Why do liberals ignore the truth about refugees?

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Impenitent
If this is the process
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...to-apply-to-enter-the-united-states.html?_r=0
That Obama plans to follow to take in refugees,
then you are right that it specifies all the screening necessary, and it does take two years according to this source. Thank you for clarifying this.

Another source said it would take 1-2 years:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/w...stration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html

"But Mr. Earnest emphasized that the president would not allow any lessening in the intense background and medical checks that can take as much as two years to complete. Those wishing to come to the United States must apply through the United Nations, which has a presence in many refugee camps, and Mr. Earnest discouraged migrants from taking risky journeys and paying traffickers.
“Refugees go through the most robust security process of anybody who’s contemplating travel to the United States,” Mr. Earnest said. “Refugees have to be screened by the National Counter Terrorism Center, by the F.B.I. Terrorist Screening Center. They go through databases that are maintained by D.H.S., the Department of Defense and the intelligence community."


Impenitent

If the public could trust the President and federal govt to enforce safe standards,
we wouldn't be arguing over this! Clearly the issue is whether those standards
are going to be more lax because of the urgent demand, and can the President
and govt be trusted with that, can the numbers be handled safely and securely.

The problem seems to be the lack of trust and credibility,
after the President's track record of betraying the public for political agenda.

EX:
* filing federal lawsuit against Arizona over their immigration reform,
that was argued as unconstitutional, but NOT doing the same for the
ACA mandates as many people are arguing are NOT constitutional.
This shows putting political bias above Constitutional protections for all people
regardless of beliefs, and only using govt resources to argue in favor of
legislation that Obama supports based on partisan bias

* The botched fast and furious scandal that put guns in the wrong hands,
while turning around and pushing more gun regulations for political points
in the media in response to terrorist attacks and gun violence.

Time and time again, Obama shows he is putting partisan agenda
first, and disregarding Constitutional violations that don't fit that agenda.
Selectively endorsing and enforcing only that which is convenient,
and not what represents the interests and will of the entire public.

Can you blame people for not trusting Obama with national security,
when he continues to focus on rightwing as the enemy and not showing
as much concern for militant terrorists? This is where his judgment looks off.

Can you wonder why people would not trust him on border policies?
When they'd even support Trump, what does that tell you?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

the_human_being
I think the problem is liberals think too much, overanalyze, and miss the obvious.
They want to view gender relatively, while others see this scientifically.
So this goes in circles.

The part I don't get is why can't liberals apply relativism back toward their own approach.
If they know open mindedness is needed to understand cultural and racial diversity,
where is this sensitivity to differences when it comes to political beliefs?

That's the part I don't get.
I found one liberal democrat who understood "what do conservatives have against banning automatic assault weapons? who needs those"
when I explained in terms of losing rights one normally has, but without having committed a crime and being convicted first.
That is treating law abiding citizens as criminals "in advance" of any wrongdoing, and losing liberty they normally and previously had.
When I explained it this way, it was understood!

But most liberals are so caught up in their agenda and opposing the opposition,
they don't stop to put themselves in the other person's mindset long enough to get why that person feels violated.

I also have to explain prochoice to prolife and prolife to prochoice people
who don't get the other viewpoint. Once you really understand where people
are coming from, it is clearly not fair to impose one way's views over the other.
Or both will feel violated.

I am hoping more liberals like even Impenitent here who is very thoughtful and patient,
will take the time and effort to truly understand the depth and background behind
the Conservative and Constitutionalist viewpoint. And in return, maybe more people
will take equal effort to understand liberal views for prochoice and anti death penalty
that seem contradictory to many. I still can't figure out the health care bit, though, that mindset totally escapes
me; and the most I can understand is if the liberals really want this, why not set it up through the Democrats
and Greens as a health care cooperative and let people have "free choice" to participate under mandates the members vote on.

If Democrats are prochoice, where is it?
That's the part I still don't get, and I'm a Democrat!

 

[Claudette]

Anyone who doesn't think there will be terrorists among these Syrian refugees is a few cards short of a full deck.

The FBI has already said its impossible to vet these people. Syria is ravaged by war and I doubt any paperwork or anything else is available to check these people out and who the hell would you ask about them anyway??

We American taxpayers sure don't need them and 53% of Americans don't want them. Douchebag in the WH is a moron or he has his own agenda in regards to these refugees.

Oh and that box of rocks is looking mighty intelligent.

 

[Clementine]

More peaceful Muslims and their lovely culture. I think being born into a Muslim country as a female would be living hell.


A woman was arrested, beaten and raped countless times by guards. Her offense? She was caught holding a beer can. Beating women for disobeying sharia is just part of the culture. They have an actual television show that discusses sharia obedience and the proper way to beat women. Typical show that reflects the culture and discusses what really matters.

http://americannews.com/woman-jailed-raped-and-whipped-because-she-was-holding-a-beer-can/


Here we have another gross violation of sharia. A four year old little girl made the terrible mistake of not re-covering her head after her scarf slipped off during lunch. Her father beat her to death. He instructed his wife to bury the child, but she contacted authorities instead. She is probably guilty of disobeying sharia for going against her husband, so if he isn't jailed, she'll die next for her actions.

"President Barack Obama likes to contend that Islam is a "religion of peace." But many of the cultural customs associated with the religion represent a long history of misogyny and violence against women and children. And it’s no wonder—when the Koran instructs to beat a woman if you "fear disobedience" from them.


We have seen many manifestations of this over the past decade, and unfortunately, incidents happen far more than are even reported. And the victims are most often women and little girls.

Recently, a four-year-old girl was killed by her own father in Uttar Pradesh after she failed to cover herself while eating lunch.

One report indicates that her father "slammed the child to the ground again and again, till she died." "

http://americannews.com/muslim-father-kills-4-year-old-daughter-for-forgetting-to-cover-her-head-while/

And those are ones that would not be considered terrorists, even if the vetting process was worth a shit.

 

[Impenitent]

More peaceful Muslims and their lovely culture. I think being born into a Muslim country as a female would be living hell.


A woman was arrested, beaten and raped countless times by guards. Her offense? She was caught holding a beer can. Beating women for disobeying sharia is just part of the culture. They have an actual television show that discusses sharia obedience and the proper way to beat women. Typical show that reflects the culture and discusses what really matters.

http://americannews.com/woman-jailed-raped-and-whipped-because-she-was-holding-a-beer-can/


Here we have another gross violation of sharia. A four year old little girl made the terrible mistake of not re-covering her head after her scarf slipped off during lunch. Her father beat her to death. He instructed his wife to bury the child, but she contacted authorities instead. She is probably guilty of disobeying sharia for going against her husband, so if he isn't jailed, she'll die next for her actions.

"President Barack Obama likes to contend that Islam is a "religion of peace." But many of the cultural customs associated with the religion represent a long history of misogyny and violence against women and children. And it’s no wonder—when the Koran instructs to beat a woman if you "fear disobedience" from them.


We have seen many manifestations of this over the past decade, and unfortunately, incidents happen far more than are even reported. And the victims are most often women and little girls.

Recently, a four-year-old girl was killed by her own father in Uttar Pradesh after she failed to cover herself while eating lunch.

One report indicates that her father "slammed the child to the ground again and again, till she died." "

http://americannews.com/muslim-father-kills-4-year-old-daughter-for-forgetting-to-cover-her-head-while/

And those are ones that would not be considered terrorists, even if the vetting process was worth a shit.

Your cited example is from Iran, a government we do oppose. Iranian citizens such as this poor woman would presumambly be eligible for relocation to a free land as a refugee, yet you are against that.

You are against both the tormentors and their victims simultaneously. How is that possible?

 

[Coyote]

We are seeing the beginning of this in a town in Michigan that has a majority Muslim city government. They immediately began outlawing alcohol and forcing people to listen to the Muslim call to prayer numerous times a day, starting early in the morning. They have no respect for western culture. They are not coming to assimilate, they are coming to change things. Oppose and prepare to be called names by the left.

Really now...got a source for that claim?

 

[easyt65]

What do you get when a liberal brags about their fool-proof vetting process, mocks valid American concerns over national and personal security, is intent on bringing in islamists from a region in the ME where the inhabitants want to kill us, and gives terrorists visas?

12 dead Americans, a silent media, and a nation of delusional Obama apologists in denial...

 

[Coyote]

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

No indication those are liberals.

 

[Impenitent]

They weren'

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

No indication those are liberals.

they weren't. They were led by republican isolationists Sen. Robert Taft, Charles Lindberg, and Henry Ford.

 

[Coyote]

They weren'

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

No indication those are liberals.

they weren't. They were led by republican isolationists Sen. Robert Taft, Charles Lindberg, and Henry Ford.

I kind of figured it was a lie! Thanks

 

[bripat9643]

"Why do liberals ignore the truth about refugees?"


This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

There's no such fallacy, numskull.

I love the way you just make them up as you go along

 

[Clementine]

Hard to keep up with the reports of Muslim refugees sexually assaulting women. Another organized attack by a group of Muslim refugees. Happened again, this time in Russia. The local men weren't about to tolerate the behavior and ended up fighting with the refugees. Some of the refugees ended up in the hospital and authorities say they will be deported as soon as the hospital releases them.

http://toprightnews.com/muslim-refugees-molest-women-in-russian-nightclub-russian-men-make-them-regret-it/

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look at what so many Muslim leaders are saying. They want Islam to rule and they are using the refugees to get their caliphate.

How many foreigners who applied for refugee status into the US last year have been granted that status and let in?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Why do liberals ignore the truth about refugees?"


This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

There's no such fallacy, numskull.

I love the way you just make them up as you go along

What truth is being ignored?

1. prove it's the truth
2. prove it's being ignored