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.
Religion, by its nature, is one of the most devisive and coercive inventions ever conceived by humans. God help us....oh, wait!
You're wrong about that - its not the religion itself...its PEOPLE corrupted with pride, racism/xenophobia, and other maladies of the human mind.
There are many, many cases of divisiveness/violence perpetrated without using religion as an excuse. If people WANT something, they were usually driven to get it at the lives of others.
It was christian - based institutions through much of the last two centuries that cared for immigrants in this country when the quality of life was much worse than today. Food, clothing, assimilation - often run by catholic, presbyterian, and lutheran churches in the magnet cities in the US from the late 1800s to the 1940s.
No. We don't need to stop helping people.
But when conservatives express concern that we may want to check out WHO we're helping and WHO we're welcoming into our communities, maybe we actually have some valid points that are worthy of consideration instead of the reflexive Progressive response of labeling us as racist xenophobes.
But the country was already doing that. The refugee vetting process was already lengthy and multi-layered. I don’t know why people (right, left, doesn’t matter) would just assume that nobody was paying attention to national security before this administration.
Now, if you want to say that what the feds were doing wasn’t working, after having looked at what they were doing, then you can have a discussion. But if you “express concern that we may want to check out WHO we’re helping”, that makes it sound like you don’t think anybody is doing that. Anybody making such a claim is not acting in good faith, and anybody who believes them is not thinking this through.
But the country was already doing that. The refugee vetting process was already lengthy and multi-layered. I don’t know why people (right, left, doesn’t matter) would just assume that nobody was paying attention to national security before this administration.
Now, if you want to say that what the feds were doing wasn’t working, after having looked at what they were doing, then you can have a discussion. But if you “express concern that we may want to check out WHO we’re helping”, that makes it sound like you don’t think anybody is doing that. Anybody making such a claim is not acting in good faith, and anybody who believes them is not thinking this through.
It's because conservatives are not being honest about what they want. That vocal xenophobe hasn't said one thing they would like to see improved and that's because the reality is they just don't want certain people coming here. If there was a real concern for stopping acts of terrorism then these same posters screaming "EXTREME VETTING!" at the top of their lungs would also want to tackle white nationalist terrorist gun crimes perpetrated by US citizens, which is way more of an issue.
I'd love to hear specific vetting improvements that these people would like to see implemented, but really it's likely "Don't let any more brown people in."
It's because conservatives are not being honest about what they want. That vocal xenophobe hasn't said one thing they would like to see improved and that's because the reality is they just don't want certain people coming here. If there was a real concern for stopping acts of terrorism then these same posters screaming "EXTREME VETTING!" at the top of their lungs would also want to tackle white nationalist terrorist gun crimes perpetrated by US citizens, which is way more of an issue.
I'd love to hear specific vetting improvements that these people would like to see implemented, but really it's likely "Don't let any more brown people in."
Actually, the same posters that are screaming “EXTREME VETTING” simply don’t want anyone in the country that isn’t extremely vetted, and have often said to prosecute criminals, no matter who they are, where they’re from, what their color is, etc..., to the fullest extent of the law.
Sadly, there are those that think every white person is racist and/or xenophobic, and just continue to try to push that narrative, “because Conservatives”.
I honestly don’t think it’s xenophobia across the board. I think people are easily (mis) led. The conservative characterization of a liberal is that liberals let basically everybody in the country due to being such bleeding hearts, but it wasn’t true under the Clinton or Obama administration (and Richard Clarke claimed that the Clinton administration tried to warn the Bush administration about Bin Laden, it’s in his book). I don’t understand how anybody operating in good faith could possibly buy this mischaracterization. I don’t get why liberals fall for it either. People were being vetted back when Ellis Island was a thing. The vetting got Jews sent back to Europe in the 1940s. This is not a new development. Conservatives do not “own” national security and people were being vetted before.
I honestly don’t think it’s xenophobia across the board. I think people are easily (mis) led. The conservative characterization of a liberal is that liberals let basically everybody in the country due to being such bleeding hearts, but it wasn’t true under the Clinton or Obama administration (and Richard Clarke claimed that the Clinton administration tried to warn the Bush administration about Bin Laden, it’s in his book). I don’t understand how anybody operating in good faith could possibly buy this mischaracterization. I don’t get why liberals fall for it either. People were being vetted back when Ellis Island was a thing. The vetting got Jews sent back to Europe in the 1940s. This is not a new development. Conservatives do not “own” national security and people were being vetted before.
It’s certainly not xenophobia across the board. Some just think it is, and they’ve been “(mis) led” to believe nothing else.
It’s obvious there are cracks in the vetting process. Many simply want the cracks fixed as best as possible.
Our immigration laws also apply to people from the UK and Canada. Often, people from those countries who wish to stay here are caucasian. And sometimes the immigrant doesn't get things to go their preferred way.
This we don't hear about - well, its not news, not something useful to know, but it shows how ordinary course of law can be twisted to be all about race.
Our immigration laws also apply to people from the UK and Canada. Often, people from those countries who wish to stay here are caucasian. And sometimes the immigrant doesn't get things to go their preferred way.
This we don't hear about - well, its not news, not something useful to know, but it shows how ordinary course of law can be twisted to be all about race.
Bingo...but doesn’t fit the narrative some always try to push.
But the country was already doing that. The refugee vetting process was already lengthy and multi-layered. I don’t know why people (right, left, doesn’t matter) would just assume that nobody was paying attention to national security before this administration.
Now, if you want to say that what the feds were doing wasn’t working, after having looked at what they were doing, then you can have a discussion. But if you “express concern that we may want to check out WHO we’re helping”, that makes it sound like you don’t think anybody is doing that. Anybody making such a claim is not acting in good faith, and anybody who believes them is not thinking this through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xdv8
It's because conservatives are not being honest about what they want. That vocal xenophobe hasn't said one thing they would like to see improved and that's because the reality is they just don't want certain people coming here. If there was a real concern for stopping acts of terrorism then these same posters screaming "EXTREME VETTING!" at the top of their lungs would also want to tackle white nationalist terrorist gun crimes perpetrated by US citizens, which is way more of an issue.
I'd love to hear specific vetting improvements that these people would like to see implemented, but really it's likely "Don't let any more brown people in."
Ok.
So here are some items of interest from the HeritageFoundation link:
Quote:
In additional to these background checks, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducts a refugee interview. These interviews cover everything from refugee and immigration matters to security and country specific questions.
For example, Syrian refugee officers must undergo a one week training course on Syria-specific issues, including classified information. Additional scrutiny is already being applied to Syrians through the enhanced review for Syrian applicants process that puts additional security and intelligence resources at the disposal of adjudicators.
...
After an average of 12-18 months, this process ends with entry into the U.S.
...
The U.S. has made constant improvements to the program, learning from mistakes such as when in 2009, two Iraqi terrorists were caught in the U.S. after slipping through the vetting process. https://www.heritage.org/immigration...-process-works
I never said that we were doing nothing, sealie.
And for xdv8: No soy racista. Pero, eres un pen-de-jo
So what should be done differently?
Well, more training for our adjudicators. Do you really think that a weeks worth of training is sufficient to have these folks be subject matter experts on the area of the world that they're making decisions about? Is one week enough to give someone enough knowledge to be able to form an informed opinion about someone fleeing from the Syrian Civil War, given the enormous complexity of that War? I don't think so.
As for the interview questions themselves, I do wonder if they're polygraphed.
Obviously, the human element (interrogation/interviews) needs to be improved. Not only did this person slip through, but let's not forget the Tsarnaev brothers - the terrorists (who were in this country as refugees) who attacked the Boston Marathon also made it through our screening process.
The Potatoheaded disgrace wanted to jump on the bandwagon, like he always does:
Quote:
While the United States faced increased international pressure to accept more refugees in general, the Obama administration has recently decided to increase the overall number of refugees in 2016 to 85,000 and by 2017, has planned to increase to 100,000- a total increase of 30,000 from past years. Unfortunately, this is still a mere fraction of the number of refugees that European countries have accepted.
Both Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh, specifically, have declared that they will make a push to accept more refugees. In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Wolf recently announced that his administration believes it can handle an additional 10,000 refugees from Syria. This announcement comes at a time when 30 governors declared they will be shutting their doors to refugees.
In addition, mayors of 18 cities who are all part of the Cities United for Immigration Action coalition, have signed documentation stating they are willing to accept more refugees. Mayor Peduto has been one of the strongest supporters of accepting higher numbers, stating that he would allow up to 500 refugees to come to Pittsburgh. He explained, “Aside from the humanitarian side, which all world religions know, we need to accept these refugees. We have a situation that, if we don’t do something, it’s only going to escalate and get worse.”
Since his announcement this past fall, Peduto’s security has been tightened as many people have expressed anger with his decision. Many others, however, agree with Peduto’s powerful statements. He believes Americans “have to fight for the principles of democracy…which other people look towards as a place where they can escape the hell they live in.” https://www.worldpittsburgh.org/syri...nt-in-the-u-s/
What we did, didn't work.
I'm not saying that the US government did nothing, in regards to vetting the refugees. But some obviously got through the cracks.
Liberals here wanted to go further and accept more refugees. Overwhelming an already imperfect system, by accepting more refugees so that American Progressives could Tweet about how they were as "woke" as Justin Trudeau and Angela Merkel, would have obviously resulted in more errors: more terrorists would have slipped through the cracks.
And the ironic thing is that, Progressives like Comrade Peduto always increase their own personal security during times like these - but if the likes of you or I raise questions about OUR personal security (as a result of decisions taken by Progressive elites), then their loyal Red Guard footsoldiers (folks like xdv8 apparently) can smear us as being rascally reprehensible racists.
So yes, the US government needs to improve on its refugee screening. Adjudicators need to be further trained, and the in-person interviews obviously need to be more thorough.
There are other measures that can be taken.
Perhaps more attention should be paid to young, male refugees. Young men are the group most likely to engage in violence. Perhaps they should be vetted with additional scrutiny. Unless they're part of a family group, perhaps they should be excluded from refugee resettlement. Why should American boys be over in Syria fighting against terrorists, while Syrian boys were allowed to run to the United States and collect benefits from American taxpayers - instead of staying and defeating the terrorists in their own country?
And perhaps certain groups should be prioritized. Are Christian Arabs going to join ISIS and attack Americans? I don't think so. Are Yazidis going to join ISIS and attack Americans? I don't think so.
The Christians and Yazidis and Kurds and other minority groups SHOULD be prioritized for refugee resettlement into the US - because they dont have anywhere else safe to go in their own region.
Look at the Gulf Arab (Sunni) states, living lavishly with their petrodollars - how many refugees are those countries taking in??
Going to a place like Saudi Arabia certainly isnt safe for Syrian Christians or for Kurds or for Iraqi Yazidis. Let those persecuted groups come here, as we are qualified to give them the protection that they need and deserve, and they're not likely to sympathize with our enemies and stab us in the back. Let the Sunni Arabs like this little buddy of Peduto's go to a place like Saudi Arabia or the Emirates - places where they would be safe.
This topic is much more nuanced than 'the conservatives are a bunch of racists who dont believe in refugee resettlement, lets just discount any criticism that they have'....
Our immigration laws also apply to people from the UK and Canada. Often, people from those countries who wish to stay here are caucasian. And sometimes the immigrant doesn't get things to go their preferred way.
This we don't hear about - well, its not news, not something useful to know, but it shows how ordinary course of law can be twisted to be all about race.
You do know that it’s easier to get a US visa coming from some countries than it is from others, right? There is no singular US immigration law, where everyone gets the same set of rules. If you want to have an honest conversation, then you should accept and acknowledge that US immigration law is, and always has been racist. The very first restriction on immigration into this country is literally called the Chinese exclusion act, which was created… Well, I’m sure you can guess why.
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.
