Reply With Quote
Um oh wait um ... oh yeah , thats different.
How did they ever clear any of the 2000 already here?
Um oh wait um ... oh yeah , thats different.
John Oliver Destroys.
Repugs are LYING, FEAR MONGERING, HATE MONGERING, and rightwingnut Spurtalkers suck it all down as true, or at least satisfies their delicious hate, fear, paranoia, racism, xenophobia.
John Oliver rips Huckabee over refugee fear-mongering: ‘More men named Mike have killed people’
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/john...e+Raw+Story%29
no DATABASES!
Deadly PEANUTS!
no DATABASES!
CAN'T VET NOBODY!
no DATABASES!
Syrian refugees comin to kill us all!
no DATABASES!
TSA, paranoid, gullible, xenophobic, gun fellatin nutcase, you still need an "answer"?
For a historical perspective on "there's nothing new under the sun" :
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/23/the_poisonous_fear_of_donald_trump_a_recent_histor y_of_the_most_politically_destructive_emotion/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-23-2015 at 08:20 AM.
My point was that we decide what the costs/benefits are all the time, and that the costs in terms of risk to human lives are more than outweighed by adding to our economy. We need the jobs that immigrants bring and create.
First comment
It might help if you had not been lazy/sloppy and posted a link to the pdf excerpted. Since I am not lazy:
https://homeland.house.gov/wp-conten...gee_Report.pdf
Second comment:
House Homeland Security Committee is controlled by Republicans. While that doesn't invalidate the findings, it sure does invite one to be a bit more skeptical of the conclusions drawn based on the evidence.
Third comment:
Most people fleeing the fighting, aren't supporters of ISIS. Supporters of ISIS tend to move to the areas ISIS controls.
Fourth comment:
About all that report says is "there is a risk". Duh. What is the scope and magnitude of the risk? The report was markedly silent on that.
Fifth comment:
Posting that says more about your gullibility than anything else.
Howzat?
I'm not. Those top officials never said they weren't confident enough in the process to continue allowing migration of Syrian refugees. They gave the risks, and the committee weighed them.
You're confusing a congressional committee with intelligence.
fawning acceptance of whatever GOP pols and pundits say, plus undying su ion of the other tribe -- and vice versa -- is most of what passes for conversation here.
Mike Rawlings is pretty great.
Why It Takes Two Years for Syrian Refugees to Enter the U.S.
Syrians must pass many layers of security checks before being admitted to the United States, a process that can take two years or longer. In most cases, the refugees do not enter the United States until the very end. They are also subject to an additional layer of checks beyond those for refugees of other nationalities; after the Paris attacks, the House voted to further tighten screening procedures.
Since 2011, the United States has admitted fewer than 2,000 Syrian refugees.
1.Registration with the United Nations.
2.Interview with the United Nations.
3.Refugee status granted by the United Nations.
4.Referral for resettlement in the United States.
The United Nations decides if the person fits the definition of a refugee and whether to refer the person to a country for resettlement. Only the most vulnerable are referred, accounting for fewer than 1 percent of refugees worldwide. Some people spend years waiting in refugee camps.
5.Interview with State Department contractors.
6.First background check.
7.Higher-level background check for some.
8.Another background check.
The refugee’s name is run through law enforcement and intelligence databases for terrorist or criminal history. Some go through a higher-level clearance before they can continue. A third background check was introduced in 2008 for Iraqis but has since been expanded to all refugees ages 14 to 65.
9.First fingerprint screening; photo taken.
10.Second fingerprint screening.
11.Third fingerprint screening.
The refugee’s fingerprints are screened against F.B.I. and Homeland Security databases, which contain watch list information and past immigration encounters, including if the refugee previously applied for a visa at a United States embassy. Fingerprints are also checked against those collected by the Defense Department during operations in Iraq.
12.Case reviewed at United States immigration headquarters.
13.Some cases referred for additional review.
Syrian applicants must undergo these two additional steps. Each is reviewed by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services refugee specialist. Cases with “national security indicators” are given to the Homeland Security Department’s fraud detection unit.
14.Extensive, in-person interview with Homeland Security officer.
Most of the interviews with Syrians have been done in Jordan and Turkey.
15.Homeland Security approval is required.
If the House bill becomes law, the director of the F.B.I., the Homeland Security secretary and the director of national intelligence would be required to confirm that the applicant poses no threat.
16.Screening for contagious diseases.
17.Cultural orientation class.
18.Matched with an American resettlement agency.
19.Multi-agency security check before leaving for the United States.
Because of the long amount of time between the initial screening and departure, officials conduct a final check before the refugee leaves for the United States.
20.Final security check at an American airport.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ed-states.html
I think this drives at the root of the disagreement. The people who don't want to take in Syrian refugees see no benefit in resetting them in the US. It is only risk/cost so the decision is very binary.
"risk to human lives are more than outweighed by adding to our economy."
exactly the same is true of the 11M or whatever illegal immigrants. Get them paying taxes, getting health care, getting their employers to pay their payroll taxes, and we know people at the low end, even at the middel, spend every worthless penny they make.
we can have secure borders, or be a commercially great nation. pick one.
As with Iraqi refugess, many of the Syrians are from the professional and business classes, unlike the MX, etc des ute immigrants
Eyup. For sociopaths, who care little for other humans the benefits are indeed hard to fathom. That is the crux of the problem.
The link was already posted in this thread.
I was more interested in the quotes from government security officials citing the lack of data on Syrians than the committee's findingsSecond comment:
House Homeland Security Committee is controlled by Republicans. While that doesn't invalidate the findings, it sure does invite one to be a bit more skeptical of the conclusions drawn based on the evidence.
Most is not all.Third comment:
Most people fleeing the fighting, aren't supporters of ISIS. Supporters of ISIS tend to move to the areas ISIS controls.
Same as 2.Fourth comment:
About all that report says is "there is a risk". Duh. What is the scope and magnitude of the risk? The report was markedly silent on that.
I've been asking those who are confident in the screening process where the information to cross check Syrian refugees would be coming from and so far have not gotten a good answer.Fifth comment:
Posting that says more about your gullibility than anything else.
Howzat?
people who want a little more scrutiny on a screening process that is admittedly flawed are now sociopaths....okay
Except your position is not "a little more scrutiny". From what I can deduce, it is "unless we have a risk-free process, no refugees. And since it is impossible to have a risk-free process, no refugees."
I don't mind scrutiny and some sane screening process. That isn't what the GOP and the nutters want though. They want an ironclad guarantee that is neither feasible, nor desirable, given the scope of the problem.
For no few of the people talking about this that I have seen, they just don't want to mooslims, no how, no way. The screening is merely a thin cover for that.
It is not just the GOP that are asking for this, many of your fellow Democrats are asking for the same.
Incorrect on my position.
Ok. So what "little more scrutiny" should be applied, in addition to the above? That seems pretty thorough, basically about as good as we can do.
He did say "and the nutters". There are plenty of nutters on the Dem side. Fear-mongering by the Repugs and Dems cowering in the corner like little girls is a time-honored tradition in modern American politics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
