FlaviusAetius

The references to car accidents, cancer, heart disease and lightning are all strawmen, wouldn't you agree? Therefore they are irrelevant to the question. Otherwise the logical implication is that killings by jihadis in our homeland are unavoidable and simply to be accepted as one of life's misfortunes, like car accidents, etc.

If you see nothing wrong with the current Administration's approach to the vetting of those who seek to enter this country and that there's no room for improvement, then there's nothing to be concerned about.

On the other hand, if there is room for improvement, with a reduction in the danger the supposed refugees pose to us, then it is logical to pause the influx until the process is reviewed and tightened. Even Rand Paul thinks so:

zzrmark

I am curious as to how one classifies a country with an 'active terrorist network'.
The IRA still exist in Eire does that mean the Irish fall into that category or do they not count because they now limit their activities to kneecapping?
Or how about the UK with it's Muslim community, a tiny percentage of whom have departed her shores to fight in the Middle East?

The other point that intrigues me is that if you are going to ban all Muslims just how do you find out if a person is a Muslim - would it come before or after the question, on a visa application, 'are you a terrorist, etc'?

As an aside and probably more relevant to this thread's title, I wonder just how many people answered 'yes' to the aforementioned question when filing their visa application?

scrubbedexpat099

I think I mentioned this before, there was the CNN pet commentator who was in this field who commented that there is not much they can actually check.

Now this was in relation to Saudi and Pakistan and lack of cooperation with their Governments.

What do you expect to happen in Syria? Local field investigation?

Oakvillian

Why does it not surprise me that a CNN reporter was talking crap? And why, in any case, is it relevant what the Saudi authorities don't help with - are there hordes of displaced Saudis trying to flood the US immigration process?

You could do worse than to start by understanding what the UNHCR does, in its process of refugee status determination (RSD). There's a primer here UNHCR - Refugee Status Determination which refers to a more detailed procedural document here UNHCR - Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR's Mandate.

Once the UNHCR has adjudicated RSD, national government agencies of receiving countries typically have another process to undertake, which (when there is a significant number of displaced people in large concentrations, as there were for Vietnamese boat people in the late 70s/early 80s, and are again today in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon) can be done by officers in the field.

This is the route Canada has chosen to take, and in the first wave the process is being streamlined by concentrating on family groups and "remaindered" sub-family units (typically mothers with young children where the father has been killed either in conflict or while fleeing the home) - at the expense of single young men, who are being shifted to a longer-term process as more detailed background checks are being carried out on them. It's not really terribly complicated.

For sure, this is not a foolproof mechanism for ensuring no terrorists gain Canadian soil. But neither is any sort of border control foolproof. And neither is there any guarantee that home-grown terrorists/wingnuts won't prove a much greater threat (as has consistently been the case in both Canada and the US in recent years). At least in Canada's case it is not making us look completely small-minded in the eyes of the rest of the world, as Trump's ranting and posturing is doing for the US.

mikelincs

The UK is also going that route.

zargof

I'm not sure they are strawmen, rather it was to illustrate the point that in the grand scheme of things the risks from terrorists is very small, but there is a massive focus on the issue. Also, these are issues where something can be done, e.g. eat healthier, make safer cars. I notice you didn't include getting shot by a nutter in that list, because that is something that's very relevant, but all we hear is that nothing can be done to solve that as you can't restrict a law abiding citizen's right to own a gun. And you I think you do have accept the risk of being killed by a jihadist, because it doesn't matter what you do, there is no guarantee you can stop them all, yet it's OK to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in this instance? I mean the NSA's snooping powers for the last years has been pretty immense, but everyone is thinking they need more. What they really need is more focus on making the haystack smaller to find the needles.

Pointing to Rand Paul as an example to show that even the "other side" think it's a good idea, isn't a good one. Rand has never been a big immigration fan.

FlaviusAetius

I understand how eager the Left is to get off the subject of terrorism and national security - and answer those questions, if at all, with suggestions that the 2nd Amendment should be abrogated and the rights of law-abiding American citizens to own guns should likewise be abrogated.

To the Left, death from jihadis is simply to be dismissed as one of life's risks like car accidents or being killed by native nutters. Much more comfortable to focus on income inequality, buying blocs of voters with Free Stuff using other people's money, taxing the rich, importing millions of proto-Democratic voters to replace the millions of native liberals who were aborted, the Republicans' incessant War on Women, pointing out their racism, their homophobia and how stupid they are.

We live in parallel universes and never the twain shall touch.

zargof

Until you can provide a solution that guarantees there will never be any more terrorist attacks, then yes, surely you have to accept the risk like every other risk in life.

As for the rest of your strawman argument there's not much to say really, other than it's not really necessary to point out how stupid you are...

Pulaski

The difference appears to be between how much can be done to reduce the risk of jihadist attacks, where "the left" appears to want to do relatively little and leave the door swinging open for easy access for future Democrat voters refugees, whereas the right refuses to accept that there is a tolerable level of jihadist attacks and/or that allowing potential jihadists in willy-nilly, is just a bad idea.

SultanOfSwing

Yes, refugees are only allowed into countries because of who they might vote for down the line. I thought you were smarter than that, Pulaski. Don't tell me you've bought into the Fox News rhetoric as well. I don't know the path to citizenship from asylum, or even if there is one, but I hardly think the timescale involved would make this even slightly worthwhile as a tactic.

I said it elsewhere, turning away refugees who are trying to escape from the same organisations as we are trying to deal with just creates wave upon wave of people who are that much easier to radicalize against the West, or whoever is the current enemy du jour.

scrubbedexpat099

I wonder what Hillary would be saying if the Refugees were likely to be 96% Republican voters...

For the sake of clarity the question arose in discussion with the CA Jihadi's and why this was not picked up

It has subsequently come out that there were a lot of things that should have caused concern.

He explained they have limited resources of their own and that no doubt the local security forces were aware but do not share.

To suggest that the UN have any competency in this area is laughable.

zargof

Actually I think it's more a case of the left understands that by implementing draconian measures that demonise Muslims leads to more radicalised Islamists, so rather than reducing the risk, it increases the risk. It also have the knock on effects of reducing the freedoms of law abiding citizens, as well as dividing rather than uniting Americans.

All this while there being no proof that it is in anyway effect other than showing that you're doing "something", then the cost benefit analysis doesn't look as good.

SultanOfSwing

It's utterly irrelevant.

How long are the processing times for green cards and citizenship after asylum is granted? Entering on an immigrant visa, best case scenario is 8-10 months for each, so at minimum you can become a voting citizen in 6-7 years (green card application plus 4 years, N-400), or around 4 years if married to a USC.

Now, I'm guessing here, but I would think that an asylum seeker (who is eligible to apply for a green card 1 year after asylum is granted) is not going to benefit from the 8-10 month processing times. It could be 10 or more years before a refugee is granted citizenship if they even apply in the first place. Why would either party waste time worrying about who they may or may not vote for.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion about removing kebabs, but I actually do know someone who was granted political asylum in the 1960s. Came over from Romania, was essentially stateless until he became a USC. Nice bloke, but a frothing right winger nonetheless. He's a GOP wet dream. He even went and obtained a Romanian passport after Obama was elected 'just in case'. So the whole (sarcastic or otherwise) 'potential X-voter' is obfuscation at best.

scrubbedexpat099

May be irrelevant to you, I was talking about Hillary.

SultanOfSwing

It's irrelevant to everyone. I refuse to believe you are this stupid.