How to 'vet' refugees from terrorist breeding countries

hsilgne · Feb 4, 2017

What do you think is the proper procedure to vet refugees in order to avoid 'banning' visa's like the Obama admin did in 2011 and the Trump admin is doing now?

The issue is serious. As ABC points out in this report.

"I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more than that," said House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul. "And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me."

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.

shadowhunter · Feb 4, 2017

Ask them if Israel has a right to exist in some form somewhere?

Those advocating for genocide need not apply.

MikeK · Feb 4, 2017

We had been doing a wonderful job of vetting them before this "ban". Returning to that process immediately seems reasonable.

Fenny the Fox · Feb 5, 2017

MikeK said:
We had been doing a wonderful job of vetting them before this "ban". Returning to that process immediately seems reasonable.

This.

Of the last 16 years since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have been carried out in the US by anyone from the countries mentioned in the "ban". They have been US-born citizens (Pulse Nightclub -born to Afghani parents-, San Bernadino, etc.), or immigrants from outside these countries (like in the Boston Marathon bombing, where the two men were born in Russian SFSR -Kyrgystan and USSR).

[And even on 9/11, they were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon, with help from Pakistani and Afghani accomplices. None of which are mentioned in the Trump EO.]

Genersis · Feb 5, 2017

The Executive Order was never about security. It's about politics.
It was signed to pander to people who will support and draw satisfaction from any immigration ban that targets Muslims.

Cynically designed and signed with no care for its real world impacts on innocent people(AKA, everyone effected).

Fantine · Feb 7, 2017

Considering that the UN prescreens all refugees and only recommends 1% for relocation--and then the U.S. investigates this small group for two years, I think our current system is very good.

As a matter of fact, we should use a similar approach for Cabinet nominees:
Puzder--wants to replace his food service employees with robots, hired an undocumented worker for several years;
Price--insider trading on a health care stock that, one week later, he introduced legislation specifically to assist;
DeVos--pushed through education reforms in Michigan which gives millions to for profit private schools with no accountability which has resulted in decreased educational performance and lower test scores.
Price--ruled the EPA in Oklahoma, turning a state with 9 earthquakes a year into a state with over 900--one at 5.5 on the Richter scale--due not to coincidence but fracking.

If they had to meet refugee standards, they wouldn't pass the first barrier!

LivingWordUnity · Feb 7, 2017

MikeK said:
We had been doing a wonderful job of vetting them before this "ban". Returning to that process immediately seems reasonable.

That opinion contradicts what the FBI said about it.

“There will be a terrorist diaspora sometime in the next two to five years like we’ve never seen before”
- James Comey, Director of the FBI (Sep 27, 2016)

imind · Feb 7, 2017

hsilgne said:
'banning' visa's like the Obama admin did in 2011

this is not true. no bans under obama...

LivingWordUnity · Feb 10, 2017

imind said:
this is not true. no bans under obama...

Do you mean Obama didn't use the word "ban"?

imind · Feb 10, 2017

LivingWordUnity said:
Do you mean Obama didn't use the word "ban"?

there were no bans that i am aware of. if you have evidence otherwise, feel free to share it.

LivingWordUnity · Feb 11, 2017

imind said:
there were no bans that i am aware of. if you have evidence otherwise, feel free to share it.

You're going to say, "That's not a ban," if it didn't use the word "ban."

imind · Feb 17, 2017

LivingWordUnity said:
You're going to say, "That's not a ban," if it didn't use the word "ban."

if it doesn't fit the definition of a ban, yes i will...go ahead, lets see what you got...

Rhamiel · Feb 18, 2017

shadowhunter said:
Ask them if Israel has a right to exist in some form somewhere?

Those advocating for genocide need not apply.

why should we care what their views are of Israel?
they are seeking to enter, and presumably becomes citizens of the USA
if they were trying to become Israeli citizens then your criteria would make more sense

Fenny the Fox said:
[And even on 9/11, they were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon, with help from Pakistani and Afghani accomplices. None of which are mentioned in the Trump EO.]

ok
so should we ban people from all those countries then?

shadowhunter · Feb 22, 2017

Rhamiel said:
why should we care what their views are of Israel?
they are seeking to enter, and presumably becomes citizens of the USA
if they were trying to become Israeli citizens then your criteria would make more sense

A founding principle is the right to Life, liberty and he pursuit of haziness. Genocidal maniacs need not apply.

How to 'vet' refugees from terrorist breeding countries

Frustrated in Hooterville.

+collaboratively study, ~ debate, -fight.

Traditionalist Catholic

Well-Known Member

Person of Disinterest

Dona Quixote

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Senior Veteran

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Senior Veteran

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Senior Veteran

Member of the Round Table

+collaboratively study, ~ debate, -fight.

Similar threads