Paris implications continued

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Don't talk about my baby brother like that (even though he does enjoy blowing things up).  :P

[Red Hermit]

I don't care much one way or the other what Putin said. It's more about the unabashed admiration for Putin shown by FNR and other apparently anti-American right wingers.

There is also the disproportionate outrage shown by conservatives when muslims murder or abuse people and when right wing terrorists/governments do it.

 

I despise civil rights abuses, and not just when muslims are the culprits.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I believe every Republican governor has now said no to taking in Syrian/ME refugees. Political grandstanding at it's worst.

I expect we'll see images similar to the summer before last where protestors are shouting "GTFO of Murika" at buses full of refugees if the federal government tries to force said states into accepting the refugees.

[DanteGabriel]

I believe every Republican governor has now said no to taking in Syrian/ME refugees. Political grandstanding at it's worst.

I expect we'll see images similar to the summer before last where protestors are shouting "GTFO of Murika" at buses full of refugees if the federal government tries to force said states into accepting the refugees.

Well, the vetting process takes two years, so I imagine these xenophobes will have a while to wait before they can protest any buses. By then they'll probably remember that America's real problem is Mexican laborers/black teenagers/gay people/women who need birth control/whatever the right wing scapegoat of the moment is.

[Fez]

I believe every Republican governor has now said no to taking in Syrian/ME refugees. Political grandstanding at it's worst.

Two still haven't. Herbert in Utah said two days ago that his state would continue to accept refugees, although now that almost every one of his GOP peers has come out against it, I do wonder if his mind will change. And Daugaard in South Dakota said yesterday that its not a pertinent question since the Feds haven't tried to place any refugees in South Dakota anyway.

But the fact that its only two makes them the clear exceptions that prove the rule.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I still fall on the libertarian side of the political spectrum but the Know Nothing Xenophobes of the right are absolutely embarassing.

[Swordfish]

A counterpoint to this: ISIS troops largely ruled by need for basic sustenance and terror. This goes to another point made by iheartteslatesla elsewhere - that one of the big problems in the ME is that they're under serious drought conditions, farms are dying, and farmers are moving in droves to the cities - where they're poor, starving, and making everyone angry. 

Interesting.

I honestly have no idea really what to think about any of this at this point, to be honest.

[Swordfish]

I still fall on the libertarian side of the political spectrum but the Know Nothing Xenophobes of the right are absolutely embarassing.

 

I think the large scale mischaracterization on this to be very frustrating. 

Extending asssistance and asylum to refugees, and practicing due diligence around vetting them are not mutually exclusive concepts.

If a governor has a legitimate concern about the vetting process, is it not his duty to do something about it, despite the fact that it might give some people the badfeelz?

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

I think the large scale mischaracterization on this to be very frustrating. 

Extending asssistance and asylum to refugees, and practicing due diligence around vetting them are not mutually exclusive concepts.

If a governor has a legitimate concern about the vetting process, is it not his duty to do something about it, despite the fact that it might give some people the badfeelz?

The vetting process takes two years, and has already been used to vet thousands of refugees existing peacefully in the US today. Refugees who have, proportionally, caused a lot less trouble than, say, young white Christian men who had the good fortune to be born in the right country. Furthermore, if bad guys abroad wanted to smuggle terrorists into the country, dropping them into a two-year vetting process seems to be a pretty silly way to do that.

Of course, this is all moot, as we're not talking about addressing legitimately held security concerns, but pandering to the badfeelz that it gives to desperately insecure beta males when confronted with the idea of America becoming a little less WASPy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Swordfish,

The policital posturing of the Governors is what frustrates me.  As DG points out there is a vetting process in place and as I pointed out earlier, Constitutionally, State Governors lack the authority to stop the Federal Government from doing anything that involves international borders, ports of entry, or immigration.  That is, clearly, a Federal matter.

[Fez]

This is the first national poll on the issue I've seen.

Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks, say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists, while 11 percent said they would favor a limited program to accept only Syrian Christians while excluding Muslims, a proposal Obama has dismissed as “shameful” and un-American.

 

Polls can be flawed of course, and have been more and more the past few years. But it would seem this is the country we live in now.

[Swordfish]

Swordfish,

The policital posturing of the Governors is what frustrates me.  As DG points out there is a vetting process in place and as I pointed out earlier, Constitutionally, State Governors lack the authority to stop the Federal Government from doing anything that involves international borders, ports of entry, or immigration.  

So your assumption is that they have no actual concerns about the vetting process?  Taking a long time is not an indicator of effectiveness.

i suppose if that's your position, that's your position.  It seems to me there is enough diversity among those calling for more information about the process that we can safely chalk it up to genuine concerns.  They may be genuine concerns that conveniently coincide with other factors, but I don't really see this as purely racist pandering.

 

That is, clearly, a Federal matter.

So you think that in the face of concerns about the safety of their states, they should simply bend over and take it, and then ask for another serving, because it's a federal matter?

What an odd position for a self identified libertarian to take. 

[Mexal]

So your assumption is that they have no actual concerns about the vetting process?  Taking a long time is not an indicator of effectiveness.

i suppose if that's your position, that's your position.  It seems to me there is enough diversity among those calling for more information about the process that we can safely chalk it up to genuine concerns.  They may be genuine concerns that conveniently coincide with other factors, but I don't really see this as purely racist pandering.

Have they yet pointed out the flaws in the process? All I hear is the Paris attacks were done by a Syrian refugee so we must not let them in our country because terrorists. I've yet to hear them discuss the vetting process, the flaws in it and how a terrorist can bypass it. Instead it's no one should enter in case they can even though this process has been working up until this point.

[Swordfish]

Have they yet pointed out the flaws in the process? All I hear is the Paris attacks were done by a Syrian refugee so we must not let them in our country because terrorists. I've yet to hear them discuss the vetting process, the flaws in it and how a terrorist can bypass it. Instead it's no one should enter in case they can even though this process has been working up until this point.

There is plenty of information out there about what exactly they are saying, and how exactly they are saying it.

Someone posted a link above to a meeting between governors and the white house adressing exactly this topic.

So your assumption, though i understand how you got there, does not seem to be in line with the actual position of the governors,  or the things that they are actually saying or asking for.  And it isn't just republicans.

As far as pandering goes, I think there's just as much going on in states like Oregon, where i live, where you have the governor going out of her way to show how progressive she is in order to pander to the liberal majority in portland. it's the same situation, but i don't feel the need to question her compassion.  

 

 

[Kalbear]

So you think that in the face of concerns about the safety of their states, they should simply bend over and take it, and then ask for another serving, because it's a federal matter?

Legally that's all they've got. Governors have no authority to deny anyone access to their state on any non-federal basis. Unless you're claiming that Syrians are carrying apple maggots or something. 

As a state they have specific legal recourse to take it up with the federal government. They can also try and pass a law banning Syrian refugees and see if it passes US constitutional muster (hint: it won't). A governor declaring by fiat that they can turn away refugees however - that's simply not an action they can legally take. As a libertarian, I'd imagine that that would be a pretty problematic thing for you to have - for a governor to simply deny a person's liberty because they choose to regardless of law, no?

[All-for-Joffrey]

There is plenty of information out there about what exactly they are saying, and how exactly they are saying it.

Someone posted a link above to a meeting between governors and the white house adressing exactly this topic.

So your assumption, though i understand how you got there, does not seem to be in line with the actual position of the governors,  or the things that they are actually saying or asking for.  And it isn't just republicans.

 

 

Ok then, what exactly are your concerns about the current vetting process? Because last time I checked, there hasn't been a single refugee admitted into the US involved in terrorist activity since 9/11.

 

As far as pandering goes, I think there's just as much going on in states like Oregon, where i live, where you have the governor going out of her way to show how progressive she is in order to pander to the liberal majority in portland. it's the same situation, but i don't feel the need to question her compassion.

 

No. The response of some Democratic governors is purely reactionary. They wouldn't be saying this -- and wouldn't have to be saying this -- if not for the overwhelming, illogical backlash to refugees.

Also worth noting, Hollande has said that France will admit 30,000 refugees in the next two years:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-president-francois-hollande-welcomes-30000-refugees-in-next-two-years-a6739221.html

 

Kind of makes Republican politicians and the base they're pandering to look like irrational, terrified cowards.

[Mexal]

There is plenty of information out there about what exactly they are saying, and how exactly they are saying it.

Someone posted a link above to a meeting between governors and the white house adressing exactly this topic.

So your assumption, though i understand how you got there, does not seem to be in line with the actual position of the governors,  or the things that they are actually saying or asking for.  And it isn't just republicans.

As far as pandering goes, I think there's just as much going on in states like Oregon, where i live, where you have the governor going out of her way to show how progressive she is in order to pander to the liberal majority in portland. it's the same situation, but i don't feel the need to question her compassion.  

 

Maybe there is but in the past 10 minutes of googling, I haven't found an article that specifically outlined a governors concerns. I've seen a lot of statements that say they can't guarantee the safety of their people or that until there is a full vetting process, we will refuse them (even though that exists today) but I've yet to see anyone point out why the current vetting process, the same one we've used since 2011 (and before with Iraqi refugees since 2007), that takes 18-24 months normally but significantly longer for Syrian refugees, is inadequate. 

Then I read this article from CNN about the process and realized that only 2% of the refugees are single men of combat age and that over 50% are children. I get the concern to a certain extent but this feels more like political grandstanding about a process they don't understand and the standard backlash that happens with anything the President wants to do. If they were more interested in improving the process and helping these refugees, they'd say as much but there seems to be a distinct lack of empathy for these people because they're considered a security threat no matter how unlikely that may be.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Swordfish,

Where the States have retained powers under the Constitution or where the Constitution is silent the States absolutely have the power to act.  That is not the case here.  Governors saying "We will not accept Syrian refugees" including my own are making claims to power they simply do not have.  

I take issue with that.

[Horza]

This is the first national poll on the issue I've seen. 

Polls can be flawed of course, and have been more and more the past few years. But it would seem this is the country we live in now.

Nah, sounds like you guys are remarkably consistent:

US Jan 20 ’39: Should the US government permit 10,000 mostly Jewish refugee children to come in from Germany? pic.twitter.com/5cFs5RabQn

— Historical Opinion (@HistOpinion)

November 17, 2015

[DanteGabriel]

Maybe there is but in the past 10 minutes of googling, I haven't found an article that specifically outlined a governors concerns. I've seen a lot of statements that say they can't guarantee the safety of their people or that until there is a full vetting process, we will refuse them (even though that exists today) but I've yet to see anyone point out why the current vetting process, the same one we've used since 2011 (and before with Iraqi refugees since 2007), that takes 18-24 months normally but significantly longer for Syrian refugees is inadequate. 

Then I read this article from CNN about the process and realized that only 2% of the refugees are single men of combat age and that over 50% are children. I get the concern to a certain extent but this feels more like political grandstanding about a process they don't understand and the standard backlash that happens with anything the President wants to do. If they were more interested in improving the process and helping these refugees, they'd say as much but there seems to be a distinct lack of empathy for these people because they're considered a security threat no matter how unlikely that may be.

I've seen similar statements from governors asking that Obama "guarantee" that nothing will go wrong. Which is a stupid and childlike request to make. You make sure you have a thorough process (and since thousands of refugees have gone through this process and been fine, I think the onus is on the guys making claims about the defectiveness of the process to point out flaws) and then you trust that your process works. Because anything else leads to madness.

Shall we ask Governor Haley if she can "guarantee" that no more of the millions of young white men in her state are going to shoot up churches?

Lastly, I'd really love for Swordfish or the other refugee concern-trollers to tell me how it would be an effective method for terrorists to sneak into the country by registering for a two-year process that includes biometric identification and enrollment in a checkup program. Tell me how this process will be abused. 

America's screening protocols involve multiple federal agencies in a process that takes, on average, 18 to 24 months. Refugees are vetted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the intelligence community, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters in September. Biographical and biometric information is also collected, and the refugees are subject to in-person interviews.

Even after they're admitted to the country, the government is able to keep close tabs on them, says Ms. Newland of the Migration Policy Institute.

"The refugee resettlement program is the least likely way for a terrorist to infiltrate the US," she adds. "You go through so much scrutiny, [and] once you're here, you're connected [to the system]. It's difficult to disappear into a community that would support terrorism."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1116/Why-governors-reject-Syrian-refugees-Is-screening-process-adequate