The fake passport.
All Paris Attackers Identified So Far Are European Nationals
Most likely, he was never near Syria.
WEll, first off, can we not talk about our humanitarian principles when we’re taking in like 0.2% of the refugees, with perhaps a goal of eventually taking in 1%?
The problem is that your principles tend to end where the President’s need for political expediency begins, and that’s been a problem for Democratic supporters pretty much since the founding of the party.
NO war of choice except for the war of choice we’re in!
We must be compassionate and take in as few refugees as we can get away with!
Both in the service of helping Democrats continue to hold onto the last significant office they hold.
Congratulations Morgenstern You can now join the ranks of people who willingly hoover up ISIL propaganda. You even repeat their propaganda for them!
ISIL thanks you for your generous contributions to their cause. They really appreciate it when dupes like you do their work for them.
Maybe they’ll send you a thank-you fruit basket too!
A blanket policy saying the US won’t accept Syria refugees is a shame because it results in more of this, while I’m pretty sure ISIL bad guys will find a way into the country regardless.
Let’s just remember that the 9/11 hijackers were not refugees.
ETA: I’m pretty sure adaher won’t respond to this with any substance, if at all, because he has a total inability to relate in human terms to what he posts.
I’m betting your rage fueled ignorance will get the better of you and you’ll see what a total half-witted moron you are before I get my fruit basket.
Here is an article from CNN on how the refugee process works.
If it takes 12 - 18 months from application time to admittance in to the US, where are these people in the meantime? And if ISIS members did want to enter the US, isn’t there an easier way?
Hey, half a humanitarian principle’s better than none, which seems to be the amount you’re advocating.
Let’s not forget that the No Fly list also interfered with the travel plans of Senator Kennedy and Congressman John Lewis, even after Homeland Security Secretary Ridge apologized to Kennedy for the inconvenience.
What you’re referring to is a result, but it is not a principle. What it is is the President being shamed, because a blanket policy would be seen as America being pretty shitty, so you bring in a token amount so as not to look totally shitty, but also with an eye on public opinion back home. It is an election year, after all.
The fundamental problem with this pitting is that I started out talking about results, and Gyrate and others wanted to make it about moral principles. They just didn’t want to make it enough about moral principles to actually fight for it in a way that matters. Pitting me, easy. Pitting Maggie Hassan, or the President himself, can’t go there. Gotta carry water for the good guys even when they are cowards with no principles.
ISIL thanks you for your devoted work helping them in dividing the world along religious and racial lines. You truly are devoted to the cause.
Any remorse for repeating ISIL propaganda? No? Didn’t think so.
In other news, the Japanese won the war because we confirmed all of their stereotypes about us.
And the guy who did it, still a progressive hero.
So he’s wrong for bring in too few but he’s also wrong for bringing in any.
So the only option left is to bring in many times more than originally planned.
Agreed?
We already figured that was fake. If you cared more about facts and people other than yourself, you might have known that. As a non-racist, I check everything that seems like it might support racism.
And that’s what this is. These are people from Syria, and you’re scared of the brown people from Syria. Nevermind that the bad people are a minority. Nevermind that they are suffering human beings.
It’s no different than those who are scared of black people because some are criminals.
There are two choices here: the non-racist one that says help our fellow humans, while screening them for terrorism the same way we would anyone else. Or the racist one of not protecting them, and caring more about the tiny percentage that something bad may happen to us versus the large percentage that it will happen to them.
It’s like you want them to stay there and be killed. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Really? You’re already giving up even trying to support the “No Refugees” position, and have pivoted to the “They’re Almost As Bad” argument? Wow, I wasn’t expecting that until at least page 5.
There are two policies that make sense:
-
Don’t admit Syrian refugees because it’s too risky
-
Admit as many as we can because we’re compassionate.
The President, as is his wont, split the baby. But it’s hard to argue that you’re being compassionate and while I’m sure most European leaders are pretty pissed at those Republican governors, they have to also be doing plenty of eye rolling at the President’s high dudgeon, which is as calculated as the decision to admit as few Syrian refugees as possible.
Because you always carry your passport with you when preparing to commit suicide, right? Gee, it’s almost as if ISIS wanted paranoid westerners to fear and distrust refugees.
PS: Ninja’d by 20 minutes. That’s what I get for not reading ahead.
No, just trying to shift the discussion back to the merits of the opposing policies. Trying to turn it into a moral issue may make some of you think your position is stronger, but you’re backing a policy that’s not particularly compassionate or moral at all. What it is, like everything else this administration does, is the most politically expedient way to handle the issue. Taking in as many as Germany would actually result in widespread opposition and Democratic doom in 2016. So the baby has been split, or more accurately we agreed to take a toenail.
As long as we make it a moral issue, it’s just a pit thread. If you want to talk about the merits of the actual policy, then we can get into something more substantive. I maintain that we should not admit any Syrian refugees. As a matter of fact, there are refugees from all over the world that have gotten short shrift. WHy don’t we admit 100,000 Congo refugees instead? Or Darfuri refugees?
Then congratulations for doing EXACTLY what ISIL wants. They thank you for the support. A fruit basket to you as well.
I’m not sure exactly how you’d quantify “as many as we can”, but I suspect you’re just wrong here, rather than hiding complexity behind those words. Specifically, there are other considerations. For example, how quickly can the US absorb and assimilate refugees? Since absorption and assimilation are the secrets to our success relative to Europe’s immigration program, it makes sense not to overwhelm these processes.
I’m sure politicians are also looking at questions of political impact from certain refugee quota levels. Since politics is the art of the possible, this is neither surprising nor problematic.
If ISIL was a rational organization this might matter. ISIL also wants all the world powers to come in and fight them because they think it’ll bring about Allah’s glorious victory or something.