Quibbling about word usage like this is ridiculous. Obama has ordered the deaths of tons of radical Muslim terrorists. That he chooses to use diplomatic language is not a negative. How is using neocon language better? Who does it help? There’s an argument for using diplomatic language – maybe some Muslims ‘on the fence’, so to speak, will be more likely to side against the terrorists if the language is ‘softened’. Maybe this won’t happen at all… but why is using the neocon preferred language better? What’s the difference?
Why?
I am glad to see those words from Obama. I have generally been a strong supporter of the president, but I have not been very happy with his stance in this regard in the past. And I still think it’s unacceptable how friendly he has acted toward the rulers of Saudi Arabia.
To draw attention away from his insufficiently-large American flag lapel pin.
Definitely after mass shootings I complain about how lobbyists are keeping us from sensible gun control, and I advocate for restricting gun ownership by white males. After all, I’m as good at distinguishing between all lobbyists and the specific group preventing sensible gun control as you are at distinguishing between all Muslims and the specific group perpetrating terrorism. And I recognize that all white males should be viewed suspiciously, just as you recognize that all Syrian men should be viewed suspiciously.
Excellent analogy!
Yes I do.
I believe that the danger from mass shootings gets overblown AND the dangers of bad men invading your home gets overblown. Both are very low risks overall.
I do think there is a problem with poor enforcement of extant gun laws, that strawman purchases and gun show looholes, which facilitate getting guns into the hands of those not legally allowed to own them, are problems, and “rage” against the NRAs fighting against fixing that. I believe that guns should be stored responsibly and that pediatricians should be able to promote that to those who own guns if they see it fit in their particular population. I believe that family members should be aware that gun availability increases the risk of suicide completion in teens and in adult males.
Since you were curious.
Thanks. You are at least consistent, so fair enough (in your case; I doubt this consistency is the norm among those arguing your side on refugees).
I just heard Rep. Blake Farenthold being interviewed on the BBC Newshour. He came across as very moderate and reasonable, which reflects political canniness (I have no doubt that a close look at his record would reveal far less moderation) and underlines my point (and Kevin Drum’s) about how careful Democrats need to be here. The interviewer tried to bait him into taking the same “Christians only” tack we have heard from Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, but Farenthold wouldn’t bite. In fact, in demurring he even pointed out that “our nation’s founders, after all, came here seeking religious freedom”. So he’s definitely not falling into that trap.
On the flip side, speaking of traps: I certainly hope Democrats know better than to frame the argument the way the interviewer did. In response to Farenthold’s point that Syria is a “failed state”, which makes thorough vetting very difficult, the BBC host objected that this was just the nature of refugees: almost by definition, they will be coming from chaotic locations where you can never be sure of getting perfect information. All very logical, but it’s a terrible political tactic unless you are pushing an agenda of “okay, let’s just not take any refugees from anywere ever then”.
PolitiFact Sheet: 5 questions about Syrian refugees
Here’s the current screening process.
Sounds pretty thorough.
Here’s some demographic info about the Syrian refugees admitted so far.
We’re already much closer to SlackerInc’s plan than I would have guessed.
If these facts (and others about the current policy) are made clear to the public and we don’t see another major attack, I don’t why the public won’t come around to supporting the idea of Syrian refugees.
Even on the order of 10s of millions? At some point your country is no longer what it once was. You think Switzerland for example would still be Swiss with 50 million Chinese immigrants?
Just out of curiosity what you mean by travelers?
I think that xenophobia is harmful. I don’t think sensible restrictions on numbers or types of immigrants is xenophobic. I think exploiting the suffering of families who have suffered hellish conditions from a civil war for political posturing is pretty damn low. If my family was ever caught in the crossfire between multiple, barbaric sects I know I would do every thing in my power to emigrate. That said, I wouldn’t be trying to recreate my home situation in my new locale. I’d be grateful to have found a stable civilization.
For clarity, I think the USA could easily accommodate and assist on the order of several hundred thousand. I’d expect the new comers to make an effort to learn the language and major norms of this country in return.
Republicans/conservatives. Your posting history suggests you’re one or the other (or both).
Oh yeah. I’m on the right wing side of most things. Just not part of the theocratic right.
Yeah, that happens sometimes. My ancestors on my grandmother’s side certainly learned that the hard way. (She was half Native American on her father’s side, born and raised on the reservation until she was packed off to Haskell, an “Indian” boarding school run by the government, to be forcibly assimilated.)
I really wouldn’t mind this being a predominantly Latino country. I would not OTOH prefer that it be a majority Muslim country.
Huh, eye of the beholder I guess. It doesn’t sound all that impressive to me. Why would we expect any of those intelligence databases to have information on an individual Syrian person, assuming they are not a high-level ISIS leader or anything like that? And that’s assuming that we can even be sure their identification documents are genuine. Why should we doubt the FBI Director’s assertion that we don’t have that kind of fine-grained data?
ETA: To expand on that, I would be a lot more impressed if they were working with *positive *information on a person, like you’d get if you vetted an American for a security clearance. As in, if they had a whole dossier on each applicant that showed what they’ve been up to their whole lives. What Lance is describing seems to me to be just the opposite: someone is “cleared” if the person doing the vetting reports “we have absolutely no information about this person whatsoever”. Uhhh…what?
Why not move to a predominantly Latino country then? And what is it about the Latino version of European ancestry that you feel is so compelling?
This is getting way off topic, so if you have any more questions along this line, maybe PM me. But I’ll just say that Latino immigrants generally strike me as being more indigenous than European, kinda like my grandma. And I have known a lot of Latinos and Latinas, and liked them. They are generally peaceful, warm-hearted and family-oriented people who work hard but know how to have fun. And they believe in a progressive, activist government, as do I.
Moving to a Latin American country is not an option because I have children with my ex-wife that I would never leave behind. And my wife is locked into the state teacher retirement program, so we can’t even move out of state for the next 35 years or so.
I’m assuming that if they have no documentation whatsoever that they don’t get past step one. Where do you get the idea that someone is ‘cleared’ if they lack documentation?
Is the vetting process superior to the process used to vet the Syrians, Afghans, and Iraqis we give arms to?
Heh, adaher…every so often you make a nice quip. Good one. But that’s a serious point the pro-refugee crowd should address, actually.
From the information you quoted from your cite:
“Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases.”
You really think those databases have any information about ordinary Syrians who have no criminal records and have never engaged in terrorism (or at least, any that the feds know about)?
ETA: I’m not saying they “lack documentation”. They may well have documents in their possession. My question is whether people are cleared by positive information we have obtained independently of whatever (possibly forged) documents they are carrying. Furthermore, even if their documentation is genuine, our knowing they don’t have a criminal record or a CIA file and that they lived at 122 Al-Salaam Lane and worked in a pita bakery doesn’t count as “vetting” in my book. When the FBI vets someone for a high security clearance, they go around and interview everyone that person has ever known.
Yes, because as the case pointed out in the pit showed, the refugees are not involved in the unrest areas, they fled from them.
CAn’t take credit for it, that one actually has become a right-wing talking point. Although a valid one.
It’s been established pretty decisively that vetting of refugees is not going to be sufficient. It’s really time for the pro-refugee side to get off that talking point.
There is some risk and they want to take the risk for the sake of their beliefs. Very respectable, if misguided, IMO. But instead, they have to go to the usual well of, “There are zero downsides to my preferred policies and anyone who says otherwise is a dirty rotten hater!”
Since this thread is primarily about the political aspect of the Syrian refugee question rather than yet another thread about what we should do about it, let’s just say that that line of argument is not going to convince anyone. And it calls into question the general honesty of assurances that we can vet this or verify that coming out of this administration. They say they can vet Syrian refugees. That’s not true, at least not in the sense that Americans expect. Are they also lying about being able to detect Iranian violations of the agreement we made with them? They’ve already been caught manipulating intelligence about the war(hello Bush 4th term!). There’s a serious credibility gap here.
Gigobuster, how is that an answer to **adaher’s **point? I don’t even… 