22
   

U.S. Governors Suspend Refugee Relocation in their States

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 04:18 am
@izzythepush,
teabagger?
America?
world?

I am just me. But at least I am reasonably observant and reasonably well educated. At least I am not gratuitously mean. At least I dont act like a bratty 10 year old who has mental problems because he does not get enough of daddies attention.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 04:18 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
It is, nobody outside America takes them seriously. You're the joke and you're in denial. You're too weak to handle the truth.


LOL given that we are the only superpower existing in the world at this moment, I question that any large political movements in the US are not being taken seriously by the rest of the world.

It not like it was happening in some second rate world power like the UK.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 06:15 am
@hawkeye10,
I don't think anybody could accuse you of being educated. Your language skills are appalling and you're woefully ignorant of World affairs. You prefer wishful thinking to facts.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 06:16 am
@BillRM,
A superpower in decline, a superpower roundly defeated by a third world country called Vietnam.

Your glory days are all behind you. Try coming to terms with realpolitik.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 06:48 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Your glory days are all behind you. Try coming to terms with realpolitik.


Dream on my very jealous friend.

Comment it is a shame that you turn away from the greatness your nation could had have after WW2.

In so many fields of technology that had driven the economic of the world since WW2 you either match or surpassed the US after WW2 and yet you did little to take advantage of your then position.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 07:27 am
@BillRM,
I'm not jealous, I'm a Socialist. The British Empire didn't do the working man a lot of good. You have an inflated military budget at the expense of everything else, just to prop up the very wealthy Americans and multinational organisations who pay for their own pet politicians.

Spending on health, education and infrastructure has declined to dangerous levels, just to keep the uber rich living a life of luxury.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 07:42 am
@izzythepush,
Sorry but your nation did not spend the needed funds to take advantage of your standing in such fields as computes, aviation, and electronic in general after the war.

You was too busy spending funds on social welfare programs so you allowed IBM and American aircraft companies such as Boeing to run away with the market.

That is spite of the fact that you have outstanding digit computers created during the war and came up with the first passenger jet and had a lead in microwave technology and on and on we go.

You cut your own throats.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 08:04 am
@BillRM,
Oh I forgot that you assholes drove that most outstanding computer and mathematical genius of that period to suicide due to him being gay.

I question even if you had not killed Turing if you would had supported the development of computers instead of just junking the ones then in existence in your hands.

It sad to read how people are searching everywhere for small parts of those WW2 digit computers that you people junk.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 08:33 am
@BillRM,
You keep bringing that up, but he would hardly have fared differently in America. Homosexuality wasn't legalised in California until 1975, unlike Britain where it was legalised in 1967. Remember the Stonewall riots of 1969?
revelette2
 
  4  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 09:26 am
Way too long to post, but it puts to the lie many statements by politicians, pundits, and people here. At times I am so ashamed of some of my fellow Americans on issues such as this. I keep hoping it is a terrible era that will pass like some of our other shameful eras. I think our forefathers would be ashamed. Our whole nation was built on people fleeing persecution, and here we are starting to practice the same thing.

What It’s Like To Be A Syrian Refugee In America

BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 10:27 am
@revelette2,
My my while the risk, is small of any of the ten thousands in a year and more then tens of thousands a year in the future, of launching terrorist attacks similar to the Boston attack it is far from zero.

If I was "king" I would likely allowed them to come in but keeping the numbers to no more then ten thousands a year, but once more it only take one or two to killed and or wounds hundreds and the duty of any government is to protected it own citizens first.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 10:36 am
@izzythepush,
Somehow I would hope that the men in the US who was in the know concerning what the allies owe this man and how priceless his knowledge and abilities still was would would had protected him just as the German rocket scientists was protected from their nazis past.

Be that as it may be we will never know what would had been Turing fate if he had come over after the war and work for say IBM, but we do know what the hell your government did to a man that likely save hundreds of thousands of lives for the allies.

On your hands rest his blood not on the US.
revelette2
 
  4  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 10:48 am
@BillRM,
You type of guys just throw out facts and go purely on the most negative emotions. This time I am going to ignore how long it is simply because it is filled with useful facts and I doubt many of you emoting on this issue get straight facts such as this.

Entering the U.S. as refugees would be the hardest way for would-be terrorists


Quote:
Washington (CNN)—Even before the debris from the Paris terrorist attacks was swept away, politicians began sounding the alarm that Syrian refugees could be a national security threat to the United States. The issue has dominated the U.S. political conversation during the week since gunmen and suicide bombers terrorized Paris on a Friday night.

All Republican presidential candidates called on President Barack Obama to renege on his pledge to admit 10,000 refugees fleeing Syria's brutal civil war into the U.S. and argued instead for a full stop, fearing terrorists could infiltrate their ranks.

Thirty-one governors have declared Syrian refugees unwelcome in their states and on Thursday the House passed a bill to bar refugees from Syria and Iraq from entering the U.S. Nearly 50 Democrats joined 242 Republicans to pass the bill, which the White House has threatened to veto. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican presidential candidate, suggested the U.S. only accept Christian refugees. Ben Carson, another candidate, likened refugees to "rabid dogs" threatening the neighborhood.

But those responses ignore one very important fact: the refugee program is quite simply the toughest way for a foreigner to legally enter the United States. There are other security gaps that would be easier for would-be terrorists to exploit.

Were any of the Paris attackers refugees?

As of now, none of the Paris attackers have been confirmed as having entered Europe as refugees.

In fact, most of the Paris attackers were European citizens born in France or Belgium. Two of them appear to have entered Europe through Greece although it doesn't appear that they came in through a refugee program.

A Syrian passport found next to one of the attackers' bodies stoked fears that the man had been a refugee. That has not yet been confirmed, although top European officials have suggested the passport was doctored, which raises its own set of questions, but does not confirm the suspected attacker was a refugee. Others have definitively been shown to be European citizens.

Perhaps more importantly, the European refugee admission system is dramatically different from the U.S. system for Syrians, in large part because the U.S. is geographically separated from Syria. The U.S. has the opportunity to do far more vetting before refugees arrive on their shores.

How does a refugee get into the U.S.?


Refugees must undergo an 18- to 24-month screening process, minimum, that the United Nations' refugee arm oversees. And that's before individual countries even begin to consider a refugee's application and conduct their own additional interviews and background checks.

The screening process generally includes multiple interviews, background checks and an extensive cross-referencing process that tests refugee's stories against others and accounts from sources on the ground in their home country.

Throughout that process, U.N. officials and local government officials in temporary host countries like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon look to determine the legitimacy of asylum seekers' claims and ensure that they meet the criteria of a refugee, including that they are not and have not been involved in any fighting or terrorist activities.

Refugees also have their retinas scanned and have their fingerprints lifted.

Christopher Boian, a spokesman for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, called the process "stringent" and "long and complex."

If at any stage in that process there is ever the slightest shadow of a doubt or the slightest whisper of suspicion, they are removed from the process. That is that," Boian said.

"The very, very few Syrian refugees who are accepted and referred for consideration for resettlement in another country -- there simply is no more closely scrutinized population on earth these days," he added.

That's because other countries have so far pledged to resettle just 159,000 of the more than 4 million Syrian refugees -- setting an extremely high bar for resettlement.

And refugees aren't automatically considered for resettlement: only the most vulnerable refugees -- such as torture victims, female heads of household, people with serious medical conditions and other especially vulnerable groups.

So after they go through that process by the U.N., the U.S. does an additional screening?


That's right. After a rigorous screening process and several interviews carried out by the U.N. refugee agency, refugees the U.S. agrees to consider for resettlement have to undergo an additional interview, medical evaluation and security screening.

According to one U.S. government official, there's an additional layer of vetting that's specific to Syrian applicants, including special briefings for interviewers and information from the U.S. intelligence community.

The security screening involves checks against several government agencies' databases and terrorist watch lists using biographic and biometric information. It's a process Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, recently called "the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States."

And Syrian refugees get an additional, more targeted layer of screening involving the U.S. Intelligence agency, according to a government official.

Sounds pretty rigorous. How does the refugee process stack up to other ways of getting into the U.S.?


The refugee program is simply the toughest way for any foreigner to enter the U.S. legally.

For most people, getting a tourist visa to enter the United States is much easier, but still requires an in-person interview and involves a typical background check. The process takes anywhere from a few days to a couple months.

But there's an even easier way to get into the U.S. if you're a citizen of one of 38 mostly European countries, including France and Belgium.

Travelers from those countries don't even need to first apply for a visa to get into the United States. They buy a ticket, grab their passport, and undergo the usual screening from U.S. customs officials when they land in the U.S. They are still checked against security databases before they get on the plane and upon arrival.

The fact that most of the Paris attack suspects were European citizens who would have had access to the visa waiver program is setting off some alarm bells. At least one of the eight Paris attackers likely would have been able to travel to the U.S. under the visa waiver program, U.S. national security officials told CNN Friday.

As a sign that the Obama administration agrees that there are gaps that need closing, one of the U.S. officials said, in the coming days the administration expects to announce plans for additional steps to be taken with European countries that participate in the visa waiver program.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who sits on the intelligence committee, said it "would be much harder" for a terrorist to get into the country through the refugee program than with a passport from one of the 38 countries in the visa waiver program.

"(The refugee process) would take 18 to two years. Under the visa waiver program, it could take 24 hours," King told CNN in a phone interview. "The target of our work should be strengthening the visa waiver program."

"We do need to pay attention to whether the terrorists could infiltrate the refugee flow. I don't think it's something we should ignore, but the amount of vetting that goes on there already is very through," King added.

So is that program getting strengthened?


A bipartisan proposal to do just that is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill.

Noting that 20 million people each year use the visa waiver program to visit the United States, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said in a Thursday news conference that a bill she is proposing with Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, would help guard against terrorists trying to exploit the program.

"Terrorists could exploit the program, could go from France to Syria, as 2,000 fighters have done, come back to France, use the visa waiver program and without further scrutiny come into the United States," said Feinstein, a senior member of the intelligence committee.

The Feinstein-Flake bill, which is set to be formally introduced after Thanksgiving, would keep foreigners who've traveled to Syria or Iraq in the last five years from using the visa waiver program. It would also mandate fingerprinting for all travelers entering the U.S. from visa waiver countries and requires all foreigners from those countries to have a modern passport that has an embedded e-chip that is more secure and includes an individual's biometric information and other data.

Flake, the bill's Republican sponsor, told reporters Thursday the refugee program could be strengthened to include better tracking of refugees once they arrive in the country, but said touted the rigorous process as something that shouldn't be a source of concern.

"On the front end, it is a very thorough vetting that they get. So of all the things that we ought to be concerned about, that is not at the top of the list," he said.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 10:50 am
@BillRM,
It must be wonderful to have nothing that resembles a conscience.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 10:59 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Somehow I would hope


That sums up most of your posts. I wasn't even born when Turing died, so spare me your horseshit.

It is not in the West's or America's interests to have a stateless mass of refugees festering in settlement camps for years. They may even feel quite benevolent towards America right now. That will change after six months in limbo. Your ridiculous ideas actually make people less safe.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 11:02 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

It is not in the West's or America's interests to have a stateless mass of refugees festering in settlement camps for years.


too late eh

many of them have been in camps for 3 or 4 years already

we're getting our next batch at the end of the week - women/children/families only

I understand why that limitation was put on but I see it causing additional problems to leave unattached males behind.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 11:06 am
@izzythepush,
So if they are not happy with any aspect of our treatment of them they are likely to turn terrorists in your opinion.

If that is the case we should keep at least one ocean between us and them as taking in and treating the Boston bombers fro example well did not work out for us and we would have been far better off never allowing them on our soil.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 11:06 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Nice false dichotomy.

You claim there would be no refugees without Obama. Pointing out refugees existed before Obama came into office doesn't mean Obama is not responsible for anything. Of course your argument would imply that if Obama had sent troops or arms to Syria then there would be no refugees which is an idiotic stance to take, don't you think?

BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 11:17 am
@revelette2,
If memory serve me correctly those 5 assholes that killed hundreds in London by setting off bombs was second generation or at the very least raised in the UK ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

Three of the bombers were British-born sons of Pakistani immigrants; Lindsay was a convert born in Jamaica.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2015 11:20 am
@BillRM,
too late for that ocean you're hoping for

you'd better hustle and get Trump elected so there can be a wall between Canada and the US as well as his wall between Mexico and the US

you'll also need to wall off the Syrian refugees already in the US

get your trowel out
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/13/2021 at 04:41:18