Extreme Vetting

[jms62]

Thoughts? We are in a different world and are confronted with very savvy enemies that are well aware how to work the systems in place. I have no problem with extreme vetting. We cannot simply keep doing things the old way because that is how we did it back when we weren't targets.

[OldDog]

I have only heard snippets, but the fact that the WaPo has rushed to brand it as crazy and outlandish tells me that I'll probably like it.

[Danzig]

Any who wish to settle here from places like syria
already go thru extreme vetting. Its why the process has taken so long, two years.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Any who wish to settle here from places like syria
already go thru extreme vetting. Its why the process has taken so long, two years.

So because the process is slow it is extreme?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

So because the process is slow it is extreme?

it takes 2 years to get approved because of how in depth it is. not sure how many more agencies could possibly get involved to make it 'extreme' according to trump.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...0815-0024.html

the guy is clueless about everything. I don't know how he could actually fix a damn thing.


While more than 1 million refugeees arrived in Europe in 2015, the U.S. accepted less than 2,000 Syrians, all of whom were required to go through countless interviews and background checks as part of U.S.'s two-year screening program.

In an interview with teleSUR last November, Syrian refugee Amena said that she, her husband and her four children made it to the United States after “lots of interviews,” “lots of paperwork” and two years of trying. After arriving, she was asked to pay back the cost of her flight.


“Refugees undergo more rigorous screening than anyone else we allow into the United States,” the blog notes.

Refugees files would have to go through nine different U.S. agencies before passing the screening process and be considered for resettlement.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it takes 2 years to get approved because of how in depth it is. not sure how many more agencies could possibly get involved to make it 'extreme' according to trump.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...0815-0024.html

the guy is clueless about everything. I don't know how he could actually fix a damn thing.


While more than 1 million refugeees arrived in Europe in 2015, the U.S. accepted less than 2,000 Syrians, all of whom were required to go through countless interviews and background checks as part of U.S.'s two-year screening program.

In an interview with teleSUR last November, Syrian refugee Amena said that she, her husband and her four children made it to the United States after “lots of interviews,” “lots of paperwork” and two years of trying. After arriving, she was asked to pay back the cost of her flight.


“Refugees undergo more rigorous screening than anyone else we allow into the United States,” the blog notes.

Refugees files would have to go through nine different U.S. agencies before passing the screening process and be considered for resettlement.

I don't understand the logic here considering Syrian refugees infiltrated so lets reduce the time

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/pres...ocess-3-months

[OldDog]

Their first point of a refugee's contact is with the U.N. High Commission for Refugees. The UNHCR refers people to countries based on whether they have any family members there and where resettlement makes the most sense, say U.S. officials. If that's the U.S., then refugees are vetted by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security. Fingerprints are taken, biographical information is collected. They are then each individually interviewed by U.S. officials trained to verify that they're bona fide refugees.
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395...refugee-policy

That was then. This is now:

But it’s hard to imagine how questions about gender roles or terrorist leanings would help prevent dangerous people from entering the U.S., said one former immigration official.

“If someone really was coming here to do us harm, do we really believe they would answer that question honestly?” said Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under former President Bill Clinton.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...htmlstory.html

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by jms62

Thoughts? We are in a different world and are confronted with very savvy enemies that are well aware how to work the systems in place. I have no problem with extreme vetting. We cannot simply keep doing things the old way because that is how we did it back when we weren't targets.

In the past 100 years we were targets of anarchists, Nazis & domestic Bundists, 'Red Terror'.. They were all pretty savvy.

Destroy the premise of this country and we'll be consumed from within. It seems a certain percentage are hell bent on that course, so have at it.

But note this quote from attorney James Donovan who defended Russian spy Rudolf Abel.. "If the free world is not faithful to its own moral code, there remains no society for which others may hunger."

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Kasept

In the past 100 years we were targets of anarchists, Nazis & domestic Bundists, 'Red Terror'.. They were all pretty savvy.

Destroy the premise of this country and we'll be consumed from within. It seems a certain percentage are hell bent on that course, so have at it.

But note this quote from attorney James Donovan who defended Russian spy Rudolf Abel.. "If the free world is not faithful to its own moral code, there remains no society for which others may hunger."

The solution most certainly is not reducing the vetting time by 80%. In what world would anyone consider that a reasonable course of action? When one of those commits an act of terroism killing thousands will those that support reducing vetting time by 80% man up and admit to their catastrophic mistake? Most likely they will shrink into the shadows or worse yet blame those who are tasked with finding the proverbial needle in the haystack in 80% less time. I have no probelm with LEGAL immigration and have stated so numerous times down here but I am certainly for seriously vetting of those coming from parts of the world where terrorisim is an everyday occurrence. To your point . The number and magnitude of attacks today far far exceeds those of the groups that you cite. Failing to accept that and yearning for days long gone is dangeous and grossly irresponsible.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

The solution most certainly is not reducing the vetting time by 80%. In what world would anyone consider that a reasonable course of action? When one of those commits an act of terroism killing thousands will those that support reducing vetting time by 80% man up and admit to their catastrophic mistake? Most likely they will shrink into the shadows or worse yet blame those who are tasked with finding the proverbial needle in the haystack in 80% less time. I have no probelm with LEGAL immigration and have stated so numerous times down here but I am certainly for seriously vetting of those coming from parts of the world where terrorisim is an everyday occurrence. To your point . The number and magnitude of attacks today far far exceeds those of the groups that you cite. Failing to accept that and yearning for days long gone is dangeous and grossly irresponsible.

Actually, you are the one yearning for days gone by when immigration was far stricter than now...when anyone born here of asian parents were barred citizenship for example.

[Pants II]

It is an issue that should've been addressed 30 years ago. It's already too late.

In 20 years the rich will be spending more money to get away from the masses.

The rest of us will suffer for their stupidity.

After all it's the rich who decide everything.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Actually, you are the one yearning for days gone by when immigration was far stricter than now...when anyone born here of asian parents were barred citizenship for example.

No I am yearning for the days when decisions were based on statistical analysis and probability of something happening and not by stupid ****ing politically correct sheep not wanting to hurt someones feelings. What logic would dictate that immigration be made easier in a world where terrorisim has now spread to Europe via infiltrated immigrants from the very refugees you wish to reduce vetting time on.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

No I am yearning for the days when decisions were based on statistical analysis and probability of something happening and not by stupid ****ing politically correct sheep not wanting to hurt someones feelings.

Thats not how it was.
its funny you say statistical analysis while ignoring that we are safer now than ever...and that includes brown people coming here.