[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Hmmm . . . in your sentence I detect various codes and stereotyping.