Immigration Ban

[knapplc]

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.

You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke.

Right. So we're taking in refugees to get them out of the burning building. Several countries, including the US, are trying to "put out the fire."

Where's the disconnect here?

What happens when the fire is out?

What do you think happens?

 

[Oade]

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.

You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke.

Right. So we're taking in refugees to get them out of the burning building. Several countries, including the US, are trying to "put out the fire."

Where's the disconnect here?

I guess my disconnect is that fire generally spreads if given the chance.... You don't take a burning personal item to your new house and let it continue to burn..... Taking in refugees indefinitely creates the potential for that here, which would negate the nature of the safety we can offer currently.

Again, I don't agree with an all out ban, but increasing/improving precautionary measures can be a good thing.

 

[TAKODA]

Sorry for potential typos but replying from mobile while traveling.

Knapp, Zoogs, anyone?

How is it that the citizens of the US, should feel safe regarding the refugee issues, when there are those countries who have like minded Muslim beliefs, that want no part of allowing these same refugees to stake a claim in their country. My understanding regarding Saudi is, those allowed in are already employed or are to be employed (labor coverage), where they are vetted in depth?

Edit ~ should we do less than what they have instituted?

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Having problem with multi-quote button, atm...

Oade & others - I think everyone agrees it would be great to improve our vetting. The question that nobody can answer is HOW does this ban do improve our vetting; WHAT changes need to be made to our vetting; and, HOW has the vetting from these countries failed? Everyone has an opinion on whether this process is broken or not. Myself and others are looking for Quantitative evidence which demonstrates the US vetting process for these countries has been inadequate. Otherwise, this discussion is going to continue to spin its wheels and go nowhere as feelings aren't typically grounded in facts (human issue, not calling anyone out).

 

[knapplc]

Sorry for potential typos but replying from mobile while traveling.

Knapp, Zoogs, anyone?

How is it that the citizens of the US, should feel safe regarding the refugee issues, when there are those countries who have like minded Muslim beliefs, that want no part of allowing these same refugees to stake a claim in their country. My understanding regarding Saudi is, those allowed in are already employed or are to be employed (labor coverage), where they are vetted in depth?

Edit ~ should we do less than what they have instituted?

Have you examined the history between whatever country you're talking about and Syria? Maybe there's bad blood between them dating back a few centuries. There are 100 reasons why one of those countries may not want Syrian refugees that has nothing to do with safety.

This, essentially, is a guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario. These Syrians are suspected of plotting harm to Americans without having been shown to.

I thought America was better than that.

 

[knapplc]

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.

You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke.

Right. So we're taking in refugees to get them out of the burning building. Several countries, including the US, are trying to "put out the fire."

Where's the disconnect here?

I guess my disconnect is that fire generally spreads if given the chance.... You don't take a burning personal item to your new house and let it continue to burn..... Taking in refugees indefinitely creates the potential for that here, which would negate the nature of the safety we can offer currently.

Again, I don't agree with an all out ban, but increasing/improving precautionary measures can be a good thing.

I'm not sure where we're going with the burning house analogy anymore.

This is a human crisis. We're (supposed to be) among the moral leaders of the world. The moral, human thing to do is aid these refugees. Let's do that before we condemn too many of them to death.

 

[zoogs]

In the short term taking in the best and the brightest refugees seems the right thing to do. In the long term however it robs from that society of the very people with leadership skills that could see their country to a better place with help from the world community. If during Revolutionary times the 1/3 of society that wanted to break away from England had decided it was easier to move to Quebec Canada or Mexico or some other safe country the revolution wouldn't have happened.

This is an interesting argument. We're doing nobody a favor by leaving refugees in these countries to die.

How is it that the citizens of the US, should feel safe regarding the refugee issues, when there are those countries who have like minded Muslim beliefs, that want no part of allowing these same refugees to stake a claim in their country. My understanding regarding Saudi is, those allowed in are already employed or are to be employed (labor coverage), where they are vetted in depth?

You appear to be saying two things:

1- How can we feel safe when the refugees are Muslim?

2 - Our vetting was not enough.

I would say our vetting was quite stringent, that the first constitute unfounded fears (Muslim beliefs are part of the American tapestry!), and further that the Saudis are not examples to emulate.

 

[GM_Tood]

Having problem with multi-quote button, atm...

Oade & others - I think everyone agrees it would be great to improve our vetting. The question that nobody can answer is HOW does this ban do improve our vetting; WHAT changes need to be made to our vetting; and, HOW has the vetting from these countries failed? Everyone has an opinion on whether this process is broken or not. Myself and others are looking for Quantitative evidence which demonstrates the US vetting process for these countries has been inadequate. Otherwise, this discussion is going to continue to spin its wheels and go nowhere as feelings aren't typically grounded in facts (human issue, not calling anyone out).

Don't we rely on the countries in question to be able to provide the information necessary to vet these Immigrants/Refugees? I would imagine that these countries (outside of Iran) do not have the ability to provide this information in an accurate manner that would suffice the new Immigration vetting procedures in DC. This is just an opinion...if you are looking for 100% fact then I don't think anyone on this forum is able to give you what you are looking for as an answer.

 

[zoogs]

Is there really no answer to the question "is it possible to vet immigrants, refugees, green card and visa holders" from Iran, Syria, Iraq, et al.?

Why is there a need to change what we were doing before?

 

[TAKODA]

Sorry for potential typos but replying from mobile while traveling.

Knapp, Zoogs, anyone?

How is it that the citizens of the US, should feel safe regarding the refugee issues, when there are those countries who have like minded Muslim beliefs, that want no part of allowing these same refugees to stake a claim in their country. My understanding regarding Saudi is, those allowed in are already employed or are to be employed (labor coverage), where they are vetted in depth?

Edit ~ should we do less than what they have instituted?

Have you examined the history between whatever country you're talking about and Syria? Maybe there's bad blood between them dating back a few centuries. There are 100 reasons why one of those countries may not want Syrian refugees that has nothing to do with safety.

This, essentially, is a guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario. These Syrians are suspected of plotting harm to Americans without having been shown to.

I thought America was better than that.

Better because we turn the other cheek? I recognize 9-11 was a while ago but not sure that had we

not been proactive after Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't be in a different situation today! You can say and show all you want about the other 12995 admitted refugees not doing what the few did on 9-11, but if your job was to protect the citizens of your state, city or country, wouldn't you want a solid starting point as a law enforcement agent, knowing that those you stop on the streets, have been sufficiently vetted to insure you are not the agent who makes a bad decision, because of the massive publicized profiles?

 

[teachercd]

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.

You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke.

Right. So we're taking in refugees to get them out of the burning building. Several countries, including the US, are trying to "put out the fire."

Where's the disconnect here?

What happens when the fire is out?

What do you think happens?

You go back home?

 

[Oade]

Having problem with multi-quote button, atm...

Oade & others - I think everyone agrees it would be great to improve our vetting. The question that nobody can answer is HOW does this ban do improve our vetting; WHAT changes need to be made to our vetting; and, HOW has the vetting from these countries failed? Everyone has an opinion on whether this process is broken or not. Myself and others are looking for Quantitative evidence which demonstrates the US vetting process for these countries has been inadequate. Otherwise, this discussion is going to continue to spin its wheels and go nowhere as feelings aren't typically grounded in facts (human issue, not calling anyone out).

I agree, I'm not sure how this EO does anything. I never would have enacted it myself if I was president. But given the fact that its temporary and people are still allowed in on a case-by-case instance, I'm not sure that screaming about it does much good.

Furthermore, we've taken in roughly 15,000 Syrians in the past 18 months, compared to roughly 250 the previous 8 years combined. That is a very rapid increase in refugee numbers, and although we haven't seen crime-spikes, its possible that the issues that have plagued Europe have yet to manifest here simply based on numbers rather than actual efficiencies of our procedures in comparison to Europe.

What about our Vetting process is different or better than European countries? Is it that our process is truly better, or is it that until a year ago we didn't take Refugees in at a comparable rate to Europe?

 

[zoogs]

Somewhere above someone said: let's be real, the refugees aren't the issue. I strongly disagree. The refugees are absolutely the issue.

had we not been proactive after Pearl Harbor

Oh, we were proactive after Pearl Harbor. Many Japanese-Americans will attest to that.

Sure their lives were disrupted and a great injustice was done to them. But at least Americans felt safer for it.

 

[knapplc]

Sorry for potential typos but replying from mobile while traveling.

Knapp, Zoogs, anyone?

How is it that the citizens of the US, should feel safe regarding the refugee issues, when there are those countries who have like minded Muslim beliefs, that want no part of allowing these same refugees to stake a claim in their country. My understanding regarding Saudi is, those allowed in are already employed or are to be employed (labor coverage), where they are vetted in depth?

Edit ~ should we do less than what they have instituted?

Have you examined the history between whatever country you're talking about and Syria? Maybe there's bad blood between them dating back a few centuries. There are 100 reasons why one of those countries may not want Syrian refugees that has nothing to do with safety.

This, essentially, is a guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario. These Syrians are suspected of plotting harm to Americans without having been shown to.

I thought America was better than that.

Better because we turn the other cheek? I recognize 9-11 was a while ago but not sure that had we

not been proactive after Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't be in a different situation today! You can say and show all you want about the other 12995 admitted refugees not doing what the few did on 9-11, but if your job was to protect the citizens of your state, city or country, wouldn't you want a solid starting point as a law enforcement agent, knowing that those you stop on the streets, have been sufficiently vetted to insure you are not the agent who makes a bad decision, because of the massive publicized profiles?

There's a lot of chaotic spaghetti-flinging going on here. It's like we're just trying to see what sticks.

"Turned the other cheek." From what? 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by Syrians.

What does Pearl Harbor have to do with the modern terror threat?

We do have a solid starting point. Our vetting process is stringent. It's been posted here half a dozen times, and if you think it's not stringent enough, specifically say where it can/should be beefed up.

God forbid that we, as a country, should blame a vetting agent personally if someone they should have flagged gets through. Everyone makes mistakes. Kids still get hurt on their bikes no matter how many pads or helmets we make them wear.

 

[Landlord]

Okay so,

For 16 years we've been taking personal items out of burning homes (am I getting the analogy right thus far?). For 16 years, those items haven't caused fires here, because we've done a really good job of making sure that the items aren't on fire beforehand.

But now, for whatever reason, we're scared that the items are on fire we just can't see it, so the solution is to just let the whole thing burn down, and not try to save any prized possessions, so we can take a look at whether or not we aren't doing enough to keep the fire out of our homes, despite our homes never catching on fire even though we continuously bring in items from other homes that were burning...

?