I'm not sure what right decision is on the refugees. Although I like things that piss off the blow hard conservatives. After terrorists attacks there is a lot of reactions by people and politicians that feed directly into the terrorists goals of "spreading terror" and affecting normal living of everyday life. The non acceptance of refugees though does is not something that I'd consider "letting the terrorists win".

Also I agree that a lot of the outcry against refugees is more fear and lack of understanding, not racism. Republicans feed on the scared and paranoia of conservatives to convince them for their votes.

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 12:30 PM. Reason : 49]

11/19/2015 12:29:35 PM

the people terrified of refugees have a lot of overlap with people who won't even consider universal background checks to buy guns

11/19/2015 12:33:43 PM

Go figure.... Conservatives are idiots.

They back a candidate is declared the pyramids at grain silos and has been a proven liar....

And trump..

11/19/2015 12:37:02 PM

Yeah completely writing off accepting them isn't the answer, but I don't blame states that are saying they simply want the vetting process of these people to be a little better before they start accepting them. 99% of the people fleeing that country just want to get away from these assholes, but all it takes is one who slips through, posing as a refugee, to ruin it for the rest of them.

11/19/2015 12:37:06 PM

Have you read the vetting process? It's absurdly robust.

However, IF the number of refugees is increased I can see that becoming more of an issue.

11/19/2015 12:38:29 PM

Quote :

"but I don't blame states that are saying they simply want the vetting process of these people to be a little better before they start accepting them."

the vetting process hasn't failed, so what's there to make better?

and the problem with the "it only takes one" line of thinking is that it could be used with nearly everyone and everything, and if you applied it to other things, you'd never leave your house.

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2015 12:41:07 PM

Yes yes I get all that I am simply saying I don't blame the states who have taken that stance as long as they are willing to give the ok if whatever it is they want is done. I don't really know the solution because there are so many variables to look at, but its something that is gonna have to be figured out pretty quickly Id imagine as the problem only seems to be getting worse over there.

11/19/2015 12:46:17 PM

the problem is radical islamic terrorist groups know that the western countries are more compassionate towards civilians/innocents, and will exploit that whenever possible, hence why you hear about suicide bombers being women and children.

11/19/2015 12:52:18 PM

^^ fair enough. Maybe I missed it but have the governors given any things they want done or has it been vague nonsense?

11/19/2015 12:54:39 PM

Quote :

"and the problem with the "it only takes one" line of thinking is that it could be used with nearly everyone and everything, and if you applied it to other things, you'd never leave your house."

If you're saying a background check would be largely ineffective, why would you think a universal background check to buy guns would be any more effective (even when there has been dozens of examples where the background check has failed)?.

11/19/2015 1:01:43 PM

Quote :

"Yes yes I get all that I am simply saying I don't blame the states who have taken that stance as long as they are willing to give the ok if whatever it is they want is done."

They don't know what they want done. I guarantee they didn't know the process before, they don't know what needs to be changed, they couldn't tell you what was wrong with it before making this stand.

This is just a smokescreen so they don't seem to be cowering in fear like the people who want a complete ban, just like the people who are retroactively saying it's "about the resources".

11/19/2015 1:05:17 PM

conservatives usually like CATO, right?

Syrian Refugees Don’t Pose a Serious Security Threat
http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refugees-dont-pose-serious-security-threat?utm_content=buffer09261&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 1:07 PM. Reason : describes the screening process a bit]

11/19/2015 1:07:14 PM

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2015 1:17:34 PM

guns don't kill people, refugees kill people.

11/19/2015 1:23:57 PM

Quote :

"They don't know what they want done. I guarantee they didn't know the process before, they don't know what needs to be changed, they couldn't tell you what was wrong with it before making this stand. This is just a smokescreen so they don't seem to be cowering in fear like the people who want a complete ban, just like the people who are retroactively saying it's "about the resources"."

This is probably true to a large extent I would imagine

11/19/2015 1:24:34 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/19/456651251/house-votes-to-increase-security-checks-on-refugees-from-iraq-syria

Quote :

"The bill — called the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015, or the American SAFE Act of 2015 — would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, the head of the FBI and the director of national intelligence to sign off on every individual refugee from Iraq and Syria, affirming he or she is not a threat. The FBI director would also need to confirm that a background investigation, separate from the Homeland Security screening, had been conducted on each refugee."

11/19/2015 2:45:00 PM

I'd need to see the language more in depth but it seems to basically be a "gotcha" safeguard in the small chance something happens?

11/19/2015 2:48:18 PM

I mean I dont claim to know a ton about background checks, but it seems to me in other countries such as Syria or Iraq a large portion of the population may not even be "on the grid" so how effective would background checks really be?

11/19/2015 2:51:49 PM

To me it looks like it's effectively shutting down the whole refugee intake process...the sheer amount of bureaucracy behind each application needing signatures from each department head would have to be mind-boggling.

It also says in the article that there's already background checks, interviews, and fingerprint vetting behind for each applicant anyway. What more this bill would prove to secure isn't obvious to me

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2015 2:52:06 PM

Quote :

"I mean I dont claim to know a ton about background checks"

i posted this link above that has some info:
http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refugees-dont-pose-serious-security-threat?utm_content=buffer09261&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

it's from the super liberal hippie CATO institute though, so you should probably dismiss it

11/19/2015 2:59:21 PM

I'm for it, because it's called American SAFE Act. It has to be good, just like USA PATRIOT Act.

11/19/2015 3:01:07 PM

Trumps closing of mosques will be called the Liberty for All act

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 3:04 PM. Reason : Iraq was added to it too?? ]

11/19/2015 3:02:07 PM

They are just Common Sense laws to protect us, right?

11/19/2015 3:16:43 PM

Don't really do much to protect us. But I guess the positive is that this time they don't actually diminish American civil rights.

11/19/2015 3:18:41 PM

The measures they're adding seem vague enough that they could easily be implemented by the FBI just saying 'yeah they're good' and adding an extra layer of pointless bureaucracy. Also, wasn't the whole point of creating DHS to bring intelligence agencies together? Why shouldn't DHS already have access to FBI databases based on prior laws...?

The main purpose of the bill looks like it's just to give local politicians something to beat their chest about to their voters, but doesn't actually solve any problems or add any integrity to the process. Politicking at its finest.

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2015 3:49:57 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/the-reporters-34855443

Quote :

" Marianne, the imposing woman who represents the French Republic, looms above the crowd, holding in one hand an olive branch, in the other a book, marked: "Human rights". Not perhaps the most appropriate symbols of this moment in the Republic's history. Below her statue in the Place de la Republique, candles and flowers lie in tribute, after the attacks that have shaken this country to the core. The hard-line response of President Francois Hollande might suggest he'd like to see her instead holding an assault rifle and a ledger of new laws. French politics is in a state of flux. How he and others respond to the enormous challenge posed by mass murder is likely to dictate how France, and maybe Europe, changes over the next few months and years. The mood in Paris after the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo and in the Jewish supermarket was one of defiant solidarity with those who were targeted. "We are all Charlie," was the sentiment. The attacks on Friday night, on a rock concert, a football match, on people eating and drinking, had a different meaning. "We're all targets," is nearer the mood this time. Not a declaration of faith but a realisation of vulnerability. It is a moment when people look to their politicians for solutions. 'Destroy radical Islam' But to this president? Mr Hollande has the worst opinion poll ratings of any French president ever. In early October one put his approval rating at just 17%. It had risen to the dizzying heights of 22% shortly after his tough response to the Charlie Hebdo murders. Another poll, slightly later last month, suggested his unpopularity was growing. So it is little surprise that the notion of solidarity only lasted a few hours and his rivals were uncompromising. The leader of the Front National (FN), Marine Le Pen, did suspend her campaign for the regional elections (the party is expected to do very well in the North and South West), but she called for France to rearm, take back control of its borders, and destroy radical Islam. Former president Nicolas Sarkozy, leader of the UMP, recently renamed the Republicans, called for a new European immigration policy, beefed-up security and a fresh foreign policy. So much for national unity. It is hardly surprising that the president, often portrayed as flabby and weak, has announced a raft of draconian measures, endorsing, rather than diminishing the sense of national crisis. He wants to change the constitution to allow a continued state of emergency - it's actually described as a "state of siege" in his speech - allowing French people to be stripped of their citizenship and barred from the country if they have a second nationality and are convicted of terrorism, to look again at when police can use deadly force, putting plans to cut defence spending on ice and recruiting 5,000 more officers. Perhaps most importantly, the determination to destroy the Islamic State militant group is put above getting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of power. If a rapprochement with the Russians was on the cards before, this strengthens President Vladimir Putin's hand and desirability as a partner. It is hardly "Keep calm and carry on". Riding the tiger One foreign observer said: "Some of the ideas (some would say most of them) seem to come from the platforms of European right-wing parties, even the extreme right-wing." The sense of a national emergency is no doubt fully justified, but riding the tiger of perpetual crisis is a dangerous gambit. Some might argue it is exactly what the terrorists want - others that it is a bit late. Indeed, that is exactly what Ms Le Pen is saying. She is a far more subtle, sophisticated politician than her father - undermining suspicions of her party with displays of considered reasonableness. Her tone now is, rather more in sadness than anger, "We told you so". After Mr Hollande's speech, she said many of the measures were to be welcomed, and would be supported by the FN. But she went on to say that Mr Hollande was still defending borders that leaked like a sieve, indulging in the "fad" of welcoming immigrants and refusing to fight against radical Islam and multiculturalism. It is very hard to predict how this argument will fare in the coming elections. But the sense that this has been a long time coming may have heads nodding. In my interview with Professor Andrew Hussey, he observed that for historical reasons parts of the South had become an FN fiefdom and the attacks might further the sense that Paris was a different country - almost that terrorism was a problem of the capital and it was best that it stayed there. In that dreariest of reporter's phrases, only time will tell how these horrific murders affect the election, but they have already had a huge impact on the landscape - the unpopular left-wing president has shifted to the right with measures ranging from populist to simply hard line. He has absorbed the key suggestions of his two rivals, which could neuter them and change his public image. The French Republic, in its several incarnations, is no stranger to authoritarian reactions at critical moments - but it is harder than in most countries to predict whether this will satisfy the public mood, create a demand for even stronger measures or indeed, in this contrary nation, simply be seen as an offence against notions of liberty and fraternity. "

Hollande is a member of the Socialist Party by the way, the mainstream left party in France.

Re refugees and stolen passports:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-34864193

Quote :

"Police in Honduras have arrested five Syrians who were travelling on stolen Greek passports and reportedly intended to enter the US by land. The five were detained after arriving on a flight from neighbouring El Salvador on Tuesday night, police said. Honduran special police force spokeman Anibal Baca, said they had been tipped off by Greece about the men's imminent arrival. Greek diplomats in Honduras say none of the five speak Greek. They were held at the international airport in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa. According to Honduran police, they were planning to travel to the northern city of San Pedro Sula. From there, they intended to cross into Guatemala and then Mexico before reaching the US border, some 2,000km (1,200 miles) away. Unknown identities "The passports were stolen in Athens," said Mr Baca from the Police Investigations Division (DPI). "Those are not their real names. We are still trying to establish their identities," he told La Prensa newspaper. The names on the passports are: Charalampos Kyrimopoulos, Alexandros Tzempelikos, Vasileios Bouzas, Konstantinos Marinakis and Anastasios Bellios. Interpol will assist Honduran police with the investigation."

Thumbs up to the Honduran and Greek police.

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 4:00 PM. Reason : /]

11/19/2015 3:51:06 PM

^ They were simply on their way to moron's house for the holidays, via Honduras

11/19/2015 5:08:34 PM

^ Less turkey for me to cook at least...

Seems like the system worked. That case doesn't have anything to do with the refugee crisis though btw.

[Edited on November 19, 2015 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2015 5:23:20 PM

Quote :

" ^I can't stand Todd Starnes, and I don't think that's really a good analogy at all. To make it more realistic: If you don't eat any M&M's, many of the good M&M's will see your prejudice against them and become poison themselves, allying themselves with the bad M&M's. Furthermore, they will be so radicalized by your ostracization they will sneak into your Reese's Pieces when you aren't looking and you will be poisoned by them, anyway. Still a shitty analogy, I think, but I definitely think that's more realistic."

Also, every bowl of M&Ms, or for that matter everything else, that we eat from has a couple of poisoned ones. The standard for immigration is not perfection; it can't be. Should immigrants from Iraq/Syria maybe get a harder look than from, say, Canada or Australia? Of course...but saying "There could be a terrorist in there! We can't even consider inviting ANY of them in" is absurd and not the standard we ever hold in other situations.

11/19/2015 7:33:24 PM

Looks to me like the welcoming committees are in the minority.

11/19/2015 7:33:25 PM

so?

11/19/2015 7:39:18 PM

It does only take one to create a fucking disaster and it's dangerous to think that it can't happen again. There might be another Wyclef mixed in with this batch of refugees and I frankly don't believe that America is ready for another "Hips Won't Lie".

11/19/2015 8:16:18 PM

Quote :

"Quote : " ^I can't stand Todd Starnes, and I don't think that's really a good analogy at all. To make it more realistic: If you don't eat any M&M's, many of the good M&M's will see your prejudice against them and become poison themselves, allying themselves with the bad M&M's. Furthermore, they will be so radicalized by your ostracization they will sneak into your Reese's Pieces when you aren't looking and you will be poisoned by them, anyway. Still a shitty analogy, I think, but I definitely think that's more realistic." Also, every bowl of M&Ms, or for that matter everything else, that we eat from has a couple of poisoned ones. The standard for immigration is not perfection; it can't be. Should immigrants from Iraq/Syria maybe get a harder look than from, say, Canada or Australia? Of course...but saying "There could be a terrorist in there! We can't even consider inviting ANY of them in" is absurd and not the standard we ever hold in other situations. "

And you're talking about a bowl of M&Ms hundreds of thousands in number, with 2-3 bad ones, that have never succeeded in being eaten.

Toddlers with guns have killed more people that refugees... by a WIDE margin.

11/19/2015 8:51:44 PM

One thing that I will admit is kinda silly though.

All this hubbub about refugees, when we have a completely fluid border where people can come and go as they please. That is where we need to watch ourselves.

11/19/2015 8:56:07 PM

that and no Syrian refugee had anything to do with the attack

and the fact that France is still accepting Syrian refugees

and the fact that we have a very strict refugee vetting system

and the fact that governors have no constitional authority on allowing refugees from anywhere in their state

11/19/2015 9:07:18 PM

^ federal government superfan over here, folks. i remember you whaling about states rights for months back when the gays were the minority-whom-i-cry-over-today

11/19/2015 9:42:34 PM

shoutout to WillemJoel for sharing this on Facebook:

Quote :

"Most of my friends know I practice Immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you want actual information about the process, keep reading. I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue. The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked. First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process. Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States. We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority. First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO). Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan. Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS. Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States. The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived. At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family. Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel. Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country. Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination. This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years. The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center) Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan. Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa. Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center) Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process."

11/19/2015 9:48:51 PM

Quote :

"The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children."

Did they leave the women and children back in Syria?

11/19/2015 9:56:02 PM

might as well DoubleDown on that sample size of one.

11/19/2015 10:56:52 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-europe-migrants-germany-idUSKCN0S02N220151006#q5imcV89tVosGmq4.97

Quote :

"With men accounting for about 70 percent of asylum seekers, other groups across the country have demanded gender-segregated accommodation and safe zones for women."

11/19/2015 11:06:32 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/cenk-uygur-why-havent-sam-harris-and-trump-condemned-virginia-bigots-anti-muslim-tirade
Must watch video


And Trump finally shows his Nazi colors
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/trump-crosses-the-nazi-line-maybe-muslims-should-wear-special-id-badges

11/19/2015 11:20:33 PM

rawstory.com. seems pretty legit based on this

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/satanic-temple-chapters-offer-muslim-communities-help-against-right-wing-xenophobia/

you're n-n-n-no Jimmy

11/19/2015 11:42:59 PM

pls oep

11/20/2015 12:04:02 AM

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/

[Edited on November 20, 2015 at 12:27 AM. Reason : but yeah i'm sure they're making that all up]

11/20/2015 12:27:24 AM

DoubleDown is confusing the refugees in Europe with those we are screening. The percentage of males is higher in Europe but I'm not sure where that fits in with what the FB post was talking about. Cognitive dissonance from DoubleDown or maybe just conveniently ignoring the part where the post said he wasn't referring to Europes practices.

11/20/2015 9:38:11 AM

* mali carnage, 27 dead, claimed by breakaway offshoot of AQ

* brussels on lockdown, imminent paris-style attack intelligence received

11/21/2015 8:10:49 AM

Quote :

"rawstory.com. seems pretty legit based on this http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/satanic-temple-chapters-offer-muslim-communities-help-against-right-wing-xenophobia/ you're n-n-n-no Jimmy"

That's a legit story... you can even check out the Satanic Temple's FB page if you wish. Just because you think a story is not legit does not make it so.

The two stories I posted are both legit and have been reported by MSM.

So you and synapse can kiss and make out if you wish, doesn't change the fact that I posted legit shit.

11/21/2015 10:55:35 AM

11/21/2015 10:58:58 AM

interesting way of admitting defeat there...

HAR

HAR

HAR

11/21/2015 11:36:16 AM

--->

11/22/2015 11:42:29 AM