Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Surly you know that without verifiable facts it is impossible to vet anyone... Don't you? It wont matter what system is in place, without facts you cant. As a retired LEO this one point glares like a spot light in you eyes.
What makes you think nothing is verifiable? The FBI and Homeland Security haven't said that.
Experience and training... That is what I use to determine what is fact and what is fiction. I used to investigate people and actions for a living.
I would think that the people doing this are similarly trained and experienced. I can't imagine they would be going on with it if they did not feel reasonably confident that security concerns were not adequately addressed.
Given the Obama Administrations historical ignorance and willful ignoring of facts this is not a safe bet.
We're talking about people in Homeland Security and the FBI - they certainly wouldn't stay silent if they felt there was significant risk.
Liberalism (and capitalism) made Judaism and Christianity tolerable, in most cases, for the rest of us. That process starts by continuing to remain liberal, even in troubled times with illiberal people of faith. You don't teach religious tolerance by being intolerant to the point of discrimination that goes against your core values. Since you are not a liberal, you will not understand.Jew aren't terrorist. The Jewish religion and later the Christen have went through a reformation. Islam has yet to do thatSame hatred, and just as wrong, and of course, from the same types of mental infants.They aren't Jews CAIR girl get through your head
A civil society has to be fought for. You cant force it on those muslims, They have to fight for it, and we cant take them all.Liberalism (and capitalism) made Judaism and Christianity tolerable, in most cases, for the rest of us. That process starts by continuing to remain liberal, even in troubled times with illiberal people of faith. You don't teach religious tolerance by being intolerant to the point of discrimination that goes against your core values. Since you are not a liberal, you will not understand.Jew aren't terrorist. The Jewish religion and later the Christen have went through a reformation. Islam has yet to do thatSame hatred, and just as wrong, and of course, from the same types of mental infants.They aren't Jews CAIR girl get through your head
That's correct, and it isn't done with guns and bombs. Your enemy is an idea, Liberals have a better one, and no one need die if everyone agrees. Of course, if everyone agrees with ISIS the same is roughly true only their idea stinks...A civil society has to be fought for.Liberalism (and capitalism) made Judaism and Christianity tolerable, in most cases, for the rest of us. That process starts by continuing to remain liberal, even in troubled times with illiberal people of faith. You don't teach religious tolerance by being intolerant to the point of discrimination that goes against your core values. Since you are not a liberal, you will not understand.Jew aren't terrorist. The Jewish religion and later the Christen have went through a reformation. Islam has yet to do thatSame hatred, and just as wrong, and of course, from the same types of mental infants.They aren't Jews CAIR girl get through your head
You have spoken about what I want throughout now you attribute this to "proponents".I never said 100% we have been down this road alreadyThis 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?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.
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?
That's what the proponents of the Bill are demanding.
You need information to vet. Except for a few of their leaders and some guys with British accents, we haven't got a clue. It's not like the have the sign of Cain on their foreheads. Only Obama and his idiot minions would think that.Syria hasn't had an effective government in about 10 years. How the fuck do they know who these people are? Most of them were little kids when the government lost control, and don't tell me intelligence services that could preempt the attack on Paris have any clue whatsoever.
Some people are idiotic in their self-righteousness.
Speaking of idiotic people, you do realize that we have a completely different vetting process for accepting refugees than Europe...yes?
Obama's vetting process:
So if they find them another country, why does that bother you? Why do they have to come here?Hopefully they will be. the intent of the bill that was passed in the House was to ensure it. What is your objection to it then? It clearly seems to be a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction.Surly you know that without verifiable facts it is impossible to vet anyone... Don't you? It wont matter what system is in place, without facts you cant. As a retired LEO this one point glares like a spot light in you eyes.
What makes you think nothing is verifiable? The FBI and Homeland Security haven't said that.
Experience and training... That is what I use to determine what is fact and what is fiction. I used to investigate people and actions for a living.
I would think that the people doing this are similarly trained and experienced. I can't imagine they would be going on with it if they did not feel reasonably confident that security concerns were not adequately addressed.
My objection is that what the bill may in fact put a halt to the acceptance of all Syrian immigrants by demanding impossible guarantees. Particularly given we are in an election cycle.
Never will be a liberal. Ever! You al are dumb fksLiberalism (and capitalism) made Judaism and Christianity tolerable, in most cases, for the rest of us. That process starts by continuing to remain liberal, even in troubled times with illiberal people of faith. You don't teach religious tolerance by being intolerant to the point of discrimination that goes against your core values. Since you are not a liberal, you will not understand.Jew aren't terrorist. The Jewish religion and later the Christen have went through a reformation. Islam has yet to do thatSame hatred, and just as wrong, and of course, from the same types of mental infants.They aren't Jews CAIR girl get through your head
Huh?That's correct, and it isn't done with guns and bombs. Your enemy is an idea, Liberals have a better one, and no one need die if everyone agrees. Of course, if everyone agrees with ISIS the same is roughly true only their idea stinks...A civil society has to be fought for.Liberalism (and capitalism) made Judaism and Christianity tolerable, in most cases, for the rest of us. That process starts by continuing to remain liberal, even in troubled times with illiberal people of faith. You don't teach religious tolerance by being intolerant to the point of discrimination that goes against your core values. Since you are not a liberal, you will not understand.Jew aren't terrorist. The Jewish religion and later the Christen have went through a reformation. Islam has yet to do thatSame hatred, and just as wrong, and of course, from the same types of mental infants.They aren't Jews CAIR girl get through your head
You have spoken about what I want throughout now you attribute this to "proponents".I never said 100% we have been down this road alreadyThis 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?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.
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?
That's what the proponents of the Bill are demanding.
Please add a source.
I may be the only true liberal you ever meet up with...Never will be a liberal. Ever! You al are dumb fksLiberalism (and capitalism) made Judaism and Christianity tolerable, in most cases, for the rest of us. That process starts by continuing to remain liberal, even in troubled times with illiberal people of faith. You don't teach religious tolerance by being intolerant to the point of discrimination that goes against your core values. Since you are not a liberal, you will not understand.Jew aren't terrorist. The Jewish religion and later the Christen have went through a reformation. Islam has yet to do thatSame hatred, and just as wrong, and of course, from the same types of mental infants.They aren't Jews CAIR girl get through your head
You have spoken about what I want throughout now you attribute this to "proponents".I never said 100% we have been down this road alreadyThis 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?
That's what the proponents of the Bill are demanding.
Please add a source.
Jeff Sessions, Few House Republicans Urge Tying Refugee Issue To Government Funding Bill
“What I’m trying to get them to do is at least prioritize who they bring in,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “What I want to make sure is that we don’t short circuit the vetting process in any way, shape or form. We have to be 100% certain that whoever we let in poses no threat to this country, which is why I’m suggesting women, children, relatives of Syrian-American citizens — who could also be held responsible for the refugees who came in — as a pretty reasonable response. It also shows I think the appropriate level of compassion.”
Morning Spin: 2 Illinois House Dems join in calling for tougher vetting of Syrian refugees
Congressman Peter Roskam: "In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are.""In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are."
Subscription Center | ChicagoBusiness.com
Rep. Mark Kirk: Kirk said in a statement. "No refugee related to the Syrian crisis should be admitted to the United States unless the (Obama) administration can guarantee, with 100 percent assurance, that they are not members, supporters or sympathizers of ISIS."
Gov. Bruce Rauner announced that the state "will temporarily suspend" accepting new refugees, and U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said none should be allowed anywhere into the country until there is "100 percent assurance" they will not commit or condone violence.
You have spoken about what I want throughout now you attribute this to "proponents".I never said 100% we have been down this road alreadyBecause 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?
That's what the proponents of the Bill are demanding.
Please add a source.
Jeff Sessions, Few House Republicans Urge Tying Refugee Issue To Government Funding Bill
“What I’m trying to get them to do is at least prioritize who they bring in,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “What I want to make sure is that we don’t short circuit the vetting process in any way, shape or form. We have to be 100% certain that whoever we let in poses no threat to this country, which is why I’m suggesting women, children, relatives of Syrian-American citizens — who could also be held responsible for the refugees who came in — as a pretty reasonable response. It also shows I think the appropriate level of compassion.”
Morning Spin: 2 Illinois House Dems join in calling for tougher vetting of Syrian refugees
Congressman Peter Roskam: "In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are.""In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are."
Subscription Center | ChicagoBusiness.com
Rep. Mark Kirk: Kirk said in a statement. "No refugee related to the Syrian crisis should be admitted to the United States unless the (Obama) administration can guarantee, with 100 percent assurance, that they are not members, supporters or sympathizers of ISIS."
Gov. Bruce Rauner announced that the state "will temporarily suspend" accepting new refugees, and U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said none should be allowed anywhere into the country until there is "100 percent assurance" they will not commit or condone violence.
Ummm that does not mean the vetting process will be 100% perfect. I feel the same we need to develop a vetting process that is better than what we have.
You have spoken about what I want throughout now you attribute this to "proponents".I never said 100% we have been down this road already
That's what the proponents of the Bill are demanding.
Please add a source.
Jeff Sessions, Few House Republicans Urge Tying Refugee Issue To Government Funding Bill
“What I’m trying to get them to do is at least prioritize who they bring in,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “What I want to make sure is that we don’t short circuit the vetting process in any way, shape or form. We have to be 100% certain that whoever we let in poses no threat to this country, which is why I’m suggesting women, children, relatives of Syrian-American citizens — who could also be held responsible for the refugees who came in — as a pretty reasonable response. It also shows I think the appropriate level of compassion.”
Morning Spin: 2 Illinois House Dems join in calling for tougher vetting of Syrian refugees
Congressman Peter Roskam: "In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are.""In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are."
Subscription Center | ChicagoBusiness.com
Rep. Mark Kirk: Kirk said in a statement. "No refugee related to the Syrian crisis should be admitted to the United States unless the (Obama) administration can guarantee, with 100 percent assurance, that they are not members, supporters or sympathizers of ISIS."
Gov. Bruce Rauner announced that the state "will temporarily suspend" accepting new refugees, and U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said none should be allowed anywhere into the country until there is "100 percent assurance" they will not commit or condone violence.
Ummm that does not mean the vetting process will be 100% perfect. I feel the same we need to develop a vetting process that is better than what we have.
That is what they are demanding and part of that demand is having officials sign off with a guarantee.
Do we need to examine the vetting process? Of course - it should be regularly re-examined in the light of changes in ongoing conlicts and intelligence. Does it mean it should be "better"? Depends on whether you think it's that "bad" - it seems to work so far pretty well - well enough, that suspending it while we examine it would be sending the wrong message. Like I said before - the refugee system is one of the best vetted (and most time consuming) means of entering this country. It would be better to look at some of the other avenues that are more likely to attract militants - but, this is as much political fight as it is a security issue.
this is as much political fight as it is a security issue.
With war comes peace the radicals must be defeated. That's how it worksThat's correct, and it isn't done with guns and bombs. Your enemy is an idea, Liberals have a better one, and no one need die if everyone agrees. Of course, if everyone agrees with ISIS the same is roughly true only their idea stinks...A civil society has to be fought for.Liberalism (and capitalism) made Judaism and Christianity tolerable, in most cases, for the rest of us. That process starts by continuing to remain liberal, even in troubled times with illiberal people of faith. You don't teach religious tolerance by being intolerant to the point of discrimination that goes against your core values. Since you are not a liberal, you will not understand.Jew aren't terrorist. The Jewish religion and later the Christen have went through a reformation. Islam has yet to do thatSame hatred, and just as wrong, and of course, from the same types of mental infants.They aren't Jews CAIR girl get through your head
You have spoken about what I want throughout now you attribute this to "proponents".That's what the proponents of the Bill are demanding.
Please add a source.
Jeff Sessions, Few House Republicans Urge Tying Refugee Issue To Government Funding Bill
“What I’m trying to get them to do is at least prioritize who they bring in,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “What I want to make sure is that we don’t short circuit the vetting process in any way, shape or form. We have to be 100% certain that whoever we let in poses no threat to this country, which is why I’m suggesting women, children, relatives of Syrian-American citizens — who could also be held responsible for the refugees who came in — as a pretty reasonable response. It also shows I think the appropriate level of compassion.”
Morning Spin: 2 Illinois House Dems join in calling for tougher vetting of Syrian refugees
Congressman Peter Roskam: "In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are.""In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are."
Subscription Center | ChicagoBusiness.com
Rep. Mark Kirk: Kirk said in a statement. "No refugee related to the Syrian crisis should be admitted to the United States unless the (Obama) administration can guarantee, with 100 percent assurance, that they are not members, supporters or sympathizers of ISIS."
Gov. Bruce Rauner announced that the state "will temporarily suspend" accepting new refugees, and U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said none should be allowed anywhere into the country until there is "100 percent assurance" they will not commit or condone violence.
Ummm that does not mean the vetting process will be 100% perfect. I feel the same we need to develop a vetting process that is better than what we have.
That is what they are demanding and part of that demand is having officials sign off with a guarantee.
Do we need to examine the vetting process? Of course - it should be regularly re-examined in the light of changes in ongoing conlicts and intelligence. Does it mean it should be "better"? Depends on whether you think it's that "bad" - it seems to work so far pretty well - well enough, that suspending it while we examine it would be sending the wrong message. Like I said before - the refugee system is one of the best vetted (and most time consuming) means of entering this country. It would be better to look at some of the other avenues that are more likely to attract militants - but, this is as much political fight as it is a security issue.
this is as much political fight as it is a security issue.
If it was only a "political" fight then I may agree with you. Once the "security" issue has a risen it trumps all else. Since you have stated it is a security issue then you have simply bolstered my argument and now it is time for those in power to establish a greater vetting process that address the security issue you have cited.
You have spoken about what I want throughout now you attribute this to "proponents".
Please add a source.
Jeff Sessions, Few House Republicans Urge Tying Refugee Issue To Government Funding Bill
“What I’m trying to get them to do is at least prioritize who they bring in,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “What I want to make sure is that we don’t short circuit the vetting process in any way, shape or form. We have to be 100% certain that whoever we let in poses no threat to this country, which is why I’m suggesting women, children, relatives of Syrian-American citizens — who could also be held responsible for the refugees who came in — as a pretty reasonable response. It also shows I think the appropriate level of compassion.”
Morning Spin: 2 Illinois House Dems join in calling for tougher vetting of Syrian refugees
Congressman Peter Roskam: "In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are.""In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are."
Subscription Center | ChicagoBusiness.com
Rep. Mark Kirk: Kirk said in a statement. "No refugee related to the Syrian crisis should be admitted to the United States unless the (Obama) administration can guarantee, with 100 percent assurance, that they are not members, supporters or sympathizers of ISIS."
Gov. Bruce Rauner announced that the state "will temporarily suspend" accepting new refugees, and U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said none should be allowed anywhere into the country until there is "100 percent assurance" they will not commit or condone violence.
Ummm that does not mean the vetting process will be 100% perfect. I feel the same we need to develop a vetting process that is better than what we have.
That is what they are demanding and part of that demand is having officials sign off with a guarantee.
Do we need to examine the vetting process? Of course - it should be regularly re-examined in the light of changes in ongoing conlicts and intelligence. Does it mean it should be "better"? Depends on whether you think it's that "bad" - it seems to work so far pretty well - well enough, that suspending it while we examine it would be sending the wrong message. Like I said before - the refugee system is one of the best vetted (and most time consuming) means of entering this country. It would be better to look at some of the other avenues that are more likely to attract militants - but, this is as much political fight as it is a security issue.
this is as much political fight as it is a security issue.
If it was only a "political" fight then I may agree with you. Once the "security" issue has a risen it trumps all else. Since you have stated it is a security issue then you have simply bolstered my argument and now it is time for those in power to establish a greater vetting process that address the security issue you have cited.
We don't know that it is a security issue. We only know that we should re-examine it. That doesn't mean we should suspend it while we do so. It has turned into a political fight.
The choices are what?
Suspend, demand 100% guarantee (which is what the bill does) and what will be the most likely outcome given that guarantee can't be made?
Continue as is while examining the process. Given that thus far there have been no terrorist attacks coming through refugees, the vetting is very lengthy as is the wait, the risk seems very low.
What are the repercussions if we suspend it? ISIS gets it's recruitment propoganda, and desperate refugees are turned away from a country that should be able to help them. Just like we did 75 years ago.
Security isn't everything - not if we give up our souls, or or freedoms or our rights to achieve it. That is what the politics of fear could drive us into doing.
Jeff Sessions, Few House Republicans Urge Tying Refugee Issue To Government Funding Bill
“What I’m trying to get them to do is at least prioritize who they bring in,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “What I want to make sure is that we don’t short circuit the vetting process in any way, shape or form. We have to be 100% certain that whoever we let in poses no threat to this country, which is why I’m suggesting women, children, relatives of Syrian-American citizens — who could also be held responsible for the refugees who came in — as a pretty reasonable response. It also shows I think the appropriate level of compassion.”
Morning Spin: 2 Illinois House Dems join in calling for tougher vetting of Syrian refugees
Congressman Peter Roskam: "In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are.""In the days since, (the Islamic State) has declared its intention to carry out terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City," Roskam said. "This bill is simple: Pause the refugee resettlement program until the administration can verify with 100 percent certainty that we know who exactly is entering our country and what their intentions are."
Subscription Center | ChicagoBusiness.com
Rep. Mark Kirk: Kirk said in a statement. "No refugee related to the Syrian crisis should be admitted to the United States unless the (Obama) administration can guarantee, with 100 percent assurance, that they are not members, supporters or sympathizers of ISIS."
Gov. Bruce Rauner announced that the state "will temporarily suspend" accepting new refugees, and U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said none should be allowed anywhere into the country until there is "100 percent assurance" they will not commit or condone violence.
Ummm that does not mean the vetting process will be 100% perfect. I feel the same we need to develop a vetting process that is better than what we have.
That is what they are demanding and part of that demand is having officials sign off with a guarantee.
Do we need to examine the vetting process? Of course - it should be regularly re-examined in the light of changes in ongoing conlicts and intelligence. Does it mean it should be "better"? Depends on whether you think it's that "bad" - it seems to work so far pretty well - well enough, that suspending it while we examine it would be sending the wrong message. Like I said before - the refugee system is one of the best vetted (and most time consuming) means of entering this country. It would be better to look at some of the other avenues that are more likely to attract militants - but, this is as much political fight as it is a security issue.
this is as much political fight as it is a security issue.
If it was only a "political" fight then I may agree with you. Once the "security" issue has a risen it trumps all else. Since you have stated it is a security issue then you have simply bolstered my argument and now it is time for those in power to establish a greater vetting process that address the security issue you have cited.
We don't know that it is a security issue. We only know that we should re-examine it. That doesn't mean we should suspend it while we do so. It has turned into a political fight.
The choices are what?
Suspend, demand 100% guarantee (which is what the bill does) and what will be the most likely outcome given that guarantee can't be made?
Continue as is while examining the process. Given that thus far there have been no terrorist attacks coming through refugees, the vetting is very lengthy as is the wait, the risk seems very low.
What are the repercussions if we suspend it? ISIS gets it's recruitment propoganda, and desperate refugees are turned away from a country that should be able to help them. Just like we did 75 years ago.
Security isn't everything - not if we give up our souls, or or freedoms or our rights to achieve it. That is what the politics of fear could drive us into doing.
Since there are security issues suspending the entry of refugees is appropriate until we know what we are dealing with and take measures to correct it.
Not much of a reader are you.no one asked you to join.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.That's what you guys say about illegals from Mexico, when most of that crime is illegal on illegal stuff.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.
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 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.
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
