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.

[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

[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

[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

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

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7541e...lement-program

Thats the original story linked to, from yours. Those being resettled apparently have been out of syria, and living in jordan for years. Since before the war, before isis. There is no way they would do that with just anyone. The reduced vetting time is for only these in jordan who have been there for years.

[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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

Awesome and well reasoned point

[Pants II]

If you really wanted to delve into crime statistics you would find that the narrative we're having less crime is a joke in itself. A lie so big that you would have to suffer from head lodged up arse for the span of a decade, if not more.

[Pants II]

Just look up crime stats from the early 60's and compare them today. Then look up the amount of crime by race.

Then laugh at the liberal comments.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Awesome and well reasoned point

And what of the rest? Just ignore it?

A certain segment of society here has always wanted to change the rules when a new group started showing up. Catholics, chinese, irish, jews...we had a number set for people from germany...til it was their jews coming here. Fear has always caused some to preach isolationism and closing the borders to 'those people'. Yet, those scared ones like to say theyre the realists.

One other thing....you went off on me for using that emogee once in a response to you, because i was not getting something you said. Am i supposed to come unglued now?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

And what of the rest? Just ignore it?

A certain segment of society here has always wanted to change the rules when a new group started showing up. Catholics, chinese, irish, jews...we had a number set for people from germany...til it was their jews coming here. Fear has always caused some to preach isolationism and closing the borders to 'those people'. Yet, those scared ones like to say theyre the realists.

One other thing....you went off on me for using that emogee once in a response to you, because i was not getting something you said. Am i supposed to come unglued now?

Let me put it in list format for you since you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you are incapable with understanding things presented in paragraph form.

1. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM ANY PART OF THE WORLD!!

2. I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH REDUCING THE VETTING TIME BY 80% FOR REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN INFILTRATED BY ISIS AND THOSE INFILTRATORS HAVE ALREADY SLAUGHTERD SCORES IN FRANCE AND GERMANY.

One extrapolating the above into me being an isolationist is either a complete moron or a troll. OR Both

Oh and when you say absurd stuff like we are safer than we ever have been after 2 terroist attacks this year you will get the you deserve cause you earned it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Let me put it in list format for you since you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you are incapable with understanding things presented in paragraph form.

1. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM ANY PART OF THE WORLD!!

2. I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH REDUCING THE VETTING TIME BY 80% FOR REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN INFILTRATED BY ISIS AND THOSE INFILTRATORS HAVE ALREADY SLAUGHTERD SCORES IN FRANCE AND GERMANY.

One extrapolating the above into me being an isolationist is either a complete moron or a troll. OR Both

Oh and when you say absurd stuff like we are safer than we ever have been after 2 terroist attacks this year you will get the you deserve cause you earned it.

You cannot say it is absurd when it is true, and then say you want decisions based on facts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...afraid/384965/

And how do Americans celebrate this extraordinary success? By denying it. Every year Gallup asks whether crime has gone up or down since the previous year. Every year, rain or shine, the public insists, usually by overwhelming margins (63 percent to 21 percent in 2014), that crime has risen. “Most Americans Unaware of Big Crime Drop Since 1990s,” announced the Pew Research Center in 2013; only 10 percent of those surveyed knew that gun crimes had gone down since the 1990s. Criminologists say that many people get angry when told that crime is decreasing.

Perception is even more skewed where terrorism is concerned. “Terror-ism Worries Largely Unchanged,” ran another Pew headline, also in 2013. That year, 58 percent of the public was worried about another terrorist attack in the United States, a rate not all that much lower in October 2001, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when 71 percent of the public was worried. A few months ago, perhaps influenced by isis’s atrocities, a large plurality of respondents told NBC News/Wall Street Journal pollsters that the country is less safe than it was before 9/11
Reality, once again, tells us otherwise. State-sponsored international terrorism, writes the intelligence analyst Paul R. Pillar in Cato’s A Dangerous World?, “is today only a shadow of what it was in the 1970s and 1980s.” As for the risk posed by terrorism inside the United States, to characterize it as trivial would be very generous. Americans are about four times as likely to drown in their bathtub as they are to die in a terrorist attack. John Mueller of Ohio State University and Mark G. Stewart of Australia’s University of Newcastle estimate the odds of such deaths at one in 950,000 and one in 3.5 million, respectively.

Facts and stats. What you claim you want.

As for refugees, you have railed against them from day one. You post a link thst distorts the facts in the original story, and think it tells the true story. No, it just fits your story. And then you have the nerve to say i am stupid or a troll. Amazing. You dont like what i post, so you once again stoop to name calling. Cannot argue the post, so attack the poster. Typical.