House votes to block Syrian refugees

[jc456]

That's an interesting response.

American Muslims are terrified of Syrian refugees coming over?

She is assuming that they are moderates and would be terrified of radicals coming over and engaging in mischief, is how I read it.

IT isnt that simple though. Some are Jihadis wanting more recruits and some are moderates looking to live the American dream.

It doesn't matter. As long as jihadists are hiding amongst them, STOP THEM ALL. When we are able to find and prevent the jihadists from coming in, then start letting them back in. Or not.

That's what you guys say about illegals from Mexico, when most of that crime is illegal on illegal stuff.

I must say...I'm in favor of what Jerry Brown is talking about, and that is allowing the refugees, but vetting them as best we can, and watching them very closely.

I have no problem with refugees.

I have a big problem with tens of thousands of specifically ISLAMIC refugees that are not properly screened, just as I have a big problem with the fact that our traitorous prez refuses to catch, screen, deport or prosecute any of the tens of thousands of illegals coming across our southern border. The only people he is interested in "catching" appear to be the CHRISTIANS from the middle east, who do not pose any sort of threat to anybody, and who are actually being slaughtered as we speak by the very people we're waving across the borders.

In an exercise based purely on semantics, let me rephrase what you just said, to show the degree to which I agree.

I have no problem with refugees.

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

See...if you take out all the hysteria, the refugees will be screened, and that will minimize the risk.

But if you want to hate Muslims, Obama, Mexican illegals, and wallow in terrorized fear and hatred....go right ahead, I won't be joining you

no one asked you to join.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I believe this cartoon exposes the idiocy of the lefts wanting to bring these people to the US. There is no reason to bring them here.

There is plenty of reason to bring them here. We are a better people than those Gulf States.

we are, why are we better people because we are compassionate or stupid?

The words that come to my mind are foolish, ignorant, and sheep incapable of thinking for themselves or learning from history... How many centuries have these people been trying to remove Jews from the face of the earth? 3? 4? They even sided with Hitler in that endeavor.

 

[jc456]

Doing the right thing isn't "screwing the American people".

We did the wrong thing in the 1930's andn 40's.

Lets hope we don't repeat the mistake.

Listen, you anti American, anti human scum, the Jewish people had not declared WAR on us and were not a threat to security and safety, as Muslims are. Jewish terrorists were not flooding our borders. The Jewish people were victims of religious persecution, as the CHRISTIANS of the middle east are today. In the analogy of wwII\today's Islamic created crisis, YOU are on the side of the assholes like fdr who helped Hitler and blocked the Jews from entering our country by refusing to acknowledge their special refugee status..

Nope. I'm not the one trying to block refugees because of their religion. Sounds like you want to though.

no one else is either. we are blocking because of terrorists possibly immersed in the refugees. Has nothing to do with religion. Why do you go there?

ISIS are terrorists, I care there religion, I don't want them here period.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Because no one can certify that 100% - on ANY refugee.

The process, as it stands now, has worked well - there is no need to halt the entire program to satisfy irrational fears. Re-examine it, sure.

But what would be accomplished by "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."? Nothing. There is already an extensive background check done - asking for an additional layer of burueacracy does nothing to make it any more secure - except that it places the onus for guaranteeing something that can never be guaranteed 100% with ANY refugee on the backs of individuals who might be less likely to let anyone in for fear of repercussions?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

Because no one can certify that 100% - on ANY refugee.

The process, as it stands now, has worked well - there is no need to halt the entire program to satisfy irrational fears. Re-examine it, sure.

But what would be accomplished by "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."? Nothing. There is already an extensive background check done - asking for an additional layer of burueacracy does nothing to make it any more secure - except that it places the onus for guaranteeing something that can never be guaranteed 100% with ANY refugee on the backs of individuals who might be less likely to let anyone in for fear of repercussions?

There are few records that can be attached to any of these people. Their backgrounds can not be ascertained. That comes from the head of the FBI.

There are other options and other countries but they refuse because of the radical Islam they hold so dear. These people are their neighbors and they want nothing to do with them... and you folks think its wise for us too?

 

[jc456]

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?

Because no one can certify that 100% - on ANY refugee.

The process, as it stands now, has worked well - there is no need to halt the entire program to satisfy irrational fears. Re-examine it, sure.

But what would be accomplished by "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."? Nothing. There is already an extensive background check done - asking for an additional layer of burueacracy does nothing to make it any more secure - except that it places the onus for guaranteeing something that can never be guaranteed 100% with ANY refugee on the backs of individuals who might be less likely to let anyone in for fear of repercussions?

There are few records that can be attached to any of these people. Their backgrounds can not be ascertained. That comes from the head of the FBI.

There are other options and other countries but they refuse because of the radical Islam they hold so dear. These people are their neighbors and they want nothing to do with them... and you folks think its wise for us too?

Billy, they think they're compassionate people and better than the world. The exact reason why the world hates americans, dumb asses like these fks.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Because no one can certify that 100% - on ANY refugee.

The process, as it stands now, has worked well - there is no need to halt the entire program to satisfy irrational fears. Re-examine it, sure.

But what would be accomplished by "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."? Nothing. There is already an extensive background check done - asking for an additional layer of burueacracy does nothing to make it any more secure - except that it places the onus for guaranteeing something that can never be guaranteed 100% with ANY refugee on the backs of individuals who might be less likely to let anyone in for fear of repercussions?

There are few records that can be attached to any of these people. Their backgrounds can not be ascertained. That comes from the head of the FBI.

There are other options and other countries but they refuse because of the radical Islam they hold so dear. These people are their neighbors and they want nothing to do with them... and you folks think its wise for us too?

The head of the FBI has also stated he feels that the vetting process is good and that it works.

Other countries don't have the vetting process we do and many other countries ARE taking them - but they are overloaded.

 

[koshergrl]

Doing the right thing isn't "screwing the American people".

We did the wrong thing in the 1930's andn 40's.

Lets hope we don't repeat the mistake.

See that is the problem. You define what is the 'right thing' via your ideological premise then justify everything else as good for us because it corresponds to your ideology.

But your ideology is bullshit if it requires us to have open borders while we are fight an asymetrical war with several global terrorist organizations, dude.

Who said anything about open borders?

Plenty of people and you would know that if you would sober up and pay attention, dude.

Coyote is just high on life. She gets off on putting innocent people who have done nothing wrong, at risk of torture, death, dismemberment. She's absolutely giddy over abortion, too. Anything that accommodates those who victimize women and children.. She's all over it

 

[EverCurious]

I asked earlier but I've yet to see Comey, head of the FBI, saying our vetting process is fine. All I was able to find was a complaint from the Homeland Security head Johnson that the restrictions posed by the House bill are too stringent and would grind the refugee intake process to a halt. Which was kind of the point of the House bill so, duh on that really.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

The Director of the FBI explained in detail that the way we did vetting for other refugees is not going to work with the refugees coming from Syria. The FBI can't check names and details against a database because the information they are getting out of Syria is so spotty. It's why he's covering his ass by saying he's leery about vetting for Syrian refugees even though he's an Obama appointee.

 

[Oldstyle]

And let's use a little common sense here, Kiddies...if Obama's guy at the FBI is saying there is a problem...THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And let's use a little common sense here, Kiddies...if Obama's guy at the FBI is saying there is a problem...THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!

Of course there's a problem, but that's no excuse to panic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll bet that the majority of these people cannot prove they are who they say they are.
Someone explain how the FBI can vett such people.

 

[Oldstyle]

And let's use a little common sense here, Kiddies...if Obama's guy at the FBI is saying there is a problem...THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!

Of course there's a problem, but that's no excuse to panic.

If there is a problem...then why is asking for a little time to address that problem "panic"?

You want to see panic? Have an attack like Paris happen here in the US. You better be damned sure you're doing a good job vetting these refugees, Paint because it's quite obvious that ISIS would LOVE to do just that. You want to know why a lot of Democrats are voting for a time out until we get a handle on this? Because they grasp that there is a very real danger here and if something were to happen and they didn't vote for caution then their political careers would be OVER!

 

[jc456]

And let's use a little common sense here, Kiddies...if Obama's guy at the FBI is saying there is a problem...THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!

Of course there's a problem, but that's no excuse to panic.

seems you are panicking.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And let's use a little common sense here, Kiddies...if Obama's guy at the FBI is saying there is a problem...THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!

Of course there's a problem, but that's no excuse to panic.

If there is a problem...then why is asking for a little time to address that problem "panic"?

You want to see panic? Have an attack like Paris happen here in the US. You better be damned sure you're doing a good job vetting these refugees, Paint because it's quite obvious that ISIS would LOVE to do just that. You want to know why a lot of Democrats are voting for a time out until we get a handle on this? Because they grasp that there is a very real danger here and if something were to happen and they didn't vote for caution then their political careers would be OVER!

ISIS is already here. You are worried about the new blood when the old blood are the ones with the plans to blow the shit out of things. You don't need time, you need to think straight.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

seems you are panicking.

I am? Not even remotely. Seen it all before.

 

[jc456]

And let's use a little common sense here, Kiddies...if Obama's guy at the FBI is saying there is a problem...THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!

Of course there's a problem, but that's no excuse to panic.

If there is a problem...then why is asking for a little time to address that problem "panic"?

You want to see panic? Have an attack like Paris happen here in the US. You better be damned sure you're doing a good job vetting these refugees, Paint because it's quite obvious that ISIS would LOVE to do just that. You want to know why a lot of Democrats are voting for a time out until we get a handle on this? Because they grasp that there is a very real danger here and if something were to happen and they didn't vote for caution then their political careers would be OVER!

ISIS is already here. You are worried about the new blood when the old blood are the ones with the plans to blow the shit out of things. You don't need time, you need to think straight.

no we need to be smart, not irresponsible.

 

[jc456]

And let's use a little common sense here, Kiddies...if Obama's guy at the FBI is saying there is a problem...THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!

Of course there's a problem, but that's no excuse to panic.

seems you are panicking.

I am? Not even remotely. Seen it all before.

so why do you care if we detain them and vet them? What is it you're afraid of?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And let's use a little common sense here, Kiddies...if Obama's guy at the FBI is saying there is a problem...THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM!

Of course there's a problem, but that's no excuse to panic.

seems you are panicking.

I am? Not even remotely. Seen it all before.

so why do you care if we detain them and vet them? What is it you're afraid of?

I not afraid of anything, period. I'm pissed off that Americans in name only are typing to pull their usual xenophobic shit. It's shameful.