House votes to block Syrian refugees

[toxicmedia]

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.

 

[Coyote]

No refugees are American citizens. Neither were the Jewish refugees during WW2, yet we refused them admittence over anti-semitism, and fears of Nazi and Communist infiltrators.

They died

Not US responsibility. The US needs to prepare better then allow.

Disagree. We fucked up Iraq which led to subsequent instability We have a responsibility to, at least, Iraqi refugees if not to more. We have the space, we have organizations willing to undertake it. We have the moral obligation.

I am dealing with today not yesterday and seeking safety rather than inviting risk.

Just like they did yesterday. Some things never change unfortunately. That's the politics of fear.

Not fear, but caution.

When you look at the refugee process - it's two years of vetting and checking.

We have settled 784,000 refugees since 9/11. Since then, exactly three have been arrested in relation to terrorist activities. Of those 3 - 2 were not planning an attack in the US and "the plans of the third were barely credible"

We are not like the European continent and are isolated from the direct influx of refugees by an ocean.

The most common arguments against resettling more Syrian refugees, made by some Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress, is that the resettlement program could be a path for infiltration into the United States by ISIS or other terrorists. But the refugee resettlement program is the least likely avenue for a terrorist to choose. Refugees who are selected for resettlement to the United States go through a painstaking, many-layered review before they are accepted. The FBI, Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and national intelligence agencies independently check refugees’ biometric data against security databases. The whole process typically takes 18-24 months, with high hurdles for security clearance.​

The United States is protected by geography from the inflow of asylum seekers who are entering Europe, mainly through Greece and Italy. Almost 600,000 have arrived in Europe so far this year—as many as 1 million may have entered by year’s end. The majority are unquestionably refugees. Germany and other European states have not invited them or agreed in advance to accept them—the refugees have just arrived, after dangerous journeys across the sea and overland. But European states are bound by their international obligations not to return them to danger. The United States, by contrast, has the luxury of choice of which refugees to admit through its resettlement program, from Syria, Iraq, or elsewhere. How robustly will it exercise that choice?​

Rational "caution" would tell us this is not where we need to concentrate our efforts, rather we should look at other avenues of entry that are a higher risk for ISIS infiltration than the refugee process.

So yes, the politics of fear.

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

why do we owe any of them passage unimpeded to our land?

We don't. They declared war on us.

ISIS declared war on us, are you saying that all Syrian refugees are ISIS?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

The American Muslim community has in large part kept a low profile during the recent ISIS crisis, Toxic. I guarantee you however that they do discuss among themselves how another major terror attack by radical Muslims here in the US would affect them.

 

[dannyboys]

List of Islamic Terror Attacks in America

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

The American Muslim community has in large part kept a low profile during the recent ISIS crisis, Toxic. I guarantee you however that they do discuss among themselves how another major terror attack by radical Muslims here in the US would affect them.

Of course. If I were an American, Muslim, I'd be watching my back.

 

[Theowl32]

We should until we get a handle on ISIS and how they work. Obviously we are not as adept at detecting terrorist activity as we thought we were this is a good measure for the time being.

I'm not so sure - there has been precious little terrorist activity among the many refugees the US has taken in.

All we need is one event.

Nothing is risk free or 100% guarenteed and to expect that is just plain stupid. We are more likely to be killed by home grown gun violence than by a terrorist attack. Should we work on banning more guns? We are more likely to be hit by lightening than killed by a terrorist...should we start offering major bribes to the weather gods?

At what point should fear overule our humanitarian impulses?

You are bringing ancillary issues into the discussion. The refugees are not American citizens and I do not want to be exposed to any potential danger. I am happy the House voted as they did.

No refugees are American citizens. Neither were the Jewish refugees during WW2, yet we refused them admittence over anti-semitism, and fears of Nazi and Communist infiltrators.

They died

The Jewish people fleeing Nazis were threatening to blow things up in America and chanting death to America? No, they weren't you sack of shit.

You stupid fuck. Irrelevant fallacy. Red herrings. You fucking bring up the dumb fucking democrat talking point cause you are a thoughtless puppet. Worthy of zero respect.

If I could smear my shit in your face I would. Know that.

You filthy deranged scumbag bag of shit.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not US responsibility. The US needs to prepare better then allow.

Disagree. We fucked up Iraq which led to subsequent instability We have a responsibility to, at least, Iraqi refugees if not to more. We have the space, we have organizations willing to undertake it. We have the moral obligation.

I am dealing with today not yesterday and seeking safety rather than inviting risk.

Just like they did yesterday. Some things never change unfortunately. That's the politics of fear.

Not fear, but caution.

When you look at the refugee process - it's two years of vetting and checking.

We have settled 784,000 refugees since 9/11. Since then, exactly three have been arrested in relation to terrorist activities. Of those 3 - 2 were not planning an attack in the US and "the plans of the third were barely credible"

We are not like the European continent and are isolated from the direct influx of refugees by an ocean.

The most common arguments against resettling more Syrian refugees, made by some Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress, is that the resettlement program could be a path for infiltration into the United States by ISIS or other terrorists. But the refugee resettlement program is the least likely avenue for a terrorist to choose. Refugees who are selected for resettlement to the United States go through a painstaking, many-layered review before they are accepted. The FBI, Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and national intelligence agencies independently check refugees’ biometric data against security databases. The whole process typically takes 18-24 months, with high hurdles for security clearance.​

The United States is protected by geography from the inflow of asylum seekers who are entering Europe, mainly through Greece and Italy. Almost 600,000 have arrived in Europe so far this year—as many as 1 million may have entered by year’s end. The majority are unquestionably refugees. Germany and other European states have not invited them or agreed in advance to accept them—the refugees have just arrived, after dangerous journeys across the sea and overland. But European states are bound by their international obligations not to return them to danger. The United States, by contrast, has the luxury of choice of which refugees to admit through its resettlement program, from Syria, Iraq, or elsewhere. How robustly will it exercise that choice?​

Rational "caution" would tell us this is not where we need to concentrate our efforts, rather we should look at other avenues of entry that are a higher risk for ISIS infiltration than the refugee process.

So yes, the politics of fear.

You've failed to address the Director of the FBI's recent comments that they would not be able to properly screen refugees coming from Syria because of the unstable nature of that region, Coyote. The FBI Director is telling us all flat out that he can't guarantee that terrorists won't use the refugee crisis to get operatives into the US. We know for a fact that ISIS is using the crisis to attempt to put operatives into Europe. So why is it not "rational" to expect that they will do the same thing with refugees entering the US?

 

[dannyboys]

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.

why do we owe any of them passage unimpeded to our land?

We don't. They declared war on us.

ISIS declared war on us, are you saying that all Syrian refugees are ISIS?

One of the resident fools here just posted that out of 100K Syrian refugees coming to the US only about 10 of them would be "radicalized' and commit a terror attack.
I hope his family isn't visiting Times Square when it's blown up.
I hope none of your family is visiting Times Square when it's blown up.

 

[Alex.]

Not US responsibility. The US needs to prepare better then allow.

Disagree. We fucked up Iraq which led to subsequent instability We have a responsibility to, at least, Iraqi refugees if not to more. We have the space, we have organizations willing to undertake it. We have the moral obligation.

I am dealing with today not yesterday and seeking safety rather than inviting risk.

Just like they did yesterday. Some things never change unfortunately. That's the politics of fear.

Not fear, but caution.

When you look at the refugee process - it's two years of vetting and checking.

We have settled 784,000 refugees since 9/11. Since then, exactly three have been arrested in relation to terrorist activities. Of those 3 - 2 were not planning an attack in the US and "the plans of the third were barely credible"

We are not like the European continent and are isolated from the direct influx of refugees by an ocean.

The most common arguments against resettling more Syrian refugees, made by some Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress, is that the resettlement program could be a path for infiltration into the United States by ISIS or other terrorists. But the refugee resettlement program is the least likely avenue for a terrorist to choose. Refugees who are selected for resettlement to the United States go through a painstaking, many-layered review before they are accepted. The FBI, Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and national intelligence agencies independently check refugees’ biometric data against security databases. The whole process typically takes 18-24 months, with high hurdles for security clearance.​

The United States is protected by geography from the inflow of asylum seekers who are entering Europe, mainly through Greece and Italy. Almost 600,000 have arrived in Europe so far this year—as many as 1 million may have entered by year’s end. The majority are unquestionably refugees. Germany and other European states have not invited them or agreed in advance to accept them—the refugees have just arrived, after dangerous journeys across the sea and overland. But European states are bound by their international obligations not to return them to danger. The United States, by contrast, has the luxury of choice of which refugees to admit through its resettlement program, from Syria, Iraq, or elsewhere. How robustly will it exercise that choice?​

Rational "caution" would tell us this is not where we need to concentrate our efforts, rather we should look at other avenues of entry that are a higher risk for ISIS infiltration than the refugee process.

So yes, the politics of fear.

For you it is fear, the practice today of vetting is not adequate it is really that simple, I say caution. If there is any hate or fear it is coming from you.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Right thing in your opinion. Until the US can develop a means to effectively vet these folks it is best to keep them away.

The vetting process is adequate. Where it needs to be addressed is in other areas such as tourist visa's etc. The refugee system is one of the best vetted.

We made a serious mistake turning away refugees in the past. We should not repeat it.

How can it be "adequate" when they have no papers and we cant get any info from the country they left?
You just going to take their word for it?

They spend two years checking these people and tracking down information. How many refugees have gone on and committed terrorist acts?

Using the rightwing logic - we should be looking critically at white American males and gun ownership because of the many mass gun shootings we've had (more than terrorist attacks).

Why should we spend all the money spending two friggen years researching someones past?
What exactly is the benefit?
All I see is a potential terrorist and a drain on social services that should be reserved for Americans.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Right thing in your opinion. Until the US can develop a means to effectively vet these folks it is best to keep them away.

The vetting process is adequate. Where it needs to be addressed is in other areas such as tourist visa's etc. The refugee system is one of the best vetted.

We made a serious mistake turning away refugees in the past. We should not repeat it.

How can it be "adequate" when they have no papers and we cant get any info from the country they left?
You just going to take their word for it?

Do you think our intelligence and security people are that incompetent? Really?

Actually yes.
The Tsarnaev brothers come to mind.....

 

[easyt65]

LINK: Senate Democrats Plan to Filibuster House Refugee Bill - Breitbart

Senate Democrats Plan to Filibuster House Refugee Bill

"Senate Democrats plan to filibuster legislation passed by the House on Thursday that seeks to pause the resettlement of Syrian refugees."

(Can you say 'Go Nuclear'? Then again, we ARE talking about ass-kissing McConnell. He'll help kill it.)

Yeah, despite the WH and FBI admitting there is no way to thoroughly vette these 650,000 refugees into the U.S., especially before the end of the year the way Obama said he wants, WHY DELAY?! It's not really like Democrats / Obama / Hillary CARE about our National Security and / or protecting US citizens!

Liberal es:
1. Illegals
2. Potential Terrorist / Terrorists
3. Black Lives Matter
4. All other American citizens

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Right thing in your opinion. Until the US can develop a means to effectively vet these folks it is best to keep them away.

The vetting process is adequate. Where it needs to be addressed is in other areas such as tourist visa's etc. The refugee system is one of the best vetted.

We made a serious mistake turning away refugees in the past. We should not repeat it.

How can it be "adequate" when they have no papers and we cant get any info from the country they left?
You just going to take their word for it?

Do you think our intelligence and security people are that incompetent? Really?

Actually yes.
The Tsarnaev brothers come to mind.....

Exactly just what kind of police state would like to live in so they would have been found out, this one.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[PaintMyHouse]

^^^^ that

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Camp]

LINK: Senate Democrats Plan to Filibuster House Refugee Bill - Breitbart

Senate Democrats Plan to Filibuster House Refugee Bill

"Senate Democrats plan to filibuster legislation passed by the House on Thursday that seeks to pause the resettlement of Syrian refugees."

(Can you say 'Go Nuclear'? Then again, we ARE talking about ass-kissing McConnell. He'll help kill it.)

Yeah, despite the WH and FBI admitting there is no way to thoroughly vette these 650,000 refugees into the U.S., especially before the end of the year the way Obama said he wants, WHY DELAY?! It's not really like Democrats / Obama / Hillary CARE about our National Security and / or protecting US citizens!

Liberal es:
1. Illegals
2. Potential Terrorist / Terrorists
3. Black Lives Matter
4. All other American citizens

Who is claiming Obama wants 650,00 refugees into the country before the end of the year, which is about a month away? I thought the suggestion was 10,000 by next year.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Right thing in your opinion. Until the US can develop a means to effectively vet these folks it is best to keep them away.

The vetting process is adequate. Where it needs to be addressed is in other areas such as tourist visa's etc. The refugee system is one of the best vetted.

We made a serious mistake turning away refugees in the past. We should not repeat it.

How can it be "adequate" when they have no papers and we cant get any info from the country they left?
You just going to take their word for it?

Do you think our intelligence and security people are that incompetent? Really?

Actually yes.
The Tsarnaev brothers come to mind.....

Reality check: their father came in on a tourist visa, and applied for assylum. The two brothers came in as small children. They were certainly not "radicalized" at that point.

 

[bodecea]

LINK: Senate Democrats Plan to Filibuster House Refugee Bill - Breitbart

Senate Democrats Plan to Filibuster House Refugee Bill

"Senate Democrats plan to filibuster legislation passed by the House on Thursday that seeks to pause the resettlement of Syrian refugees."

(Can you say 'Go Nuclear'? Then again, we ARE talking about ass-kissing McConnell. He'll help kill it.)

Yeah, despite the WH and FBI admitting there is no way to thoroughly vette these 650,000 refugees into the U.S., especially before the end of the year the way Obama said he wants, WHY DELAY?! It's not really like Democrats / Obama / Hillary CARE about our National Security and / or protecting US citizens!

Liberal es:
1. Illegals
2. Potential Terrorist / Terrorists
3. Black Lives Matter
4. All other American citizens

Who is claiming Obama wants 650,00 refugees into the country before the end of the year, which is about a month away? I thought the suggestion was 10,000 by next year.

You know how it goes.....think "$200,000,000 a day to visit India" and you know where this is coming from.