Vetting refugees

[Jim in CT]

So the FBI (the premier investigative agency in the world) investigated the Orlando shooter twice, and concluded that he wasn't a threat.

Yet the same federal government is telling us to relax because they are screening all the Muslim refugees who are entering the US.

Imagine my relief.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So the FBI (the premier investigative agency in the world) investigated the Orlando shooter twice, and concluded that he wasn't a threat.

Yet the same federal government is telling us to relax because they are screening all the Muslim refugees who are entering the US.

Imagine my relief.

Here's my hunch ... The FBI director, who I believe is an honorable man , but holds the goods on Hillary, will be forced to resign ....and that will be a shame
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

I thought that Homeland Security does the vetting. either way, I understand the no confidence thing, all the more reason to support the second amendment and protect yourself because if you think our government is going to protect you from evil, you are not paying attention.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I thought that Homeland Security does the vetting. .

I guess that's my point. If the FBI can't adequately screen an American citizen, when they have access to all kinds of data...how the hell is another (less capable) agency going to vet someone from a mountain village that has nothing resembling a public records department? How, exactly, do you vet someone from a village that has no computers, no id cards, no social security numbers, no phones, no cameras, no filing cabinets? Do we only consider refugees from the cities?

[spence]

Apples and oranges. Your question is like asking why a local pizza delivery guy should be trusted to give you a cab ride in NYC.

[justplugit]

Spence, what is your solution?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, what is your solution?

To which issue?

[justplugit]

Vetting.

[spence]

You're assuming there's a problem in need of a solution. The existing process seems to be sufficient from what I've read and the number of immigrants involved isn't that big.

Trumps running around telling people that terrorists are going to flood in which really isn't true.

[Sea Dangles]

This is a situation Jeff,where just one can be too many. The possibility of many would have consequences that may have you taking more karate classes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This is a situation Jeff,where just one can be too many.

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

Why everyone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Yes, why everyone and why not for a period of time until a better system is
devised to use every method possible to make a safer program?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

How do the terrorist's win, and why should we let people in that come from countries that support terrorism?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

How do the terrorist's win, and why should we let people in that come from countries that support terrorism?

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

So, is that more of a "win" than committing more mass murders on our soil?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

It would be an irrational decision to allow immigrants from countries that support terrorism the priviledge (sp ?) to enter our country.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

"If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values"= utter nonsense

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

Not closing the border spence....even if a wall was built they just have to go through processing at the legal entrance....U should B complaining to Canada not letting Americans into their country with a past DUI....

[DZ]

IMO any refugee entering this country should be required sign a legal document during the vetting process giving up their rights to privacy until they become a U.S. citizen.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Not closing the border spence....even if a wall was built they just have to go through processing at the legal entrance....U should B complaining to Canada not letting Americans into their country with a past DUI....

US does the same thing, we're just a little less strict.

[Sea Dangles]

Ha, I would also like to hear your drivel about just how that makes terrorists the victors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

We should not accept any citizen from a country that supports terrorism as one of the rules for refusal.
What is wrong with that?
Just plain common sense.

[Nebe]

Here's a novel idea. Let's keep them over there and we stay over here.

Holy sheet... I just solved it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

If it were not for the terrorists, we would not be influenced into taking the irrational position of accepting hundreds of thousands or more immigrants from countries that breed terrorism. So, yeah, terrorists are and have been influencing us to compromise our value of placing the security of our citizens above the "influence" of the terrorists who wish to destroy us.

And they have to be laughing at our un-American stupidity of placing ourselves in the demographic danger of expanding the population here of those who breed like rabbits (that's not racist--rabbits are not a relevant racial, or gender, or national, or ethnic, group) while, at the same time, we do not breed at replacement level (when discounting the irrational, un-American, acceptance of millions of illegal immigrants.)

Your idea of American "values" seems to contain a high degree of self flagellation . . . even of a latent suicidal tendency. That must be some new Progressive, delusional, LSD like substance politically injected into the cultural bloodstream of America.

And the terrorists must be bending over with spasms of glee that we see more danger in the Muslims who are already here than in the Muslims yet to come. Somehow, some of us seem to think that those to come (if they are not already "radicalized") won't become radicalized as easily as those who are here now. And somehow those who think that way miss the obvious fact that once immigrants get here, they will become part of the ones who become citizens and are already here. That the number who who are "already here" will have grown, creating the potential of even more "radicalized" Muslims.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If it were not for the terrorists, we would not be influenced into taking the irrational position of accepting hundreds of thousands or more immigrants from countries that breed terrorism.

The immigrants in question are largely a product of violence from Assad, not ISIS or al Qaeda.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The immigrants in question are largely a product of violence from Assad, not ISIS or al Qaeda.

The "immigrants in question", more importantly than merely being immigrants, are Muslim. The "product of violence from Assad" was "influenced" by Muslim terrorists. Muslim terrorists, regardless of nominal affiliation or lack thereof, are "influencing" all of the Middle East, Most of Europe, the US, and lots of other places. Places which are influenced to crack down on, deport, or not allow, immigrants have less of a problem and because of their harshness, are thusly, minimally, influenced.

[detbuch]

Has the supposedly lengthy vetting process been reduced to three months for the "surge" of refugees that Obama wants to let in?

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/0...-enough/209814

[ThrowingTimber]

Vetting refugees - Look at how Europe turned itself into a third world country. I say we stay the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of it and mind our own business. They need refuge, let them go to Oman or UAE, Dubai etc. Those mf'ers have bank! Let them help themselves and we'll watch from a safe distance.

The Flowers By Irene guys are robots. They get told go they go. They get told stop they stop. The probably stopped on the kid in Orlando because they were giving him boo boo feelings on the inside.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, and left-wing nuts like four star Generals McChrystal and Petraeus who don't think the public has a rational need for a 223 semi auto configured with assault features.

What freaks.

Freaks? Is this some new Progressive buzzword which is supposed to make us all meekly surrender to how right you are? Progressives are not "nuts" or "freaks." They are very rational. They are extremely persistent. And they are totally full their supposedly superior wisdom. Which makes one wonder why they need buzzwords to convince us of that wisdom. And why they need to change the meaning of words to give their arguments the appearance of truth.

And they told us from their beginning that the Constitution is an impediment to the way they must govern. They have said EXACTLY so IN THEIR OWN WORDS. But the rest of us, of course, are too ignorant of how right they are, how backward we are, and how better we and the rest of the world would be if we, and the Constitution, would just get out of their way so they could lead us into their Brave New World.

So, YES, the Progressives (mostly Democrats) want to abolish the Second Amendment. It is a prominent piece of what remains of the Constitution after they have eviscerated most of the rest. They intend, piece by piece, to finish the job and are free to rule us by fiat, fancied over with phony Orwellian newspeak. The fact that you cannot see that is evidence, as you accused Jim re the vetting process, that you don't understand the process. You don't understand the Constitutional process, nor the process by which it is being dismantled. And you simply accept strings of pretty sounding words and phrases which actually destroy that process. And, somehow, when people like Petraeus, a traitor, or HRC, a psychopathic liar, or Obama, a critic of the Constitution, say those words and phrases, you swoon over them like a subdued lover.

But your love affair is, as love affairs usually are, blind. And you think you understand everything the object of your infatuation does or says. You think you "understand" the vetting process because its string of words makes it so. If we just follow the words, we have little to fear. Oh, how Progressive words constantly change, or are disobeyed, or imperfectly followed. And no rational criticism, even as Jim has provided, are of any consequence. Because the words make the process so. You are a slave to Progressive strings of words. Even though they fly in the face of experience.