Tell It Like It Is

[wesw]

[Lord Jim]

I agree that this is a bigger problem than the refugees. I've said before that even though we've only had a couple of hundred people travel to fight in Syria, this program makes us vulnerable to the thousands of Europeans who have gone there. This looks like a no brainer to me; the sooner it's passed the better:

Senators eye new restrictions on visa waivers after Paris attacks

A bipartisan group of senators say they are ready to act on concerns that the U.S. practice of waiving visas for short-term visitors from 38 countries could allow terrorists relatively easy access to American soil.

Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation Thursday tightening the visa waiver program to make it more difficult for potential radicals to enter the United States by ending visa waivers for anyone who has traveled to Syria or Iraq in the past five years.

The perpetrators of Friday’s terror attacks who have thus far been identified were French nationals who, because of that, would have been eligible to enter the United States with only minimal prior screening.

"The problem is the European communities, which are generally all visa waiver communities,” Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Wednesday after exiting a closed-door briefing with homeland security officials. “Let’s say France has had 2,000 people leave to go and fight. They are visa waiver countries, so the people come back to France and then they [can] come into the United States. The bill we would propose would strictly limit that.”

Senators from both sides of the aisle emerged from closed briefings concerned about security risks posed by the visa waiver program, which allows citizens from 38 countries to visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without a visa.

After an all-senators briefing by administration officials late Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she intends to introduce legislation Thursday — along with Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. — that would bar individuals who have been in Syria or Iraq within the past five years from making use of the visa waiver program to gain entry into the U.S.

[rubato]

Marine Le Pen (national front leader)
LJ
26 Republican governors
1 Democrat governor
Jeb Bush
Ted Cruz
Mike Huckabee

All agree to do the racist and cowardly thing and leave Syrian refugees to die. They are all moral victims of the terrorists.



Francoise Hollande
Obama
US Christian Evangelicals
rubato
Most of the posters on this board (including all the liberals)

All understand that to fail in our moral duty because of panic and fear is cowardly and makes us the witless tools of terrorists. All of us think we must do our moral duty to give aid to suffering people who were forced to flee their homes and agree to take our share of refugees.

France's President Just Showed the World There's Another Way to Respond to Terrorism
Mic By Tom McKay
17 hours ago


French President François Hollande announced on Wednesday that the French government would honor its previously agreed-upon commitment to accept 30,000 refugees over the next two years, regardless of Islamic State group-linked terrorist attacks in Paris on Nov. 13 which killed at least 129 people and wounded more than 350.

"Life should resume fully," Hollande told a gathering of French mayors, reports ABC News. "What would France be without its museums, without its terraces, its concerts, its sports competitions?"

"France should remain as it is," he continued, discussing the need to not let ISIS successfully disrupt French policy. "Our duty is to carry on our lives ... 30,000 refugees will be welcomed over the next two years. Our country has the duty to respect this commitment."

According to ABC News, Hollande said while "some people say the tragic events of the last few days have sown doubts in their minds," and he understood the urgent need for adequate security, France has a "humanitarian duty" to "reinforce our borders while remaining true to our values."

Refusing to do the right thing creates more terrorists and justifies them. To understand that we have a moral duty and to fulfill it is what makes us better than the terrorists.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

No rubato, LJ has clearly said "maybe" and not "no" on admitting Syrian refugees. He's also acknowledged there is a problem, and wants to find a solution -- which isn't just leaving them for ISIS/D'aesh/ISIL/the fucking terrorists.

Look, I don't agree that you can create "safe zones" in country, or that only the surrounding nations are required to take them. His positions on refugees (a local or middle eastern problem) v. war with Syria (a US problem) are internally inconsistent. But all that being said, your statement that he supports "leaving Syrian refugees to die" is not even close to correct.

Cruz, Huckabee, Bush, and many of the governors are racist cowards, victims of the terrorism they claim to be "fighting." The things that have come out of their mouths are shameful. I've not seen LJ go down any of those paths and its is completely unfair to put him in the same class as those azzhats.

[rubato]

If it is true that LJ has only said "maybe" then I withdraw the charge.


Is there even 1 person in the GOP who is capable of moral leadership? Who will give up the votes of fearmongerers to do the right thing?



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Thank you Guin...

His positions on refugees (a local or middle eastern problem) v. war with Syria (a US problem) are internally inconsistent.

Let me clarify something:

It's not my position that the refugees are only a local problem...I said:

we need to provide more material support for the countries bordering Syria who are hosting the bulk of the refugees, to improve conditions and relieve pressure on those countries.

Second, we need to establish and supply in-country safe zones within Syria to accommodate additional displaced.

All of that requires very substantial US involvement and commitment. (As well as commitment on the part of European countries, and the wealthier countries in the ME)

This is an unusual refugee situation, in that virtually everyone involved, (including the vast majority of the refugees themselves) all agree that the ultimate objective here is for the refugees to be able to return home...

When you look at most other waves of refugees, historically this is has generally not been the case.

Since everyone agrees that the refugees returning home is the desired end game, It's not "racist" or "xenophobic" or "Islamophobic" to believe that the best approach is to have these people as close to home as can be done safely and humanely.

It's logical...

As for you rube:

[Lord Jim]

Let me also clarify my "maybe" position:

There are two factors that lead me to that position:

The first I just outlined in my previous post; given that the ultimate objective is for these folks to be able to return home, it only makes sense to house and care for the vast bulk of them as close to their country as can be practicably and humanely accomplished.

The second is concern about the vetting process for entry into the US being adequate. I oppose the legislation being proposed on the Hill that establishes absurdly high requirements (like requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to personally sign off on every refugee cleared for US entry )

And I certainly do not agree with the idea of establishing a religious litmus test for accepting refugees. Aside from the fact that the idea is just plain odious from an American values standpoint, as a practical matter it would add nothing to prevent terrorists from slipping in...

Does it ever occur to the geniuses proposing this that if we announced a policy that we would only take in Christian refugees from Syria that the terrorists who wanted to gain entry to the US by posing as refugees would then just pose as Christians? It would be as easy for them to do that with forged papers as anything else...

On the other hand, I'm highly skeptical of this Administration having an adequate vetting process in place. For a huge number of reasons, my trust level for these people is very low. (After all these are the same folks who believe the Iraq nuke agreement is a wonderful deal)

John Kerry standing up saying that we have a "careful and rigorous vetting system" doesn't cut it for me...

I don't expect all the methods used to conduct this vetting to be made public in a detailed way, (because obviously if that were done, we would be letting the terrorists know what they had to figure out how to get around.)

What I'd like to see is an independent bipartisan panel of respected intelligence professionals, (not politicians, probably retired intelligence pros) review the existing procedures, and either sign off on them as is, or make recommendations for improvement that the Administration then implements.

Something like that would satisfy my concerns, and I'd go from "maybe" to "yes".

[Guinevere]

Rubato --- "maybe" vote, as well as the discussion I referenced in my post above.

the police were able to conclude - as they now have - that ALL of the terrorists were European nationalists, and NOT refugees,

Do you have a link for that? I'm seeing where un-named officials are saying that all those who have been positively identified "so far" are European nationals, but I'm not seeing anything about official police conclusions...

I'm the maybe vote...

But I also agree with Meade, it would be better to provide aid to those adjacent countries in the region....

And it would be best of all to (as we should have done four years ago) establish a safe zone within Syria for the refugees.

[rubato]

We have been supporting Syrian refugees in Turkey &c for years and years now. That strategy has failed. Has LJ not noticed?

Has LJ not been reading the news? Has he no fucking idea what is actually going on in the world? Has he been drunk for 4 years?


When the dislocation goes from 1 year to 4 years and then indefinitely more the equation has changed. Children are losing not just a year or two of school but all of school. Adults are not just losing a year of their jobs but all of their jobs. The hope of returning even to a city of rubble and ruin which can be rebuilt is gone. Time passes and life continues and we have to match the flow of time with resources. The refugees flooded out of turkey now because they knew this was true. They, unlike you, had lived through the passage of years and understood the costs in life and hope.

"maybe" is a weak answer for a completely ignorant person.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

We have been supporting Syrian refugees in Turkey &c for years and years now. That strategy has failed.

Gee, you mean a strategy that only involved supporting refugees didn't stop Assad or ISIS?

What a surprise...

If you could read for comprehension, you would know that I've proposed a "package deal" approach to undo the disaster that years of inaction on the part of your hero Obama has done much to bring about...

You're too much of a moron for me to waste my time trying to explain it to you again...

Why weren't you bitching about Obama's failure to do anything during all that time rube?(Since I was paying attention to the news, and am not a brain dead shill, I was.) Have you not been reading the news? You have no fucking idea what is actually going on in the world? Have you been drunk for 4 years?

The hope of returning even to a city of rubble and ruin which can be rebuilt is gone.

And who appointed you spokesperson for the Syrian refugees, cupcake? If you read the news and had some fucking idea of what is actually going on in the world, (and weren't drunk) you would know that what you claim to be the attitude of the vast majority of Syrian refugees is complete horse shit...

I don't think I'm going to respond to anything else you have to say on this topic rube, until and unless I see some evidence that you have finally actually taken some time to learn something about it...

In the meantime, we have such a huge asymmetry in what we're bringing to the table, that debate is really pointless...

What I have posted on this topic demonstrates that I've studied and considered the situation thoughtfully...

What you have posted just demonstrates your usual

[Lord Jim]

If it is true that LJ has only said "maybe" then I withdraw the charge.

My strong suspicion is that between the time you posted that and your latest sputtering buffoonery , you got loaded...

You probably don't have anything else to do on your vacation but get plastered...

I think it's nap time rube...

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm one of the "maybe" votes as well. As long as the "vetting" (are we talking 'profiling'?) is efficient; as long as it's tied to a policy dealing with Da'esh as it should be dealt with; as long as the immigration is temporary, with no automatic right to stay but subject to the usual immigration laws; as long as there is funding made available for folks to return and rebuild... those kinds of things. Can we keep out single men, age 14 to (say) 45 and the families of same?

All this nonsense about three year old children ignores the reality, as I posted, that Da'esh is training children, even as young as that, in regular schools with videos, physical practice wearing 'bomb' vests and indoctrination in martyrdom in preparation for ISNextgen.

The first priority of the US government is to protect the people of the USA. Welcoming refugees comes after that on the list. But it must be on the list and must be done, but with all due care

[oldr_n_wsr]

eta: I wonder how many of the anti-immigrant/anti-refugee bunch would describe themselves as pro-life?

I'll play.
Me me me me....
Count me as one of the anti-immigrant/anti-refugee crowd and as being pro-life (but would never inflict my opinion on what a woman wants to do with her body).

But I have to disagree with your implication that not wanting these immigrants does not make one want babies or toddlers or adolescents or teens or adults or old people to die. Your comparison of is this "black and white" type that is typically thrown about, especially by this administration and by those wishing to become the next administration.

It is the type of argumentative technique that attempts to put the opponent in a corner where they might squirm a bit.
It's as dishonest as me making the accusation of, "if you are for accepting these immigrants/refugees then you want another 9/11/2001".

As wesw asked:

if you don t want to take in refugees you are a baby killer?

First I do not believe that these refugees can be vetted properly and I defineately do not believe this administration when they say they are, or will, vett them properly. And I do not want them in my neighborhood. We already have enough illegal undocumented aliens (I did hear comrade Deblasio is taking some into NY city) in my nieghborhood.

as long as the immigration is temporary, with no automatic right to stay but subject to the usual immigration laws; as long as there is funding made available for folks to return and rebuild...

Even if that is a condition up front I doubt it would become policy and would not be implemented. They might say it would be that way but it would be with the "wink wink nod nod".
Another reason for my NO vote.

[Joe Guy]

In the meantime, while people here in the US are freaking out about 10,000 Syrian refugees, France plans to accept 30,000 of them.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Good for them. Wonder if they'll take the ones slated for the USA?

I really hope it works out and doesn't bite them in the a$$.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In the meantime, while people here in the US are freaking out about 10,000 Syrian refugees, France plans to accept 30,000 of them.

How's that working out for them?

[wesw]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... tgJeHHlTpw

[MajGenl.Meade]

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that tightens restrictions on the resettlement of Syrian and Iraqi refugees, amid security concerns. Dozens of Democrats joined Republicans as the House passed the measure 289-137, in a rebuke to the White House. President Barack Obama has said he will veto the legislation.

The bill follows the attacks in Paris that left 129 people dead, claiming to the be the work of Islamic State. Seven of the perpetrators died in the attacks, and one of them is thought to have been a Syrian who entered Europe via Greece with migrants.

It still needs to pass the Senate before hitting Mr Obama's desk. The bill would require the head of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to sign off on each refugee as being "not a threat to the security of the United States," following an FBI background check.

Calling the Paris attacks "a game changer", Rep Brad Ashford, a Democrat from Nebraska, said: "I cannot sit back and ignore the concerns of my constituents and the American public."

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said he supported the bill because "it is against the values of our nation and the values of a free society to give terrorists the opening they are looking for".

No shit, Sherlocks

[wesw]

huh....

I must have missed it. all the talk about witches and drunks and morons and xenophobes and idiots and rednecks has me skipping a lot of posts

[MajGenl.Meade]

Missed what? I just quoted a piece from the link you kindly provided. I thought it was worth highlighting