Why do liberals ignore the truth about refugees?

[NYcarbineer]

Looks likea scene from the walking dead.

Looks like an overbooked Trump rally.

 

[the_human_being]

What's sad Impenitent what I am hearing
is that liberals like you, who mean well, COME ACROSS as giving more benefit of the doubt to
immigrants from foreign countries WHO AREN'T EVEN CITIZENS WITH NO PROOF OF COMMITMENT, assuming they are innocent until proven guilty,

while NOT giving the same benefit to your fellow American citizens, including law abiding TAX PAYERS, but demanding insurance mandates, for example, THAT ASSUME citizens are guilty in advance of not paying for their own health care until proven they are.

When it comes to Fellow Americans, the liberals "want to play safe"
and impose REGULATIONS on law abiding citizens not found guilty of crimes yet
when it comes to
* gun rights
* health care mandates
but when it comes to when Conservatives want to play safe with
* immigration
* voting ID
then liberals throw a fit!

Why this insistence on treating people as criminals, assuming guilt until proven innocent,
when it comes to guns and health care,
but then assume people even NONCITIZENS are innocent as if there is NO THREAT of abuse
when it comes to the other issues?

I know you are trying to apply reason and compassion to people who are innocent,
and don't want to punish the innocent for the guilty,
but WHY isn't this SAME consideration given to fellow Americans and tax paying citizens
when it comes to gun rights and freedom of choice in health care.

Why the assumptions that fellow Americans are criminal until proven innocent,
but the opposite for foreign nationals who are assumed not to be a threat?

Do you see why liberals come across as anti-American?
I understand why conservatives come across as so nationalistic as to discriminate
against noncitizens.

But how is it any better to discriminate against fellow citizens treated like criminals and assumed to require regulation "in order to be on the safe side"?

No wonder liberals look crazy to conservatives.
This makes no sense at all.

Indeed, it appears that Liberals are full of something besides patriotism.

 

[Impenitent]

What's sad Impenitent what I am hearing
is that liberals like you, who mean well, COME ACROSS as giving more benefit of the doubt to
immigrants from foreign countries WHO AREN'T EVEN CITIZENS WITH NO PROOF OF COMMITMENT, assuming they are innocent until proven guilty,

while NOT giving the same benefit to your fellow American citizens, including law abiding TAX PAYERS, but demanding insurance mandates, for example, THAT ASSUME citizens are guilty in advance of not paying for their own health care until proven they are.

When it comes to Fellow Americans, the liberals "want to play safe"
and impose REGULATIONS on law abiding citizens not found guilty of crimes yet
when it comes to
* gun rights
* health care mandates
but when it comes to when Conservatives want to play safe with
* immigration
* voting ID
then liberals throw a fit!

Why this insistence on treating people as criminals, assuming guilt until proven innocent,
when it comes to guns and health care,
but then assume people even NONCITIZENS are innocent as if there is NO THREAT of abuse
when it comes to the other issues?

I know you are trying to apply reason and compassion to people who are innocent,
and don't want to punish the innocent for the guilty,
but WHY isn't this SAME consideration given to fellow Americans and tax paying citizens
when it comes to gun rights and freedom of choice in health care.

Why the assumptions that fellow Americans are criminal until proven innocent,
but the opposite for foreign nationals who are assumed not to be a threat?

Do you see why liberals come across as anti-American?
I understand why conservatives come across as so nationalistic as to discriminate
against noncitizens.

But how is it any better to discriminate against fellow citizens treated like criminals and assumed to require regulation "in order to be on the safe side"?

No wonder liberals look crazy to conservatives.
This makes no sense at all.

Apparently, all of your research on the refugee issue has been done on right wing radio. You don't realize that refugees cannot come to the US until they've already been vetted for, among other things, medical issues and criminality. This is , on average, a two year process, making a holding area,such as the Astrodome, completely unnessary.

This system hasnt failed, so why overhaul it? Do we think you're trying to streamline the process? .... No, your intent is to throw a monkey wrench into it. Clouding the issue with the 9/11 attackers and Boston bombers are tactics, not facts.

The ACA and gun control are off-topic. I'm sure there are threads available where those aren't.

I think this thread has altogether shown that it isn't liberals who ignore the truth about refugees.

 

[Tilly]

For the hundredth time:

FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday told Congress that the federal government cannot conduct thorough checks on all of the coming influx of 10,000 refugees from Syria.

Appearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Comey said Syrians who aren't already in the FBI's database are unknown to the agency, meaning their backgrounds cannot be adequately scoured for a risk of terrorism.

'We can only query against that which we have collected,' Comey told the committee under questioning.

'So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them....

FBI admits there's no way to screen all incoming Syrian refugees

 

[Clementine]

For the hundredth time:

FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday told Congress that the federal government cannot conduct thorough checks on all of the coming influx of 10,000 refugees from Syria.

Appearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Comey said Syrians who aren't already in the FBI's database are unknown to the agency, meaning their backgrounds cannot be adequately scoured for a risk of terrorism.

'We can only query against that which we have collected,' Comey told the committee under questioning.

'So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them....

FBI admits there's no way to screen all incoming Syrian refugees

And before our FBI can do what little vetting they are able to do, the UN is responsible for choosing which refugees are worthy of coming. They are not choosing Christians, despite Christians being in far more danger than Muslims. Seems odd that it's mostly young male Muslims that get the stamp of approval.

 

[the_human_being]

For the hundredth time:

FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday told Congress that the federal government cannot conduct thorough checks on all of the coming influx of 10,000 refugees from Syria.

Appearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Comey said Syrians who aren't already in the FBI's database are unknown to the agency, meaning their backgrounds cannot be adequately scoured for a risk of terrorism.

'We can only query against that which we have collected,' Comey told the committee under questioning.

'So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them....

FBI admits there's no way to screen all incoming Syrian refugees

Damn Tilly, don't hit a Liberal with TRUTH. They are repulsed by TRUTH.

 

[Ame®icano]

Because, the more poor browns come here, the higher my social status becomes.

 

[Tilly]

Because, the more poor browns come here, the higher my social status becomes.

S/he will be the first to be thrown off a high rise building. Sigh. Such idiots.

 

[Tilly]

For the hundredth time:

FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday told Congress that the federal government cannot conduct thorough checks on all of the coming influx of 10,000 refugees from Syria.

Appearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Comey said Syrians who aren't already in the FBI's database are unknown to the agency, meaning their backgrounds cannot be adequately scoured for a risk of terrorism.

'We can only query against that which we have collected,' Comey told the committee under questioning.

'So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them....

FBI admits there's no way to screen all incoming Syrian refugees

And before our FBI can do what little vetting they are able to do, the UN is responsible for choosing which refugees are worthy of coming. They are not choosing Christians, despite Christians being in far more danger than Muslims. Seems odd that it's mostly young male Muslims that get the stamp of approval.

The Chritians can't even get near the refugee camps - they are attacked, raped and murdered if they try. The UN does nothing to protect them, so they are trapped. Who Cares? Nobody it seems.

 

[Tilly]

For the hundredth time:

FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday told Congress that the federal government cannot conduct thorough checks on all of the coming influx of 10,000 refugees from Syria.

Appearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Comey said Syrians who aren't already in the FBI's database are unknown to the agency, meaning their backgrounds cannot be adequately scoured for a risk of terrorism.

'We can only query against that which we have collected,' Comey told the committee under questioning.

'So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them....

FBI admits there's no way to screen all incoming Syrian refugees

Damn Tilly, don't hit a Liberal with TRUTH. They are repulsed by TRUTH.

It's just like Groundhog Day on this board. The libtards start each day afresh, apparently with complete amnesia about what has been posted before, over and over and over again. It's so tedious ....Grrrrrrr.

 

[the_human_being]

Science has experienced even more of a difficulty in its quest to find intellect within the Liberal mind as it has experienced in finding the Missing Link.

 

[Impenitent]

For the hundredth time:

FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday told Congress that the federal government cannot conduct thorough checks on all of the coming influx of 10,000 refugees from Syria.

Appearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Comey said Syrians who aren't already in the FBI's database are unknown to the agency, meaning their backgrounds cannot be adequately scoured for a risk of terrorism.

'We can only query against that which we have collected,' Comey told the committee under questioning.

'So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them....

FBI admits there's no way to screen all incoming Syrian refugees

The FBI doesn't screen refugees. He is just saying why they might be, or might not be, in the Fbi's database.

Refugees are screened thoroughly by the Department of Homeland Security. It's not the FbI's job.

 

[Tilly]

For the hundredth time:

FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday told Congress that the federal government cannot conduct thorough checks on all of the coming influx of 10,000 refugees from Syria.

Appearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Comey said Syrians who aren't already in the FBI's database are unknown to the agency, meaning their backgrounds cannot be adequately scoured for a risk of terrorism.

'We can only query against that which we have collected,' Comey told the committee under questioning.

'So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them....

FBI admits there's no way to screen all incoming Syrian refugees

The FBI doesn't screen refugees. He is just saying why they might be, or might not be, in the Fbi's database.

Refugees are screened thoroughly by the Department of Homeland Security. It's not the FbI's job.

And homeland security said the same as the FBI. Do I really have to find that link for the hundredth time too?

 

[the_human_being]

I suppose I should be optimistic. Perhaps if the Democrats and the President simply have their way and allow all these refugees in, it might serve to eliminate the gay problem. It will also serve the Democrats and the President's plan to have 100% unemployment within the Black community.

 

[Tilly]

Homeland Security Congressman: 'We Cannot Vet the Refugees from Syria'

...When asked about the vetting process, King said flatly, "We cannot vet the refugees from Syria.
"There are no databases to work against, no government records," he explained to an immediately incensed Brzezinski. "People talk about 'thorough vetting.' There is no vetting as a practical matter."...

Homeland Security Congressman: 'We Cannot Vet the Refugees from Syria'

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Liberals are clueless when it comes to preventing problems. Past liberals wanted us to leave Hitler alone despite warnings that he was evil.

You've already called me a "Liberal, spit on floor". Tell me what I think. I may not know without you telling me. Jerk

 

[Tilly]

Homeland Security Chairman Warns U.S. Doesn't Have Proper Vetting System For 10,000 Syrian Refugees

...Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul is expressing grave concerns about the move and is warning that the U.S. doesn't have the systems in place through Homeland Security or the FBI to properly vet refugees coming from the terrorism hotspots of Syria and Iraq.
“The President wants to surge thousands of Syrian refugees into the United States, in spite of consistent intelligence community and federal law enforcement warnings that we do not have the intelligence needed to vet individuals from the conflict zone. We also know that ISIS wants to use refugee routes as cover to sneak operatives into the West. I implore the President to consult with Congress before taking any drastic action and to level with the American people about the very real security challenges we face," McCaul released in a statement...

Katie Pavlich - Homeland Security Chairman Warns U.S. Doesn't Have Proper Vetting System For 10,000 Syrian Refugees

 

[Impenitent]

Homeland Security Congressman: 'We Cannot Vet the Refugees from Syria'

...When asked about the vetting process, King said flatly, "We cannot vet the refugees from Syria.
"There are no databases to work against, no government records," he explained to an immediately incensed Brzezinski. "People talk about 'thorough vetting.' There is no vetting as a practical matter."...

Homeland Security Congressman: 'We Cannot Vet the Refugees from Syria'

You portend that HomelandSecurity said that but they didid not. That is strictly the opinion of congressman peter king.

 

[Tilly]

Homeland Security Congressman: 'We Cannot Vet the Refugees from Syria'

...When asked about the vetting process, King said flatly, "We cannot vet the refugees from Syria.
"There are no databases to work against, no government records," he explained to an immediately incensed Brzezinski. "People talk about 'thorough vetting.' There is no vetting as a practical matter."...

Homeland Security Congressman: 'We Cannot Vet the Refugees from Syria'

You portend that HomelandSecurity said that but they didid not. That is strictly the opinion of congressman peter king.

Homeland Security Chairman Warns U.S. Doesn't Have Proper Vetting System For 10,000 Syrian Refugees

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 60986

the_human_being
The problem is if their governments do not have strong Constitutional checks and balances,
then ANY religious leader or group could abuse that to go overboard. In those countries it is with Jihadists
or extreme Islamic fundamentalists as in Africa setting up their regimes through weak govt that has little protections in place.

In America, we have strong foundations to check both the church and state:
A. We have a strong foundation of Christianity that is used to check itself.
Whenever someone abuses the Bible to go teach or preach something negative,
as many people will speak up and correct that also by citing the Bible.
If you notice, the Christian abolitionists were instrumental in the push to end slavery,
and currently the Christian left has led the way for gay marriages and transgender to be accepted spiritually.

B. We have a strong foundation of Constitutionalism that is used to check govt.
Where one party pushes for minimum govt restriction and maximum freedom,
the other party pushes the other way, trying to reach a fair balance that protects the people without overly penalizing or depriving liberty.
Until agreement is reached, contested legislation such as regarding abortion, gun rights or health care
continue to undergo reforms. At least this is a civilized process where the "dueling" takes place through democratic means.

How many other countries have as strong a check against
abuses by either church or state authority?

We should learn by comparison what happens when you don't have
members of a religious or political group checking and balancing each other.

This is why we have the Bill of Rights to limit federal govt and prevent collective power from getting out of hand and oppressing the individual.
If you look at the religious and political abuses that do happen in America, from a collective entity such as a church or corporation abusing power,
these would have been prevented if people had the right to due process and to redress grievances before such abuses escalated further.

In other countries the abuses can escalate even worse.
The fundamental religious groups take advantage of this,
where all it takes is a military takeover of govt and there is no way to stop them short of war and violent overthrow.

So if the population in that country is a mass of peaceloving Muslims,
they stand no chance against militant warmongering Jihadists taking over.
Of course they are going to run away and seek protection in other countries that do have means of armed defense.
The peaceful Muslims do not, once their govts get hijacked by tyrannical regimes.