House votes to block Syrian refugees

[Coyote]

Nothing is 100%. In fact, that's the foolishness of the politicians demanding a certification guaranteeing 100% - it will never happen. But if you want 100% you are going to end up with a nation isolated within 4 walls where no one enters and no one leaves. So you go with what is reasonable, based on evidence. This political hysteria is based on what happened in France. The refugees coming into Europe are completely different than the refugees coming into the U.S. in regards to the vetting process.

Nothing is 100%.

Exactly which is why we need to develop a better means of vetting , until then all is on hold with taking in Syrian refugees.

That makes no sense. You will never have 100%. At this point there is no evidence that the current system does not work.

I said "better" not 100%

And yet at this point there is no evidence that the current system does not work, in fact it seems to be very thorough and careful - so why stop everything because a country, which has a far less thorough system experienced a horrible terrorist attack?

Because even one casualty is unacceptable . These people are NOT US citizens they should not receive the same right and protections US citizens do.

There haven't been any casualties.

 

[Alex.]

Exactly which is why we need to develop a better means of vetting , until then all is on hold with taking in Syrian refugees.

That makes no sense. You will never have 100%. At this point there is no evidence that the current system does not work.

I said "better" not 100%

And yet at this point there is no evidence that the current system does not work, in fact it seems to be very thorough and careful - so why stop everything because a country, which has a far less thorough system experienced a horrible terrorist attack?

Because even one casualty is unacceptable . These people are NOT US citizens they should not receive the same right and protections US citizens do.

There haven't been any casualties.

There haven't been any casualties.

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

 

[Coyote]

That makes no sense. You will never have 100%. At this point there is no evidence that the current system does not work.

I said "better" not 100%

And yet at this point there is no evidence that the current system does not work, in fact it seems to be very thorough and careful - so why stop everything because a country, which has a far less thorough system experienced a horrible terrorist attack?

Because even one casualty is unacceptable . These people are NOT US citizens they should not receive the same right and protections US citizens do.

There haven't been any casualties.

There haven't been any casualties.

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

 

[Alex.]

I said "better" not 100%

And yet at this point there is no evidence that the current system does not work, in fact it seems to be very thorough and careful - so why stop everything because a country, which has a far less thorough system experienced a horrible terrorist attack?

Because even one casualty is unacceptable . These people are NOT US citizens they should not receive the same right and protections US citizens do.

There haven't been any casualties.

There haven't been any casualties.

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

 

[Coyote]

And yet at this point there is no evidence that the current system does not work, in fact it seems to be very thorough and careful - so why stop everything because a country, which has a far less thorough system experienced a horrible terrorist attack?

Because even one casualty is unacceptable . These people are NOT US citizens they should not receive the same right and protections US citizens do.

There haven't been any casualties.

There haven't been any casualties.

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

 

[Alex.]

Because even one casualty is unacceptable . These people are NOT US citizens they should not receive the same right and protections US citizens do.

There haven't been any casualties.

There haven't been any casualties.

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

To me that is safe practices.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There haven't been any casualties.

There haven't been any casualties.

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

To me that is safe practices.

To me it's a bunch of un-American chickenshits with their panties in a bunch. Get some balls, people. ISIS has made you afraid of your own damn shadow...

 

[Coyote]

There haven't been any casualties.

There haven't been any casualties.

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

To me that is safe practices.

That would be like looking at the Colorado Theatre Shooting and banning all guns until we figure out how to prevent crazy people from obtaining them and wreaking carnage.

 

[Alex.]

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

To me that is safe practices.

That would be like looking at the Colorado Theatre Shooting and banning all guns until we figure out how to prevent crazy people from obtaining them and wreaking carnage.

no that would be like not allowing Syrian refugees into US until we come up with a better way to vet.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

and we all want to keep it that way. Luckily we have the House who feels the same way.

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

To me that is safe practices.

That would be like looking at the Colorado Theatre Shooting and banning all guns until we figure out how to prevent crazy people from obtaining them and wreaking carnage.

Oh no, we can't have that. 9,000 guns deaths a year here is fine but 129 deaths in Paris and the world is required to stop spinning because danger is at hand.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

To me that is safe practices.

That would be like looking at the Colorado Theatre Shooting and banning all guns until we figure out how to prevent crazy people from obtaining them and wreaking carnage.

no that would be like not allowing Syrian refugees into US until we come up with a better way to vet.

No, it would like there are no guns allowed and no one can go to the movies because you are afraid...

 

[Coyote]

Again you make no sense with your argument.

We have a system that works.
There have been zero casualties.
Yet you think that because there was a terrorist attack in another country, with a very different system - we now need to suspend taking in well vetted refugees.

That's not rational.

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

To me that is safe practices.

That would be like looking at the Colorado Theatre Shooting and banning all guns until we figure out how to prevent crazy people from obtaining them and wreaking carnage.

no that would be like not allowing Syrian refugees into US until we come up with a better way to vet.

There is no evidence showing we need a "better way to vet" because our vetting has worked thus far. Reassess it and double check it sure but there is no need to halt the whole program when the program has worked very well to date.

 

[Vandalshandle]

America already has this on our conscious:

The Tragedy of S.S. St. Louis | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[Jroc]

America already has this on our conscious:

The Tragedy of S.S. St. Louis | Jewish Virtual Library

Why is it that all the Jew haters on the board use Jews to push unvetted muslim immigrants

 

[Alex.]

New situations require a revisit to the old way of doing things.

Of course. But it doesn't require a total suspension of a well functioning program in order to revisit. That's the politics of fear over rational thought.

To me that is safe practices.

That would be like looking at the Colorado Theatre Shooting and banning all guns until we figure out how to prevent crazy people from obtaining them and wreaking carnage.

no that would be like not allowing Syrian refugees into US until we come up with a better way to vet.

There is no evidence showing we need a "better way to vet" because our vetting has worked thus far. Reassess it and double check it sure but there is no need to halt the whole program when the program has worked very well to date.

This is what the House wants, "The bill would require the FBI director to certify a background investigation for each refugee -- and several top security officials including the DHS secretary to certify that each refugee is not a security threat to the U.S. -- before a refugee from Iraq or Syria can be admitted." Why do you have such a problem with that?

 

[Vandalshandle]

America already has this on our conscious:

The Tragedy of S.S. St. Louis | Jewish Virtual Library

Why is it that all the Jew haters on the board use Jews to push unvetted muslim immigrants

Excuse me? Jew haters? Just how the hell did you decide that I was a Jew hater?

This is going to be VERY interesting.

 

[Jroc]

1 .The “Refugees” Are Not Fleeing Persecution, They’re Welfare Migrants

Syria is in the middle of a religious war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

But Sunni Muslims fleeing religious persecution can choose one of the many Sunni states in the region. Most Syrians have ended up in Jordan and Turkey, which are both Sunni countries. The Sunni Muslim countries are certainly not persecuting their fellow Sunnis. And neither country is run by ISIS.

Likewise Shiite Muslims can find sanctuary in Shiite Iran or parts of Lebanon.

The only authentic refugees are Christians and Yazidis who do not have a country to call their own in the region. Only these non-Muslim peoples can be considered refugees fleeing religious persecution.

Sunni Muslims stopped being persecuted refugees the moment they set foot in Jordan or Turkey. Talk of resettling them in the United States or Europe has nothing to do with “persecution.” It’s economic migration. And economic migration in this case is a euphemism for welfare migration.

Muslims are not fleeing to Europe because of religious persecution, but for economic reasons. They specifically seek out countries such as Germany and Sweden with generous welfare states.

The media loves offering false analogies to Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. But the Jews were a stateless people then. They had no country of their own go to. Muslims have more countries than nearly every other religion on the planet. They choose to go to the wealthiest Western countries, rejecting Slovenia and Bulgaria for Germany and Sweden, because they want money and they want easy money.

Syrian Muslims are not refugees. They’re migrants. Only Christians and other non-Muslims are refugees.

While Muslims have easy access to UN refugee camps in Muslim countries, Christians have trouble surviving there. But by outsourcing our immigration to the UN’s refugee infrastructure, we abandon Christian refugees and instead take in Muslim welfare migrants. And that is truly shameful.

There is no reason for us to provide special privileges for Muslim economic migrants. A Gallup poll showed that 138 million people would like to move to America. We can’t even begin to accommodate a fraction of that number. We already take in far more immigrants every year than we can afford.

Three Media Lies About Syrian Refugees

 

[dannyboys]

What organizations do you work with and how many families or individual refugees do you currently sponsor/work with.

What is the point of your question asking for personal information?

Not personal just wanted to understand the level of your commitment to your talking point. I know what I have done to help maintain the safety and way of life in the US. If you wish to know I have no problem sharing that without any personal information as it is unnecessary.

My state has no refugees as of yet, is not slated for any - yet. The place where I work is involved in several activities to help refugees (collecting donations etc). We also have an organization that is working to put pressure on our representatives to take refugees. I'm involved with supporting them. I am not interested in what you've done.

So on a personal level you have not done much. Thanks. Just wanted to know who I am dealing with. I would like to see how your views may change after experiencing the refugees and the constant possibility of a terroristic act. All I want are better measures, that is more than reasonable.

On a personal level, I've done as much as I am able. There is no "constant possibility of a terrorist act" with Syrian refugees. Look at the history of them in our country - there's years worth of data showing that the vetting and monitoring process has been largely successful. I know exactly what I am dealing with in you.

This my friend is where you have completely lost the argument.
"Years worth a data........" does not include ANY data after ISIS took effective control of large parts of the ME.
The Syrians who were allowed to immigrate "for years" to the US were 100% highly educated professionals like doctors and engineers.
Today's Syrian refugees are pretty much illiterates with no marketable skill sets AKA there are no jobs for them. YES YES they MAY be the odd 'professional' among them but then the exception proves the rule.
In fact 99.99% of the highly educated Syrians have taken their gold and their family out of Syria a couple of years ago.

 

[dannyboys]

Any American Muslim with an ounce of common sense would be completely behind strict vetting to keep ISIS terrorists from entering the US and committing violent acts because THEY will be the community that will be most affected by such an attack! It's unfortunate but a fact of life. If attacks like Paris continue then there will be a backlash against all Muslims.

I haven't heard from any American Muslims about vetting Syrian refugees.

That would be interesting to see how they feel about it.

They are fucking TERRIFIED is how they feel about it.

That's an interesting response.

American Muslims are terrified of Syrian refugees coming over?

Your basic 'peace loving' moderate American muslim family is like your basic rural American Protestant 'peace loving' church going family.
Your basic 'peace loving' Syrian muslim family is like the Westboro United church by comparison.
Peace loving American muslims what fuck all to do with the Syrian refugees who are all bringing their Sharia law with them to America.

 

[dannyboys]

I have a big problem with 20,000 Islamic refugees from an ISIS hot bed that are not properly screened.

Where do the refugees stay while being vetted?

Where are they now?....

So... you don't know?
I don't either, which is why I asked.
It is not my impression, however that these refugees will stay where they are until "vetted", rather they will come here pending that process.
If so, where do these people stay? Are they free to roam about?

They are put up in rural hotels and motels. Each room has a fully modern kitchenette'.
Laundry facilities are free.
Many have swimming pools.
The refugees are given food vouchers which they can use at local grocery stores.
There are NO food or drinks items which can not be redeemed by the voucher. Funny how the hard liquor/beer/wine and cigarettes are flying off the shelves.
Garbage collection daily. But most of the garbage ends up in the hallways.
Bookmobiles with books catering to the 'muslim' sensibility' arrive every two days.
Chartered buses make trips to the nearest mosques.
There is no one responsible for keeping track of any refugee once they have entered the USA. No one.
Any muslim refugee can walk into a mosque and basically disappear off the radar.
This is happening.
I toured a twenty room well maintained 'Ma and Pa' rural motel that anyone would be OK staying in recently. The federal government promised the owners if any damage was caused by the refugees the owners would be fully reimbursed. When I visited the motel after it had been taken over by arab refugees you wouldn't allow your fucking dog to stay in the motel. The owners are now having to sue the government to have the motel bulldozed and a new one rebuilt.
News of this happening within the social network of hotel and motel owners who are posting photos and warning about refugees taking over their establishments and basically destroying them within months.