House passes bill to bar Syrian refugees from U.S. without more vetting

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON — The House passed a bill Thursday to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into the U.S. until they undergo the toughest vetting process ever developed for people fleeing a war-torn nation.

The legislation, passed by a vote of 289-137, was rushed through in response to last week's terrorist attacks in Paris. One of the terrorists is believed to have entered Europe through Greece with a group of Syrian refugees, sparking calls by congressional leaders to "pause" the flow of refugees into the U.S. from Syria and Iraq.

Nearly 50 Democrats voted for the bill while a handful of Republicans voted against it.

The bill requires the nation’s three top security officials — the Homeland Security secretary, FBI director, and national intelligence director — to certify to Congress that each Syrian or Iraqi refugee is not a security threat before the refugee can be admitted into the U.S.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/19/house-passes-bill-bar-syrian-refugees-us-without-more-vetting/76041668/

[uppityperson]

1. SHAMEFUL!! Will they be doing the same for visitors?

[yeoman6987]

6. I don't see what making sure they are all good is a bad thing

It doesn't say they are not coming just we will have stringent requirements. Trust me it will still be less then New Zealand and other countries requirements.

[uppityperson]

10. The article makes clear that this will do nothing to make anyone safer, just make the process

longer and more difficult for those in trouble (the refugees).

[yeoman6987]

42. I just found out 200'syrian refugees just arrived in Allentown PA

My hometown where I grew up. So all of this is muck. I didn't know this when I typed my previous reply. Friends on Facebook told me and coincidental it was today they arrived.

[bigworld]

73. Allentown has a fascinating Syrian population

Coming a hundred years ago to work in the silk mills.

I'm from Allentown, too -- hello!

[yeoman6987]

83. Hello. It is wonderful to meet someone on here from my stomping ground.

Oh how I miss Yacco's, Paddock, and so much else. I went to Central Catholic on 4th and Chew but did live in Whitehall. What a lovely place to grow up. My brother and his wife live in Orefield now and you are right about the Syrian community. He has quite a few neighbors who are Syrian and they have absolutely no problem with them at all. They play with their kids, have dinner and BBQ and whatever else they do. But it is all positive.

[drray23]

14. thats specious

There is already a very rigorous vetting process in place.

The reasoning behind this does not make sense whatsoever. Why would ISIS try to infiltrate the US via the refugee program when it takes 18 to 24 months to even be vetted and let in ? All they have to do is to fly on a tourist visa for which there is no vetting other than checking if you are in a database maybe.

What this bill does is just a political ploy to put the administration on the spot. Its shameful that the democrats went along with the republicans on that one.
Hopefully it wont pass senate or will get vetoed by the president. We are better than that.

[jwirr]

31. I think that there are 34 states that are saying they will not

take refugees and many of the Democrats who voted for this piece of theater are probably from those states and up for election. I can't blame them for this as I am quite sure that immigration services probably already uses info from all three of these agencies.

[christx30]

103. And those 34 states equal 300 electoral votes.

That needs to be considered too.

[Jesus Malverde]

64. There is no tourist visa for Syrians.

Unless it is issued by an embassy in advance. From developing countries it's almost impossible to get a tourist visa to the USA unless you have substantial ties to your home country that would guarantee you will return home. In this case back to Syria. There are a handful of countries that allow visa on arrival for Syrians the us isn't among them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Syrian_citizens

[B2G]

66. Well isn't that interesting. nt

[uppityperson]

20. When this flap started, I did not know the process so did some research.

Here's a thread I started, to gather info. The subject is an emotional one, but the process is intense and drawn out already. I see today's vote as political theater rather than doing anything real. If there was not such a process already in place, I would support one, but that is not the case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027358687

[olegramps]

68. What I don't understand is the unwillingness of Syrian young men to fight for their country.

Is my understanding that only four men have chosen to join those who are fighting to bring about a democracy and also to resist ISIS. In view of this fact, according to Matthews, why the hell should Americans go over there to get their country back from the religious radicals. Yet this exactly what the brain dead Republicans want.

[yeoman6987]

70. Yes it is strange but maybe it is a culture thing.

I know most everyone in America would fight to the death for the country but we were kinda programed that way and our country has been at war since beginning of time really. And I am not sure if Syria has had that much war in their history.....I know I heard some but not near what we have been through.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

112. A reasonable question, but keep in mind that these "countries" (Syria/Iraq) were artificially carved

by Western powers from the remnants of the Ottman Empire after its collapse. There's not really much basis for a sense of country. Loyalties are aligned according to family, tribe, sect, etc. Politically these "countries" have been mostly ruled by highly repressive tyrants and their mafia-like regimes. By contrast our country, its political heritage and democratic principles was forged by common cause during the Revolution.

[RKP5637]

9. Good question. I wonder how that's supposed to work. n/t

[Purveyor]

2. Good. eom

[ericson00]

3. It's called representative democracy for a reason, and Islamist jihadism is a foot

which is why I cannot cry over this.

[villager]

13. In a gerrymandered, bought-and-paid for Congress, I'd hesitate to call it "representative," let

alone "democracy."

[geek tragedy]

46. Do you favor baninng French and Belgian citizens from the United States?

Because no refugees took part in the terrorism, it was French and Belgian citizens who did.

[rockfordfile]

62. No kidding

It seems that republicans want to blame all Muslims.

[marym625]

4. this really sucks

[totodeinhere]

5. If all 435 House members voted it would take 290 votes to override a presidential veto.

This vote is dangerously close to that number. But I doubt if they can get 67 Senate votes to override.

[Darb]

7. Bullshit posturing to try to make Obama look bad, plain and simple.

Like the rest of their activities since 2009.

[restorefreedom]

58. nailed it. nt

[Buzz Clik]

8. It's a pity that this shit would never pass the Senate -- the House has protection from themselves

The House can pass this hysterical, insane legislation with impunity knowing it will never go anywhere.

[Democat]

11. They are asking for more assurances, not stopping the program

If that's what US voters want, then Democrats can support it or be replaced with a Republican who will.

If you think it's bad, imagine the environment for refugees with a larger Republican majority and a Republican president. Whether it's fair or not, this is not an issue worth losing seats to Republicans over.

[christx30]

25. Yep, I agree.

All the states that have said that they are going to refuse refugees equals 300 electoral votes.
To force the issue without placating the concerns is to give a huge Christmas gift to Trump and Cruz. And if there is a terrorist attack on American soil like the Boston bombing between now and next November, we'll hear nothing from the right but "We warned you! We warned you!"
So let them do these useless gestures.
Personally I wish they would use this kind of unity to do something for the VA.

[onecaliberal]

29. The process we have already takes upwards of 18 months. How much vetting do these people want?

This a absurd in the extreme. Are you proud of the hate and ignorance running rampant in this country. What a complete shame.

On Edit: It's clear we're already living with hate and ignorance without a con president.

[Democat]

32. Hate and Ignorance is What You'll Live With if Republicans Win in 2016

The 2016 election is approaching. If Republicans win all three branches of government, these refugees will be permanently blocked from entering the country and you can count on more countries being bombed and a lot more deaths. The right wing will also be able to pack the Supreme Court for the next generation.

This is not an issue that Democrats should be fighting right now. They should be looking at what is the best for these refugees, voters, the country, and the world in the long run.

Letting a few hundred people into the country now is not worth letting Republicans take over America and bomb the world.

[onecaliberal]

35. That tired meme is used for everything. This is NOT going to win or lose anything.

[Democat]

44. Strategy is needed

Fear motivates voters.

[jwirr]

47. Up to 24 months. My brother in law from Jamaica had been

here for 2 years on a student visa when he married my sister. When he applied for citizenship they forced him to go back to Jamaica for the whole 2 years it took them to vet him. And he was from Jamaica and sponsored in the US by a religious group.

Vetting is already an intense process.

[Blue_In_AK]

86. My Australian son-in-law had to jump through a lot of hoops, too,

especially in proving that their marriage was "real" and not a sham. He has not applied for citizenship but some kind of permanent residency status.

[jwirr]

92. Yeah that was part of it with my brother in law - a mixed

marriage when almost no one was doing mixed marriages. But their marriage lasted over 10 years and they have three beautiful daughters to prove to immigration that it was a real marriage.

[geek tragedy]

41. Oh bullshit. They're asking for a complete moratorium under the guise of

requiring an impossible-to-make certification that there is zero chance anyone who comes over could possibly engage in violent acts.

Get real.

[CJCRANE]

12. I disagree with the destabilization and depopulation of Syria

so stopping the refugee flow is only part of the solution

Cutting the funding to the jihadis is the next step, then finally we can let Syrians go back to their homeland.

[katmondoo]

17. It is amazing how fast the House of Reps act when they are passing a bill that will ensure lots

of suffering, that goes for Planned Parenthood, Health care and now refugees. These are just a few samples of their thinking.

[FLPanhandle]

15. This is a political trap for Democrats

If they vote against it, it will be used against them in TV ads for the next year.

If they vote for it, they are just following the leadership of the republicans.

If Obama/Democrats were smart they would have jump in front of an issue that clearly a majority of Americans are concerned about. He could have said we are temp. suspending the program to ensure the vetting process is complete.

Then he could have gone on TV and explained in detail the vetting process and why we are safe.

[leftynyc]

16. Instead he very stupidly

(in my opinion) declared yesterday he would veto the bill. I get that we're in the "I don't give a fuck" portion of his presidency but he really should be thinking about the party and if the party wants to pretend that most Americans aren't concerned and don't want to be assured everything that can be done is being done, then they deserve the beating their going to take in 2016.

[onecaliberal]

30. He is RIGHTLY thinking about the RIGHT thing to do for human beings.

[Democat]

34. More people will die if Republicans win in 2016

Helping a few hundred people get quicker visas is not worth letting Republicans win the 2016 election.

How many people are you willing to see die in Republican bombings of countries in the middle east to make the process faster for these few refugees?

[geek tragedy]

38. So you're cool with telling the world "Daesh is right: Americans are a bunch of cowards

who hate all Muslims?"

[Democat]

52. So you're cool with a Republican president, house, and senate?

And more wars and a right wing Supreme Court?

[geek tragedy]

65. Hey, why not just agree to slash taxes for the wealthy, adopt Trump's immigration policy,

and call ourselves Republicans? That'll win elections.

This is a temporary freakout. The public will have forgotten about this in a few months.

[onecaliberal]

40. The same amount you guys are willing to let die with corporate policy

that has decimated almost half of this country.

[smirkymonkey]

102. Exactly!

He might as well hand the next Four years over to the Republicans and that's going make things even worse for refugees and the rest of the middle east.

[geek tragedy]

36. President Obama is not going to beat up on the victims of war in order to impress people

That's very much in the "I do give a fuck about people" mode of his presidency.

Senate Democrats are formulating a response to this nonsense--one that actually tries to keep America safe instead of putting their boots to the faces of refugees.

[FLPanhandle]

53. The only problem I have is the Democrats didn't come up with something first

We come off looking like either we don't care about the public concerns or we are following the republican lead on the issue.

[geek tragedy]

54. We're not the majority party, our bills don't get a vote nt

[FLPanhandle]

57. Doesn't stop us from proposing something publicly first.

It's all theater anyway. The republicans know their bill won't become law. It's all for show and for using against Democrats during an election year.

Either way the refugees are coming.

[geek tragedy]

59. If Obama agreed to reasonable measures, what do you think the Republican response would be?

a) hold hands with Obama in a show of national unity;
b) push the envelope on it such that it would be impossible for Obama to sign it?

[FLPanhandle]

69. My point is that instead of ignoring the concerns, Obama could have defused this

He could have easily said I'm putting a 30 day hold on new refugees while we review the vetting process for any gaps.

2-3 weeks later he could have reported that the process has been validated and started it back up.

For 2 weeks until this topic starts dying from the headlines, the republican demands could be met with a simple "We ARE reviewing the vetting process".

The Democrats would have been in front of the issue. Just smart politics and it wouldn't have more than a couple week delay on some refugees while calming the public and strengthing the Democratic position.

Oh well.

[geek tragedy]

77. That would only prolong the process.

Republicans would say, Obama didn't engage in a real review of the process, we can't trust him to vet these refugees at all, keep them all out.

The entire point of the Republican legislation is to keep them all out.

Once you understand that the Republicans' goal is to bash Muslims and Arabs blindly, and will use any pretext to do it, Obama's approach makes a lot more sense.

[Democat]

27. It's a losing issue for Democrats and not one worth losing seats over

There are far more important issues that will have more impact on future refugees. This is not a big enough issue for Democrats to lose the 2016 election over. They should be looking at the longer view, not worrying about pausing a program for a few months that will be permanently stopped if Republicans get more power.

[atreides1]

96. What about this?

Is this a losing issue for Democrats and not one worth losing seats over?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/11/trump-goes-full-nazi-wants-to-close-mosques-make-muslims-wear-id/

I'd like an honest opinion, thank you.

[Democat]

101. These are not comparable issues, read this carefully

In one case, a majority of the American voters want a security review of a program that allows people to come to America. It may cause a delay for some people. There is no violation of rights or oppression by the American government. It might not be fair to make certain groups wait a few weeks or months longer than other groups to come to America, but what rights are being violated?

In the other case, Trump wants to violate the rights of people in America.

[Javaman]

18. well, this is probably one of the more ridiculous shows of kabuki theater.

we already vet the refugees and any immigrant that comes into the states.

this is nothing more that political theater to appease the stupid majority out there.

it's show bills like this that proves to me the complete ineffectualness of our congress.

[L. Coyote]

19. New meme of the day:

[center]

and seven billion people for lunch today

[Jesus Malverde]

76. We are all one family it's called he TPP...NT

[dbackjon]

21. My "Democratic" Representative

Voted for this.


I am NOT voting for her again.
She might as well become a Republican - she votes with them most of the time.

[CentralMass]

48. I'm pretty sure I saw a poll this am that said that >50% if those polled favored the pause.

It seems like congress is being prudent.

[geek tragedy]

63. This isn't a pause, it's a de facto permanent ban.

And if you think Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert are being prudent . . .

[dbackjon]

71. Fear mondering

75% of Americans didn't want Jewish refugees before WWII.


Being an adult takes courage.

[totodeinhere]

107. Please provide a link to substantiate that. The poll I saw said just the

opposite.

Most Americans want the U.S. to stop letting in Syrian refugees amid fears of terrorist infiltrations after the Paris attacks, siding with Republican presidential candidates, governors, and lawmakers who want to freeze the Obama administration’s resettlement program.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-18/bloomberg-poll-most-americans-oppose-syrian-refugee-resettlement

[jwirr]

50. Are you from a red state that is refusing to take refugees?

[dbackjon]

74. Unfortunately Yes

Arizona.


It is a sad day when a GOP Senator (Flake) has a more reasonable position than a so-called Democrat

[jwirr]

84. Well then like I learned while living in Iowa - sometimes you

have to do really stupid things to get elected so that the Rs cannot have the seat in congress.

[CentralMass]

75. No, despite my moniker, Oregon is my current home state

[jwirr]

90. I was asking because I have lived in both Iowa and Nebraska.

As I said above sometimes in order to beat a R you have to support some things that are supported by the Rs. You and I are lucky (I live in MN) because we are the majority party in out states. Our representatives in red states have a much harder time getting elected so when it does not count they sometimes play R-lite.

[CentralMass]

106. In my previously lifelong home State of MA

the republican Governor is one of the Governors refusing..
In talking with friends back there, I think the majority opinion in that very blue state might side with him. I think many people need to gain an understanding of the vetting process and if it is adequate. The Boston Marthon event is still a fresh memory.

[jwirr]

110. Exactly until this calms down there are a lot of people who

are very afraid. The same hysteria that got us into war in the ME in the first place.

[merrily]

22. Some history of US immigration law.

The Naturalization Law of 1802 repealed the Naturalization Act of 1798.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, protects children born in the United States. The phrase: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark as covering everyone born in the U.S. to legal residents, regardless of the parents' citizenship, with the exception of the children of diplomats and Native Americans. See the articles jus soli (birthplace) and jus sanguinis (bloodline) for further discussion.

In 1870, the law was broadened to allow African Americans to be naturalized.[2] Asian immigrants were excluded from naturalization but not from living in the United States. There were also significant restrictions on some Asians at the state level; in California, for example, non-citizen Asians were not allowed to own land.

After the immigration of 123,000 Chinese in the 1870s, who joined the 105,000 who had immigrated between 1850 and 1870, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 which targeted a single ethnic group by specifically limiting further Chinese immigration. Chinese had immigrated to the Western United States as a result of unsettled conditions in China, the availability of jobs working on railroads, and the Gold Rush that was going on at that time in California. The xenophobic "Yellow Peril" expression became popular to justify racism against Asians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States

Are we codifying bigotry into our immigration laws again?

[locks]

105. Thank you merrily

for reminding us that the history of US immigration has never been welcoming to the poor and those suffering under starvation, repression and war. Just visit Ellis or Angel Island to see what immigrants went through and that was the "golden door" time. We wanted them to build our railroads, mine our gold, harvest our food but to either die doing so or go back to where they came from. The blowhards on FOX and Cuban descendants like Cruz and Rubio are the most hypocritical; I was around when we welcomed the Cubans who came because they were losing money and property but the Haitians who were starving and dying under Papa Doc were not welcome.

It has not been that long since millions of Native Americans were killed or driven from lands where they had lived for hundreds of years. Or that long since millions of Africans were brought here as slaves and years after emancipation before they were even considered Americans.

I was around when Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies all over Europe were left to die by US elected officials and "Christians," and when loyal Americans of Japanese descent lost everything they had and were interned in terrible prison camps. For many years our elected representatives wrote and implemented restrictive, complicated, and exclusionary immigration polices to keep people out unless we needed them to make more money.

This vote was not to "protect the American people". It was to keep out "people who are not like us."

[merrily]

108. Especially not poor people of color or Jews. Xenophobia. The "other."

You're most welcome.

[onehandle]

23. The U.S. Congress is a bigger threat to the U.S. than ISIS. nt

[NYCButterfinger]

24. I'm glad this passed. I'm not with Obama on this, it makes him look like he's a sympathizer

You don't know who the hell is coming in to the country. Would you trust an invader in your home? Come on. Get common sense. Wake up. Democrats are looking foolish supporting the president on this.

[geek tragedy]

33. The only ones who would see Obama as a terrorist "sympathizer" or who see

refugees as "an invader in your home" are rightwing fuckwits to begin with.

[JoePhilly]

45. +1

[rockfordfile]

78. do you really think that the person who posted that is a democrat?

That person doesn't seem like it to me.

[geek tragedy]

80. Given that this kind of post is their schtick nope nt

[NYCButterfinger]

100. I don't have to agree with everything Obama does.

It's best to break off from him for once. It looks like a bunch of lapdog standing by him in everything. If anything happens to this country, it will be because of these refugees.

[geek tragedy]

109. Your hatred of foreigners seems very Donald Trump

Now you are blaming the victims of Syria's civil war for any problems that MIGHT befall the USA.

Ben Carson territory.

[treestar]

122. your last sentence makes no sense

you really are thinking because they are Syrian/Muslim they have ISIS members among them.

[treestar]

121. +1

and right wingers are not really scared. They just want an excuse to avoid immigrants.

[uppityperson]

60. Did you even read the article? It states clearly why this is unnecessary

[notadmblnd]

26. Theater. The Senate has to pass it too before it goes to the President to sign

Then the president has the option to veto it. This is the republican congress pretending to do something- nothing more.

[jwirr]

28. I notice they did not mention the immigration services that

already vet all immigrants coming into our country. I would imagine that this organization already uses info from all these agencies to vet people already.

We should be encouraging Europe to do a better job of vetting in the first place. I understand that all they ask for is some ID and the persons name. We could offer our services to help them on those Greek islands where the refugees are held. It would make Europe safer also.

Totally agree with poster #26, theater.

[atreides1]

39. I also noticed that they didn't mention the cost!

We all know the vetting process they want will cost more...and by not funding it...they know that it can't happen.

Therefore they have the permanent ban that they wanted all the time!!! Of course it will only apply to Iraqis and Syrians...with other groups to be added later!

[B2G]

37. There ARE problems with the current vetting process.

As discussed here, by high ranking Obama officials.


Some examples:

"The Obama administration is fighting a growing national backlash against accepting Syrian refugees, saying the government’s exhaustive screening process and security checks for new arrivals mean they can be safely brought to American soil.

Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging this can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check?"

"I don’t, obviously, put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees, so that’s a huge concern of ours,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said at a security industry conference in September, using another name for the Islamic State. He added that the government has “a pretty aggressive program” for screening refugees but that he is less confident about European nations.

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

[CentralMass]

51. +1

[moondust]

43. I can understand some heightened concern.

I don't know how often immigrant screening regulations and practices are upgraded or to what extent they currently account for refugees from regions known to be breeding grounds for terrorism. Maybe refugees of a certain age group (16-35?) without adequate documentation could undergo a lie detector test or something???

[lark]

49. What a sad day,

when racism and hate reign supreme in the House of Representatives. It's WW11 all over again and denying safe haven to the fleeing Jews.

Notice how Repugs care so much about folks' opinions when the country is being xenophobic, oh, Americans totally don't support this. However, when Americans overwhelmingly support background checks for all guns sales, they don't care at all. It's all hyperbole, fear and bluster in support of all war all the time. They want to keep the "war" going, so more non-combative Muslims will be killed and they will hate us more, more will be radicalized, attack us and the war perpetuated.

Traitors to our country and to the citizens of the world!

[CentralMass]

56. The polls seem to indicate that congress is listening.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-majority-americans-oppose-accepting-syrian-refugees-n465816
"
In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, more than half of the nation's governors have declared they will not accept new Syrian refugees into their states, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama's plans to accept increased numbers of Syrian refugees. The latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll shows that 56% of Americans disapprove of allowing more migrants fleeing violence in Syria and other nations into the country, while 41% approve and the issue divides sharply across party lines. But overwhelmingly, Americans say the U.S. and its allies are losing the war against ISIS and the poll shows bipartisan support for sending additional ground troops to fight the Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria."

[geek tragedy]

61. Yes, Congress is pandering and encouraging xenophobia, racism, and virtually

every ugly element of the American political mindset.

[yeoman6987]

79. Maybe but why aren't the Middle Eastern countries taking them

Why do we have to when nobody else but Europe is. Let the Middle East take them. Saudi Arabia the richest country has done squat.

[geek tragedy]

81. so you suggest using Saudi Arabia as our baseline for human rights? nt

[yeoman6987]

87. I am not suggesting anything but for them to take some refugees into their country. They can afford

to financially......us? Well well borrow more money to do it. I am for helping but those rich middle eastern countries should do their part. I think it is amazing that they aren't even criticized at all for it.

[geek tragedy]

98. we can afford it.

Arab despots have a uniformly horrible record on human rights. Dog bites man.

[treestar]

123. they were supposed to take the Palestinians too

they never do, that is the argument for why the west is more advanced.

[lark]

72. America is bi-partisanly wrong.

Repugs only support the general consensus because it increases war expenditures, which increases the need for us to stay at war. 62% of Americans were against letting the German jews in the country during WW2, more than are against letting in the Syrian refugees.

[rockfordfile]

91. what does that have to do with anything?

You cite a poll to justify a cowardly congressional vote? What do you do when making a decision? put a finger in the air?

[Jarqui]

55. Half of these refugees are 17 or younger

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dangerous-syrian-refugees-photos_564baae2e4b08cda348b5499

17.1% of 4,289,792 Syrian refugees or 742,134 of them are 4 years old or younger => little kids.

and the GOP hasn't got the stomach to give 10,000 of them a chance?

If I was one of those kids and managed to survive, I'd probably grow up hating the well off people who turned their backs on these kids because of their parents religion at such a moment. If I was one of those kids who got adopted in the US, I'd probably be very grateful for the rest of my life to the people who stepped up to save me and some of my people.

No wonder this is an easy sell for Daesh. And no wonder Obama is outraged.

[CentralMass]

67. Looking back at the Boston Marathon Bombing case,

Where the Russians had warned U.S. Authorities about the elder if the two Tsarnsev brothers was a "violent radical Islamist" and it was not acted upon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-anniversary/russia-warned-u-s-about-tsarnaev-spelling-issue-let-him-n6083
"The Russian government warned U.S. authorities that Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a violent radical Islamist more than a year and a half before the April 2013 bombing, but authorities missed multiple chances to detain Tsarnaev when he was traveling to and from Dagestan for terror training, according to a soon-to-be released Congressional report."

[geek tragedy]

82. that's a problem with intelligence, not with refugees.

Do you favor banning French and Belgian citizens from the United States?

How about Saudis?

Chechens in general?

[CentralMass]

94. It think that it highlights that intelligence is a key peice

of many facets if this issue. Not just vetting who we are letting into the country. It could be argued that part of the reason we have this cluster f..k in the M.E. Is due the bad intelligence .


There is an assumption that the vetting process is adequate. That should be verified. In the BM incident, these were two young men, one a teenager attending UMAS, that passed our screening and subsequent warnings from another country.
The bombing was a horrific event.

[geek tragedy]

99. if they ignored intelligence agency warnings then it's not likely that vetting

would have produced anything that got their attention

[Jarqui]

93. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died when he was 26

So he was 24 when this warning happened so he was way past 4 years old

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-anniversary/russia-warned-u-s-about-tsarnaev-spelling-issue-let-him-n60836
But no alert was triggered when Tsarnaev passed through Customs at JFK, because of the misspelling of his name on the second TECS note. The difference of one letter – Tsarnayev instead of Tsarnaev – meant that he was not detained or questioned despite the warning in his file, according to sources familiar with the report.

And then there was the matter of a typo/spelling issue ...

[CentralMass]

97. With thousand of refugees on the cusp of entering the country

the simple assertion that they are all 4 year olds doesn't seem like a valid argument.
The details of who we are letting into the country from a region where radicalization if young men and women has been rampant has to undergo scrutiny.
Screwing it up is not an option.

[Jarqui]

104. 4.2 million refugees are looking for a home

The US (which has to be a pretty attractive destination for a bunch of these refugees) is proposing to take 10,000.

Have you ever heard the expression "pick of the litter" ? Taking 1 out of every 4,200 gets you 10,000.

Obviously, they have to be careful of taking extremists.

Current screening process:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/17/how-americas-screening-of-syrian-refugees-works.html

That process, officials explained, usually begins with the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) referring asylum-seekers to the U.S. government. Before anyone working for Washington looks into these refugees, the U.N. agency has conducted a series of background and identity checks, biometric screenings (through iris scans) and selected the most vulnerable individuals to be resettled, according to Brian Hansford, UNHCR's Washington, D.C., spokesman.

it's not as if the process is horrifically bad. If it had been, it probably would have been New York or Washington last Friday rather than Paris.

I'm sure the above screening process can be reviewed and improved on.

As we've seen in sports, not all draft picks turn out but the United States stands to acquire the cream of the refugees.

[treestar]

124. Yes, well after he came here

and his parents were the asylum seekers (not refugees).

[pampango]

85. The GOP promotes and exploits fear. Do we

jump on the bandwagon to avoid being cast as 'out-of-touch' liberals. Do we stick to liberal principle or 'moderate' to win the next election? The perrenial questions.

[fbc]

88. Wasserman Shultz Democrats

are no better than republicans.

[senz]

117. Unbelievably, someone alerted on your mild comment.

On Thu Nov 19, 2015, 06:05 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Wasserman Shultz Democrats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1265472

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

'This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate' says it all.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 19, 2015, 06:12 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry alerter, I agree with post alerted on. It's a true statement, not worthy of a hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DUers have a right to express their opinions about various politicians. The comment is polite and not at all disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top or otherwise inappropriate.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think this rises to a hide worthy comment.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[AuntPatsy]

89. they get far paid to much and all mostly to posture......

There should be a higher intelligence as well as common sense test administered to all those holding any kind of higher government office including military and judicial etc.....but there is not...and that poses more of a danger to our citizens..

[atreides1]

95. Trump's plan could be next

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/11/trump-goes-full-nazi-wants-to-close-mosques-make-muslims-wear-id/

[allan01]

111. iam so sick of this body of " law givers " lets cut it loose . get rid of the dang thing

[briv1016]

113. Most of the refugees are peasants and don't have a paper trail to conduct a background check on.

How many of them even know how to read? Shocker that the Republicans would try to pass a law that lets in the wealthy and leaves the poor to fend for themselves.

[The Stranger]

114. False. Most of them are literate and skilled -- that's why Germany threw open its borders for them.

Cheap, skilled labor.

[briv1016]

115. I'll have to look more into that. Thanks for the correction.

Republicans are still assholes for doing this though.

[caprichoso]

118. Hopefully the Senate will block this

monstrosity.

[GeorgeGist]

119. Home of the brave.

[treestar]

120. Does it apply generally or just to Syrians and Iraqis

usually when the US passes a law it has to be one thing for all.

[dmosh42]

125. Isis is victorious! Americans shitting in their pants! Fear is a winning strategy!