It would be naive to think the US as a whole isn't outright discriminating against anyone looking to travel here for asylum or even to pick strawberries. Discrimination is our thing. We attack the easiest part of a person's being and then sell that to the public as justification.
Our voting population is so fucking stupid and easily influenced that these bureaucrats are only doing the bare minimum that they have to to remain in power.
Ignorance and stupidity walk hand in hand. You rarely if ever have one without the other.
Our voting population is so fucking stupid and easily influenced that these bureaucrats are only doing the bare minimum that they have to to remain in power.
Ignorance and stupidity walk hand in hand. You rarely if ever have one without the other.
By DY_nasty Go To PostWho else is gonna say it? lol
Like a left governor is gonna put that out there at a time like this. Hell, those people think that Hillary is A-okay when it comes to security and foreign policy. Just as ridiculous as I stated above.
And going from 1000 to 10000 is kinda a big deal - lets not pretend that everyone enters the country the same way and under the same circumstances. That makes no sense. Small or large, significant or insignificant, its a real one. If people want to say that they feel its a security risk, they're not wrong imo. If they get racist well… they're probably racist and/or pandering to their racist base. http://gov.texas.gov/files/press-office/SyrianRefugees_BarackObama11162015.pdf isn't racist though. That is risk.
You've already said you understand its a security thing. Don't switch up now because you need to champion something that like… I'm not even remotely trying to hit at.
Again, principles is cool but guys have to make that shit happen and me being one of those guys - let me say it ain't fucking easy lol
"Some Syrians have done bad things, so we're not going to let other Syrians in" is the gist of that letter. It is the definition of discrimination/racism and as such is unjustified from the jump. That shit could be said about anyone.
"Last week some Irish people did this. Then some other Irish people said that. Then some other Irish people did that. We're not letting Irish people in" Same fucking argument, forgotten because of this specific moment of fear we're all living in where treating Syrians differently than, I don't know, Koreans is acceptable (again, racism).
Sorry dude, every argument FOR racism in human history has provided REASONS. No reason, no matter how much it SOUNDS good or makes sense is valid. That's the thing with racism/bigotry. There is no gray area. There is clear cut right or wrong.
I'm not suggesting that this doesn't make your job harder. I'm sure it does. Sorry for that. That's the price we gotta pay in society at this moment in time to live up to our ideals.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To Post"Some Syrians have done bad things, so we're not going to let other Syrians in" is the gist of that letter. It is the definition of discrimination/racism and as such is unjustified from the jump. That shit could be said about anyone.yeahhhhh no i'm not really gonna ride with that when we factually do not have the capability to properly screen and vet a massive influx of immigrants coming from an area that's generally 'uncertain' no matter how you cut it. we don't. and its not something you can just whip up overnight. there's basically nothing to work with
"Last week some Irish people did this. Then some other Irish people said that. Then some other Irish people did that. We're not letting Irish people in" Same fucking argument, forgotten because of this specific moment of fear we're all living in where treating Syrians differently than Koreans is acceptable (again, racism).
Sorry dude, every argument FOR racism has provided REASONS. No reason, no matter how much it SOUNDS good or makes sense is valid. That's the thing with racism/bigotry. There is no gray area.
unless you want to tell me there is
people think the chinese muslim thing is a mess... this is brand new territory of winging it right in front of a terrorist group and just hoping and wishing that nothing happens
lets just NOT ignore the intel community. that's awesome too ya know
that never goes wrong
DY, I think you're mistaken. What ISIS wants is to create a divide between rich nations and Muslims. The more inclusive rich nations are, the more ISIS loses. Remember Charlie Hebdo? The terrorists were not migrants. AFAIK, most terrorists friday were French also.
ISIS wants the limitations of migration rights the same way that the Hezbollah benefits when Netanyahu drifts further down the Right... The more France becomes islamophobic, the more ISIS is reinforced on French soil.
ISIS wants the limitations of migration rights the same way that the Hezbollah benefits when Netanyahu drifts further down the Right... The more France becomes islamophobic, the more ISIS is reinforced on French soil.
1. It's looking like all of the attackers from Paris were European.
2. 2% of Syrian refugees allowed into America are military-aged men.
Basically, we want to turn away little kids and widows from Syria because a bunch of Europeans attacked Paris.
2. 2% of Syrian refugees allowed into America are military-aged men.
Basically, we want to turn away little kids and widows from Syria because a bunch of Europeans attacked Paris.
It's risk reward I guess, but one has to ask ourselves what we sacrifice in the name of "safety". Turning back refugees, to me, is sacrificing what makes us human and what's supposed to make us a great American people.
By DY_nasty Go To Postyeahhhhh no i'm not really gonna ride with that when we factually do not have the capability to properly screen and vet a massive influx of immigrants coming from an area that's generally 'uncertain' no matter how you cut it. we don't. and its not something you can just whip up overnight. there's basically nothing to work with
unless you want to tell me there is
people think the chinese muslim thing is a mess… this is brand new territory of winging it right in front of a terrorist group and just hoping and wishing that nothing happens
lets just NOT ignore the intel community. that's awesome too ya know
that never goes wrong
We can let in 10,000 refugees - and have most of them be outside the normal parameters of terrorism (men aged 20-35) or whatever the Intel tells us. Suggesting we can't divert resources to help 10,000 people when we let in a million people a year who aren't in desperate need of asylum is bullshit. We can find a way to mitigate risk. We don't have to eliminate it completely because there's no way to eliminate completely any risk with any human being. We've fought plenty of wars before and let in plenty of spies along with millions of other asylum seekers. Your argument isn't new, it's essentially "there is a safety risk to living up to our ideals". That argument has always existed and will always exist.
Some Governor whose name I didn't catch was on NPR talking very much as if ISIS are cornered in Raqqa and Obama's lily-livered failure to ok a cavalry charge on 'em is a source of worldwide consternation.
By S@l Go To PostSome Governor whose name I didn't catch was on NPR talking very much as if ISIS are cornered in Raqqa and Obama's lily-livered failure to ok a cavalry charge on 'em is a source of worldwide consternation.France bombed Raqqa yesterday.
By Gabyskra Go To PostFrance bombed Raqqa yesterday.
Aye. GOP won't be happy until there are a few hundred thousand boots on the ground, though innit.
By reilo Go To PostBye Bobby.
Take Kasich with you please
As part of a broad national security plan to defeat ISIS, Republican Presidential candidate John Kasich proposed creating a new government agency to push Judeo-Christian values around the world.
The new agency, which he hasn't yet named, would promote a Jewish- and Christian-based belief system to four regions of the world: China, Iran, Russia and the Middle East.
"We need to beam messages around the world" about the freedoms Americans enjoy, Kasich said in an interview with NBC News Tuesday. "It means freedom, it means opportunity, it means respect for women, it means freedom to gather, it means so many things."
Damn John
Positively fuckin spiffing notion. I'm 100% sure that some of these problems we're having can be attributed to a deficit in American Christian and Jewish self-aggrandisement. The Iranians just don't fuckin know bout Jesus.
Whatcha gonna call it
Kasich going after Carson numbers finally revealing his true form after fooling liberals that he's a moderate.
As for his policy to defeat ISIS, he proposed leading a coalition that includes soldiers fighting on the ground in both Syria and Iraq. He would not indicate a number and said the coalition should not be involved in Syria's civil war.
If you're on the ground and you're fighting, you're involved, man.
By Fenderputty Go To PostKasich going after Carson numbers finally revealing his true form after fooling liberals that he's a moderate.
Pretty much.
"I'm criticized for having a big heart but I also have a big brain," he said.
Watching him say this shit is sensational
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/kasich-proposes-new-government-agency-promote-judeo-christian-values-n465101
By IWMTB19 Go To Postif asymmetrical warfare was anything remotely close to what it was back then you'd have a point
Different situation… But same language.
i just openly laugh at all the idealists saying "we need to be strong" when they're not the ones running round the clock training operations these days... it really is the left equivalent of warhawking. this shit does not just magically happen lol. you guys literally know that this is my job field. you KNOW it is. and you're saying stuff like "its not that bad"
da fuq
i'm telling you it is lol
shit, i was saying the same shit 3 years ago wtf reilo they dont hear me breh
Warhawking has a history of not working, our history of refugees is legendarily good (0 terror attacks from refugees since 9/11 despite bringing in 749k people and while being right there with China and Russia and Iran as the most hated country in the world).
And it's just strange to say "Things are different now! The reasons that turned out to be bullshit and an excuse for letting one religious minority die back then are totally valid today."... That is like literally every bad media blowhard ever.
And it's just strange to say "Things are different now! The reasons that turned out to be bullshit and an excuse for letting one religious minority die back then are totally valid today."... That is like literally every bad media blowhard ever.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostWarhawking has a history of not working, our history of refugees is legendarily good (0 terror attacks from refugees since 9/11 despite bringing in 749k people and while being right there with China and Russia and Iran as the most hated country in the world).Things are different now because its not force on force.
And it's just strange to say "Things are different now! The reasons that turned out to be bullshit and an excuse for letting one religious minority die back then are totally valid today."… That is like literally every bad media blowhard ever.
Like... DO you know the difference? I wouldn't even be upset if you didn't. But asymmetrical warfare on the scale that it operates now, has simply never existed. I look at it like common knowledge. So if I come off snark about it, I apologize. I sincerely do, but when you've got massive amounts of cash moving to all corners of the world with little to no hindrance, relatively instant communication between cells, and trafficking networks that are an accomplishment to identify - much less actually stop.... its kinda hard for me to take straight up 'nazi-watch' in the height of a proganda war between alliances and say that it matches up directly with what we're dealing with now. Tactically.
Also *0 terror attacks since 9/11 from refugees*
this is the shit i'm talking about. there is no GJ bulletin for every crisis averted. that is the flipside of warhawking. like nothing changed after 9/11. intel and preventative action just stayed the same and it was all good right after. cmon. just going along and comfortably stating safety/security as a constant that doesn't need to ever be addressed, commended, or even acknowledged. except when it goes wrong. That's just a testament that it all sucks. massive bias in the other direction
You're ignoring the core point of my entire argument, that refugees have frequently been perceived to be a major threat despite not being a threat in the past. You can go into details of the present and conclusions about the future, but you are essentially arguing that this specific time is one of the first times in our nation's history that our paranoid discrimination against a non-violent persecuted group is actually right on-point. The psychological history of the United States (and the rest of the world) suggests that our fear isn't based on any rational assessment, but is instead based on ridiculous bigotry and we are grasping towards an exaggerated idea of a security risk to justify the bigotry.
The entire country went insane over a disease that had a 0% chance of affecting us just LAST YEAR just because this nation hates black people and foreigners so much. We trump up the threat of minorities and then grasp onto exaggerated points to justify our fear and paranoia.
The entire country went insane over a disease that had a 0% chance of affecting us just LAST YEAR just because this nation hates black people and foreigners so much. We trump up the threat of minorities and then grasp onto exaggerated points to justify our fear and paranoia.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostYou're ignoring the core point of my entire argument, that refugees have frequently been perceived to be a major threat despite not being a threat in the past. You can go into details of the present and conclusions about the future, but you are essentially arguing that this specific time is one of the first times in our nation's history that our paranoid discrimination against a non-violent persecuted group is actually right on-point. The psychological history of the United States (and the rest of the world) suggests that our fear isn't based on any rational assessment, but is instead based on ridiculous bigotry and we are grasping towards rationality to justify the bigotry.That's not my argument at all.
And you guys are still acting like all threat is the same all throughout history. And its still flatout insulting that you think that security just 'happens'.
I'm arguing that American instinct of fear and hatred of others is the same now as it was 75 or 100 years ago.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI'm arguing that human instinct of fear and hatred of others is the same now as it was 75 or 100 years ago.That's not what I'm talking about at all. I've said risk over and over and over again. In response its ideals and bad comparisons to nazi germany when the world was a force on force playground. You're preaching. And you know it too. You're not going to blow my mind with a history lesson on this. Not when guys like me are the ones that pull the all-nighters doing the actual work while everyone else says how strong they are or how strong others need to be. When you quote numbers and say stuff like "there were no attacks of that nature in america!" I'm just....
how about a good job.
how about a keep up the good work.
No. You don't do that. You actually throw our own successes right back in our face to say that we're not doing good enough. And god forbid someone fucks up lol
That is the far left equivalent of warhawking.
I am not comparing ISIS to Nazi Germany, I'm pointing out that refugees have always had irrationally high risk assigned to them and I'm referencing the Holocaust because it is the most extreme and absurd example of how we have hated and feared minority refugees in the past.
People want to talk about today being different but the identical language diminishes the idea that the motivations behind the politicians have changed at all.
Again, warhawking has a history of failure, immigration and acceptance of refugees does not. Norway's prisons are the far-left version of America's prison system... but Norway's prison system works (just an example of how some extreme stances are the correct ones).
.......... And you are basically arguing that Merkel is to the left of Che if you think 10k being accepted is being on the far-left, lol.
People want to talk about today being different but the identical language diminishes the idea that the motivations behind the politicians have changed at all.
Again, warhawking has a history of failure, immigration and acceptance of refugees does not. Norway's prisons are the far-left version of America's prison system... but Norway's prison system works (just an example of how some extreme stances are the correct ones).
.......... And you are basically arguing that Merkel is to the left of Che if you think 10k being accepted is being on the far-left, lol.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI am not comparing ISIS to Nazi Germany, I'm pointing out that refugees have always had irrationally high risk assigned to them and I'm referencing the Holocaust because it is the most extreme and absurd example of how we have hated and feared minority refugees in the past.Norway isn't asked and expected to be world police for one. But yeah... If I repeat risk over and over and over again, and you respond with Nazi Germany stuff - you're clearly getting what I'm saying, you're just choosing to move the discussion to something else entirely. Also, again, irrational in 1940 isn't irrational now. But you know that. I'm not arguing on behalf of racist jackasses. Factually, risk exists. Factually, we really aren't prepared to handle it. We can try. But you don't want to tell someone 'you tried' after the news vans start showing up.
People want to talk about today being different but the identical language diminishes the idea that the motivations behind the politicians have changed at all.
Again, warhawking has a history of failure, immigration and acceptance of refugees does not. Norway's prisons are the far-left version of America's prison system… but Norway's prison system works (just an example of how some extreme stances are the correct ones).
US ain't Norway. Prison systems, gun violence, etc - different issues. Why are they even in the discussion? They're not acting and expected to act like world police.
Edit: I didn't even say "no". I said that I'm okay with states voicing their objections. Again, all this preachy stuff and I'm talking as someone who actually has had the job of dealing with the shit.
I do think it's a shame that what you're talking about (which is reasonable) gets toxified by gutless Republican fuckery and freewheeling religious prejudice. And assholes who say they want a 100% guarantee before they'll lift a goddamn finger.
And pissants like Jeb with what sounds like a "You can just look someone in the eye and know if they're a Christian" take on things. The fuckin nerve to stand there and act like the reporters were dumb for even asking.
Australian wingnut has taken their lead, incidentally:
And pissants like Jeb with what sounds like a "You can just look someone in the eye and know if they're a Christian" take on things. The fuckin nerve to stand there and act like the reporters were dumb for even asking.
Australian wingnut has taken their lead, incidentally:
Ms Lambie, known for airing controversial views, is one of eight independent senators holding crucial votes in Australia's upper house. But as a senator she is not able to enact legislation. "I just think that Australia needs to have better scrutiny and vetting of all refugees, including the proposed 12,000 from Syria," she said in the radio interview. "Maybe the first person who should have an electronic device put on them is the bloody Grand Mufti."
DY, you argue that accepting refugees presents the risk that eventually, 1 out of 1000 people might be a terrorist and be on American soil. Sure. Why not. But the truth is you are are reacting to an event in France in which the wrongdoers were not immigrants at all, but Europeans. Like in January. Like this summer. The real question is, how do you manage the manufacturing of terrorists right there, in your own country? Because it's really not about the crimes of migrants. And criminalizing them will reinforce xenophobia, which in turn, leads to civilizational type wars, which is exactly what ISIS wants.
Now for the sake of arguing in spite of factual elements contradicting it, what if you reject the other 999 while your country bombs the region. How many terrorists do you think that produces? How did ISIS come about? Al Qaeda? Etc.
Now for the sake of arguing in spite of factual elements contradicting it, what if you reject the other 999 while your country bombs the region. How many terrorists do you think that produces? How did ISIS come about? Al Qaeda? Etc.
By Gabyskra Go To PostNow for the sake of arguing in spite of factual elements contradicting it, what if you reject the other 999 while your country bombs the region. How many terrorists do you think that produces? How did ISIS come about? Al Qaeda? Etc.Well basically every extremist Muslim outfit can be traced back to the Muslim Brotherhood...
By Gabyskra Go To PostDY, you argue that accepting refugees presents the risk that eventually, 1 out of 1000 people might be a terrorist and be on American soil. Sure. Why not. But the truth is you are are reacting to an event in France in which the wrongdoers were not immigrants at all, but Europeans. Like in January. Like this summer. The real question is, how do you manage the manufacturing of terrorists right there, in your own country? Because it's really not about the crimes of migrants. And criminalizing them will reinforce xenophobia, which in turn, leads to civilizational type wars, which is exactly what ISIS wants.its not a simple "1 of those guys might be a terrorist"
Now for the sake of arguing in spite of factual elements contradicting it, what if you reject the other 999 while your country bombs the region. How many terrorists do you think that produces? How did ISIS come about? Al Qaeda? Etc.
that line of thinking doesn't work because its under the assumption that 'terrorist' is a direct actor. That's a very, very small part of the entire thing. The gunman, suicide bomber, etc are really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stuff like this. When people talk about terrorism casually in situations around stuff like this, it has nothing to do with supporting actions at all. You're also not considering how refugees themselves could be targeted. You're not talking about how the process itself can be taken advantage of and exploited. You're not talking about how this may have drastic effects on existing facilitation/supporting activities. It doesn't have to be the shooter.
Its just the gunman that people focus on. That's entirely the wrong way to see this. Gunmen grow on trees. If you, for example, allow someone that can train said gunmen to slip through whatever cracks you know or don't know you have (not even talking about refugee situation here), then all of a sudden you have to worry about an exponential increase in enemy capabilities - and that is what allows groups to look at new ranges of targets that would've been impossible or illogical to consider before. Training, money, communication, recruitment, facilitation in general is the much broader concern. You keep that snuffed, and you're infinitely better off than you would be chasing off individual gunmen. As such, my concerns are pretty numerous.
I'm not criminalzing refugees - but to just disregard security, which a lot of people are doing without being aware, is dumb. Again, I am not talking xenophobia. I don't know how many more ways I can say it.
As for homegrown terrorism... hey, domestic terrorism is always the primary concern imo. What is a growing problem, is when you can't track when your own people are acting as foreign fighters and are going back and forth (Britain and the US actually ran into massive hurdles with this two years ago). But you don't hear about that kind of thing in the news when its prevented or quelled. Again, people just assuming that shit only happens when its a headline when its about security.
As for the last bit... I can't care. I can't care at all because I was part of the group that never wanted to go Iraq but understood why we never should've left. And I remember, clearly, how the knee jerk works both ways. I just work here. And this policy doesn't just effect me, it effects how I do my job.
Did any of the Vietnamese refugees we brought in turn out to be Communists who trained and groomed terrorists?
I think fears are reasonable. I don't think using that fear to argue keeping refugees out is. I understand that this position is easier said when I'm sitting in my couch or office.
EDIT: France bringing in refugees even after the attacks. Good on them.
EDIT: France bringing in refugees even after the attacks. Good on them.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostDid any of the Vietnamese refugees we brought in turn out to be Communists who trained and groomed terrorists?Totally the same thing
Well, both groups of refugees could have been infected with members of groups that hated and wanted to destroy America.
I guess the Vietnamese hated us more?
I guess the Vietnamese hated us more?
The US is planning to take what, 10k over 5 years? I'm not ignoring the work that goes into screening and monitoring these people (I read an article somewhere about the checks they go through and they are extensive) but I don't think that's an unmanageable number. France is taking 30k over 2 years and I doubt that ends well, but I don't see this as a case of America biting off more than it can chew.
RT @Carl_Hiaasen: Ben Carson's campaign made a U.S. map and put a bunch of states in the wrong place https://t.co/yhIxsS8OSi
It's not brain surgery, Ben
LOL
It's not brain surgery, Ben
LOL
I just think we think so small sometimes. We're spreading these people out to a variety of different nations--a process that seems terribly inefficient and is no guarantor of a level of quality.
Lets come together as an international community, pool our financial resources to put these people in a single geographical space with the idea of not just having a place where they can be temporarily, but something that might become so much more than that--a future city, a future small country that might serve as something of a bridge to changing future ideologies moving forward as we move from one generation to the next.
Lets come together as an international community, pool our financial resources to put these people in a single geographical space with the idea of not just having a place where they can be temporarily, but something that might become so much more than that--a future city, a future small country that might serve as something of a bridge to changing future ideologies moving forward as we move from one generation to the next.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostDid any of the Vietnamese refugees we brought in turn out to be Communists who trained and groomed terrorists?
What the fuck?
You do realize there were tens of thousands of communists in the US for a long time, and there were tens of millions in Europe?
That's like saying "turn out to be muslims"...
By reilo Go To Posthttp://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/17/republicans-congress-syrian-refugees-us-paris-attacks
That's my president.
By Gabyskra Go To PostWhat the fuck?
You do realize there were tens of thousands of communists in the US for a long time, and there were tens of millions in Europe?
That's like saying "turn out to be muslims"…
I said Communists who trained terrorists, implying radical violent Communist, but sure.
A belgium born terrorist can so easily come here and acquire a gun and kill people. In fact, it would be much easier for a Belgium born terrorist, which as we learned this week most certainly do exist, to do this than for a Syrian refugee to do it.
Yet we want to keep out the Syrian refugee rather than the Belgium "tourist." Not that we should keep either out but the truth is the Syrian refugees are much further down on the "threat" pole than many other things.
Yet we want to keep out the Syrian refugee rather than the Belgium "tourist." Not that we should keep either out but the truth is the Syrian refugees are much further down on the "threat" pole than many other things.
By Mamba Go To PostA belgium born terrorist can so easily come here and acquire a gun and kill people. In fact, it would be much easier for a Belgium born terrorist, which as we learned this week most certainly do exist, to do this than for a Syrian refugee to do it.Its not Syrians, but the massive vulnerability caused by this groupthink to happily disregard existing security concerns out of good will.
Yet we want to keep out the Syrian refugee rather than the Belgium "tourist." Not that we should keep either out but the truth is the Syrian refugees are much further down on the "threat" pole than many other things.
What you're describing is pretty much the blueprint for the Boston Marathon bombing and its just... like come on. Do you guys think that we just sit pat and say "I sure hope the same thing doesn't happen again" or do you think that we rework tracking, screening, and capability assessment each time something happens? It doesn't even need to happen to us. Hell, the Manila Bombing changed how security operates today in BART. You take every opportunity you can to learn, from success and failures alike. Here, there is a place to learn. We know it. We want to employ it. And instead of being heard, its idealism, bad comparisons, and a complete unwillingness to stop and think thrown back in our faces by the entire left while the hardest of the right trying to get a free pass for their racism. Its awesome, no really. /s
To me, there is literally nothing worse than the American people jamming their fingers in their ears and ignoring the complaints of their intel community. We're far from perfect, because its just impossible to be but fuck.
By DY_nasty Go To PostIts not Syrians, but the massive vulnerability caused by this groupthink to happily disregard existing security concerns out of good will.
What you're describing is pretty much the blueprint for the Boston Marathon bombing and its just… like come on. Do you guys think that we just sit pat and say "I sure hope the same thing doesn't happen again" or do you think that we rework tracking, screening, and capability assessment each time something happens? It doesn't even need to happen to us. Hell, the Manila Bombing changed how security operates today in BART. You take every opportunity you can to learn, from success and failures alike. Here, there is a place to learn. We know it. We want to employ it. And instead of being heard, its idealism, bad comparisons, and a complete unwillingness to stop and think thrown back in our faces by the entire left while the hardest of the right trying to get a free pass for their racism. Its awesome, no really. /s
To me, there is literally nothing worse than the American people jamming their fingers in their ears and ignoring the complaints of their intel community. We're far from perfect, because its just impossible to be but fuck.
What are you going on about? In what capacity did I say we should not learn from what happened to France to enhance our intelligence.
I'm stating a reality, though. We're more likely to be scorn by belgium born or american born terrorists than one of the 10k Syrian refugees, who are heavily screened and mostly woman and children. That's all I said. I am not arguing against more intel. I am not ignoring that there is a risk. What I am saying is that the lesson to be learned from Paris is not to deny these refugees. If anything, it is of more importance now that we find 10k or more worthy refugees. Anything less is accepted defeat.
BTW, our screening process for these refugees is pretty fucking rigorous. http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/11/16/9745318/syrian-refugees-us-isis
Where are these warnings from our Intel community that our screening process sucks?
This is the ebola scare all over again.
edit: BTW, I should mention that my father essentially came to the US as a refugee back in 1978. It took so long to process he had to live in 2 other countries for about 3 years before he got completely vetted. And he wasn't a refugee out of displacement, the US made him a refugee. It was an arduous process. And that was mid 70s, not today where it's far, far better.
By Mamba Go To PostWhat are you going on about? In what capacity did I say we should not learn from what happened to France to enhance our intelligence.They only get talked about in the media when someone's got a narrative to push. There's always something lol. With the foreign fighter buzz, everyone was on the same page because it made the left and right feel good at the same time, a true rarity. Everyone wanted to stop their daughters from traveling to some far away land to be a nurse/sex slave for a diabolical empire. That's fun. That's easy. Free. But something may be unpopular enough to be divisive and talked about? That's different.
I'm stating a reality, though. We're more likely to be scorn by belgium born or american born terrorists than one of the 10k Syrian refugees, who are heavily screened and mostly woman and children. That's all I said. I am not arguing against more intel. I am not ignoring that there is a risk. What I am saying is that the lesson to be learned from Paris is not to deny these refugees. If anything, it is of more importance now that we find 10k or more worthy refugees. Anything less is accepted defeat.
BTW, our screening process for these refugees is pretty fucking rigorous. http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/11/16/9745318/syrian-refugees-us-isis
Where are these warnings from our Intel community that our screening process sucks?
This is the ebola scare all over again.
All this started when I said that I couldn't be upset with some states saying that they had objections to the current policy of bringing in refugees. People want to respond with this hard left "we have to be strong for them" type of nonsense when they're only being strong by posting about it. Sorry if it came off that I lumped you into that.
But I will say that the ebola scare is a much, much better comparison. One I haven't really thought of.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostI just think we think so small sometimes. We're spreading these people out to a variety of different nations–a process that seems terribly inefficient and is no guarantor of a level of quality.Naw. One Israel is enough.
Lets come together as an international community, pool our financial resources to put these people in a single geographical space with the idea of not just having a place where they can be temporarily, but something that might become so much more than that–a future city, a future small country that might serve as something of a bridge to changing future ideologies moving forward as we move from one generation to the next.
By DY_nasty Go To PostThey only get talked about in the media when someone's got a narrative push. There's always something lol. With the foreign fighter buzz, everyone was on the same page because it made the left and right feel good at the same time, a true rarity. Everyone wanted to stop their daughters from traveling to some far away land to be a nurse/sex slave for a diabolical empire. That's fun. That's easy. Free. But something may be unpopular enough to be divisive and talked about? That's different.
All this started when I said that I couldn't be upset with some states saying that they had objections to the current policy of bringing in refugees. People want to respond with this hard left "we have to be strong for them" type of nonsense when they're only being strong by posting about it. Sorry if it came off that I lumped you into that.
But I will say that the ebola scare is a much, much better comparison. One I haven't really thought of. Naw. One Israel is enough.
But the argument for it made no sense. The refugees as likely to be terrorisst as a belgium tourists, but no governor advocates banning that. The arguments some put up were completely incorrect.
For instance, Snyder said he won't let refugees in until they are vetted. But they are vetted. As the link I provided demonstates, it's to an immense level.
What you're basically arguing is that you're okay with states being ignorant.
By Mamba Go To PostBut the argument for it made no sense. The refugees as likely to be terrorisst as a belgium tourists, but no governor advocates banning that. The arguments some put up were completely incorrect.You have no idea what goes into tracking said Belgian tourists in your example...
For instance, Snyder said he won't let refugees in until they are vetted. But they are vetted. As the link I provided demonstates, it's to an immense level.
What you're basically arguing is that you're okay with states being ignorant.
You also can't vet against a database that doesn't exist. Otherwise it wouldn't be so long and drawn out in the first place (which doesn't make the job easier at all in reality).
Edit: and when it concerns security, I'm not going to be against someone ignorantly prioritizing personal safety. Its a hell of a lot better than ignorantly not.