vetting is somehow more potentially risky than 70 million unvetted people who visit the US each year? Makes no sense.
You make more sense than anyone here! But trying to combat mass hysteria is a losing proposition. Especially the virtual lynch-mob that exists on city-data that cries and gnashes its teeth at everything coming out of Obama's mouth.
It's disgusting that so many people are supporting Trump, who is an admitted coward. Going to the Mexican border was one of the scariest moments of his life. He acted so proud of himself like he was some kind of hero for risking being so close to Mexico. I mean, get real! Millions of little girls who live at the border were not impressed.
And ben Carson, whose "profile in courage" included telling a robber in a restaurant, "Sir, I believe you want the person at the cash register."
Obviously these two Republican "front-runners" are just the leading edge of the most frightened and cowardly people in the U.S., afraid of their own shadows! Despicable!
I don't think its really an issue of are there any terrorists among the pool of refugees. The bigger issue is can you take of them and integrate them into society so that we don't have a large pool of frustrated, angry, poor, mistreated men (or women) who would later be susceptible to the teaching of some psychotic Islamist warmonger. If the US doesn't have the resources or will to take them in and ensure they can lead happy and productive lives here, then it does neither the US or the refugees any good to take them. The overwhelming majority of gangsters in the 20s and 30s were poor, miserable Italian and Jewish youth with no prospects of a bright future outside of organized crime. We end up with a similar situation with the refugees if not careful.
You make more sense than anyone here! But trying to combat mass hysteria is a losing proposition. Especially the virtual lynch-mob that exists on city-data that cries and gnashes its teeth at everything coming out of Obama's mouth.
I don't think its really an issue of are there any terrorists among the pool of refugees. The bigger issue is can you take of them and integrate them into society so that we don't have a large pool of frustrated, angry, poor, mistreated men (or women) who would later be susceptible to the teaching of some psychotic Islamist warmonger. If the US doesn't have the resources or will to take them in and ensure they can lead happy and productive lives here, then it does neither the US or the refugees any good to take them. The overwhelming majority of gangsters in the 20s and 30s were poor, miserable Italian and Jewish youth with no prospects of a bright future outside of organized crime. We end up with a similar situation with the refugees if not careful.
Best of luck to them though.
The U.S. has the advantage looking into a little window of that happening in Europe. The refugees are disgruntled, dissatisfied, angry. Seems they were promised something more than food, shelter and a little bit of cash and have not had their expectations met.
This is one aspect of the bill, instead of the Safe act why not call it the "no refugees ever act", who are they getting additional information from, Asad, Putin. France is taking in 30,000, Germany 800,000 and they are doing everything they can to block any immigration.
Quote:
The bill,sponsored by House Homeland Security chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, would block the settlement of Syrian and Iraqi refugees until Congress receives additional certification that asylum seekers from those countries have been subject to a thorough background investigation and don’t pose security threats to the U.S.
I favor putting all refugees on hold until the US resolves the 30 year challenge of illegal immigration which matters to no one.
70 million people from all over the world enter the US legally each year for purposes of tourism, business and education. Visitors from 38 countries that participate in the 1986 Visa Waiver Program do not require visas to enter the US. France, Belgium, UK and Germany are amongst the visa free program.
Most of those who participated in the Paris attack could have instead hopped a flight to the US.
There have been ongoing bills to expand the visa waiver program to promote US tourism and to gain international cooperation as it relates to tracking passengers and no fly lists. The latest bipartisan bill to expand the waiver program was introduced in September. This particular expansion initiative sought to increase tourism by 600,000 a year, add $ 7 billion to the economy and create 40,000 jobs.
In contrast, I heard on the news Senator Feinstein was drafting a bill and building bipartisan support to revamp the visa wIver program, in light of the Paris attack.
Most visa programs are nothing more than incremental sources for revenue for a country. Visas can be obtained for a fee at the point of entry in many countries. There's no vetting.
If there is a higher probability of overstaying a visa, US embassies conduct interviews and have wait lists. Those who travel for business are typically put on a fast track.
My point here is that it seems a tad foolish to think we are reducing the likelihood of terrorism in the US by blocking refugees from Syria and Iraq. Instead, it comes off as knee jerk, feel good, " do something" legislation.
A Syrian refugee family who went through 18-24 months of vetting is somehow more potentially risky than 70 million unvetted people who visit the US each year? Makes no sense.
Syrian refugee is the new scapegoat, I agree.
I don't think syrian refugees should be singled out, what I agree with 100% is again,
Sen. Rand Paul's plan
In my hometown of Bowling Green, Kentucky, we had two Iraqi refugees who were let into our country who were plotting to buy stinger missiles a few years ago, but they got arrested and put in jail. But I think we’re doing the wrong thing by just having this open door policy to bring in people without significant scrutiny. I’m for increasing scrutiny on people who come on student visas from the 25 countries that have significant jihadism. Also, any kind of permanent visas or green cards, we need to be very careful. I don’t think we’re being careful enough with who we let in.
I say RESTRICT IMMIGRATION FROM MUSLIM NATIONS, all 25 nations
Like I said in the other thread, you can never completely eliminate terrorism, but to say you can not manage the risk also makes no sense. You bring in these poor refugees, and they would be looked down upon as if every single one of them were terrorist suspect. They are not going to have a great time here. Plus, I doubt many want to stay in this country forever and be the contributory member of the society. Who doesn't want a country of their own? There is a great chance these young military aged men become more and more aggressive, and more and more radicalized. Should encourage them to go back to their own country and be a true warrior, fight with isis, fight for their dignity.
Yes there is an issue with not having a presence in Syria and being unable to establish details regarding certain terror suspects, does the GOP legislation address this shortfall?
Just believing that anything Obama recommends is bad is irrational and just demonstrates blind hatred for the president.
Still waiting to hear any details of the GOP legislation that improves the vetting, anyone?
The GOP just passed a bill in the House that demands additional vetting by the FBI. Obama has already said he plans to veto it.
You make more sense than anyone here! But trying to combat mass hysteria is a losing proposition. Especially the virtual lynch-mob that exists on city-data that cries and gnashes its teeth at everything coming out of Obama's mouth.
It's disgusting that so many people are supporting Trump, who is an admitted coward. Going to the Mexican border was one of the scariest moments of his life. He acted so proud of himself like he was some kind of hero for risking being so close to Mexico. I mean, get real! Millions of little girls who live at the border were not impressed.
And ben Carson, whose "profile in courage" included telling a robber in a restaurant, "Sir, I believe you want the person at the cash register."
Obviously these two Republican "front-runners" are just the leading edge of the most frightened and cowardly people in the U.S., afraid of their own shadows! Despicable!
The Obama Administration’s extreme caution about engagement in Syria led it to insist on such a thorough process of vetting potential Syrian allies that years of effort and tens of millions of dollars resulted in only a paltry handful of people being found acceptable to receive American weapons and training. The refugee vetting process won’t be nearly this thorough; it’s almost certain that the President’s program will result in settling people in the United States who could not be certified to fight for the United States in Syria.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
