Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1086656)

And there is no proof the ones trying to immigrate are the extremists. We all agree they need to be vetted and if they can't pass the vetting, they can't get in.

Are the states that don't want them going to stop people from visiting as tourists or even as students? What about the extremists with the French passports? Wouldn't they have gotten in?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1086661)

Correct, the bad gyus don't wear signs, if they did, things would be easier.

What we can do, is go through a reasonable vetting process, to make sure these people aren't on any terror watchlists, things like that. That's what we typically do. But with these refugees, according to Obama's own security folks, we can't do that.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1086699)

That's not true, we do have a very good vetting process. We may not be able to run conventional background checks like you'd do for a US citizen but that doesn't mean there isn't a good process in place. It's very different than what happens with refugees heading to Europe.

Quite simply, it would be orders of magnitude easier for a terrorist to sneak into the US via other means than by posing as a UN refugee.

While we must remain vigilant, this is primarily a political issue to stoke fear of Muslims to rally voters = exactly what ISIS wants.

Given Trump's recent behavior I'm starting to wonder if he's on their payroll.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1086699)

That's not true, we do have a very good vetting process. We may not be able to run conventional background checks like you'd do for a US citizen but that doesn't mean there isn't a good process in place. It's very different than what happens with refugees heading to Europe.

I keep hearing that we have this very good vetting process . . . but the process remains a mystery . . . are we just supposed to take the statement as a validation of itself? That's not a sarcastic question. Would really like to know. Have you looked into the process, studied it, and from that concluded we have nothing to fear from jihadists sprinkling in a few of their own amongst the thousands of refugees?

Quite simply, it would be orders of magnitude easier for a terrorist to sneak into the US via other means than by posing as a UN refugee.

That sounds huge . . . "orders of magnitude" . . . makes it sound like there are "orders of magnitude" ways for terrorists to sneak in. So, even without the supposed orders of tininess posed by massive immigration we are in deep doo-doo. Unless the terrorists are very slow on the uptake, "orders of magnitude" of them must have already snuck in. How can that be? I thought we were being competently protected from such danger. Why would we want to add another, albeit a supposed small order of magnitude, way for the terrorists to enter? And how are we to trust the word of our would be "protectors" about their very good vetting process if they have already allowed this great order of magnitude ways for terrorists to sneak in?

While we must remain vigilant, this is primarily a political issue to stoke fear of Muslims to rally voters = exactly what ISIS wants.

This sounds reminiscent of supposedly stoking fear of Obama's election by creating "codes" to let us know he is black. Sometimes, political times I guess, the obvious is arguable and needs to be revealed in sneaky ways.

It must not be the simple explanation that there is a danger, certainly a fear of it, that some (even in orders of tininess) jihadists could successfully pose as mere immigrants to enter. No, no . . . we must be reminded that the jihadists are Muslim (even though we are told by our "protectors" that they really are not Muslims). Ergo, as in the codes for Obama being black implied that voting against Obama would be racist, wanting a hold on the plan to emigrate thousands of people from a region full of terrorism would be code for being anti-Muslim. There is a tangle of twisted contradictory "logic" in this narrative . . . but so well wrought that it is almost plausible.

And, voila, this is exactly what ISIS (or al Qaeda, or pick your name for whatever Islamic--but not really--terrorist group) really wants. ISIS doesn't really want hundreds of thousands of Muslims who oppose them to emigrate to other places from the world they want to claim as their own. Presumably, they would rather they all stayed in place so they could risk a battle against them. That's why they are slaughtering thousands of Muslims who can't escape.

Again, the twisted logic. But seemingly plausible if you examine situational "contexts" rather than the whole.


Given Trump's recent behavior I'm starting to wonder if he's on their payroll.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1086705)

I keep hearing that we have this very good vetting process . . . but the process remains a mystery . . . are we just supposed to take the statement as a validation of itself? That's not a sarcastic question. Would really like to know. Have you looked into the process, studied it, and from that concluded we have nothing to fear from jihadists sprinkling in a few of their own amongst the thousands of refugees?

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1086708)

Everything I've read seems to indicate it's pretty good. First off, when you apply you don't get to choose which country you go to. Given the small % of refugees potentially headed to the US that alone would make it difficult to make a plant, which doesn't consider all the additional interviews and 1-2 years of process.

Sounds like a crapshoot in which we might only get a small percentage (whatever number that would be--tens, hundreds, thousands?) of the plants, or if the dice rolls against us, a higher percent of them than we deserve. It also sounds like a very expensive process. Not only in the arduous vetting of each of the thousands of refugees, but in the financial support when they are accepted. It is also one of those egregiously "unfair" policies which severely limits the number of normal immigrants we allow compared to the "order of magnitude" of refugees we accept every year. Unfair as well to the number of average Americans who have to watch their pennies in order to help pay for the refugees.

Seeing as how it would take up to two years for a refugee to be admitted, wouldn't it be better in that time to aggressively wipe out ISIS so it wouldn't be necessary to have refugees?

I wouldn't think for a terrorists to find their way to Mexico and get across the border would be that difficult if they were well funded. A wall wouldn't stop them.

Better to kill them before they get to Mexico. Hmmm . . . are you saying that the "order of magnitude" of terrorists coming here through Mexico is huge compared to those who could (and have done) sneak in as refugees? Do we have any numbers on the through Mexico route? And how many does it take, once they're here, not only to commit acts of terror, but to recruit American jihadists?

The bigger issue is likely dealing with domestic intelligence and also without a support structure you're basically a lone wolf. It would take some time to build the infrastructure so that you could capitalize on a person or persons who find there way here.

Actually, I hope your faith in the present system is justified. The brief synopsis you've given is not persuasive. Especially in light of rapid change in tactics. Systems in place are always some "order of magnitude" behind new tactics created to subvert them.

I'ld feel better about stamping out ISIS . . . as Trump suggests.

So Obama being black was obvious? Was the code that he was black or that his color and name made him different?

His color, obviously black, didn't make him more "different" than he obviously was. No code was needed for that. And it certainly didn't make him different from the millions of Black Americans except in degree (half white--was there any code for that?). Any "code" to appeal to racists was obviously a waste of words. Racists didn't need the code. Those who were not racists would wonder what the fuss was about. Creating some notion of a secret "code" was not as silly as it appears. It deflected from the validity of a "difference" in policies.

It's not that complicated, it's called stereotyping.

As in stereotyping someone as anti-Muslim.

I'll give you this, your logic is twisted.

Following your twisted path creates a twisted journey

I can't think of any sane reason why he's saying what he is. Like climate change, there may not be direct evidence, but there also is no other known conclusion.