OK, that’s different. Of course the US should attempt to screen out ISIS and other terrorists from the population of Syrian refugees. But I think the US should permit some large number of Syrians to move to the US.
But you can see why a neutral observer might take that oopsie to be a sign of unconscious bias in your thinking, no?
That would be a particularly lazy and ignorant neutral observer that hadn’t even done me the courtesy of reading my previous posts in this very thread. I’d happily ignore them.
Sometimes an typo reveals nothing other than clumsy sentence construction.
Agree completely.
The only way we defeat ISIS is to offer those under their thumb the compassion and opportunities that ISIS cannot. That entails risks and we should not be blind to them, it is not racist or bigoted to screen very carefully, it is racist and bigoted (and lacking in compassion) to shut the door completely.
You might want to edit your post now that you’ve noticed your typo. Has anyone here, or the Obama administration for that matter, been saying that refugees shouldn’t be screened? You do know that there is a vetting process for refugee status right? That it takes up to two years? Is that not screening? Getting into the States as a refugee is almost as hard as winning a lottery. Many apply, few are chosen.
Didn’t see your previous post. We agree that blocking refugees is wrong.
You mean those posts where you continue to elide the actual vetting which applicants are currently subjected to prior to being granted refugee status and entry to the US, or the posts where you don’t address the counterarguments to your assertion that ISIS will “try and smuggle terrorists in with refugees”? Gotta be a reason you’re avoiding facts and arguments that rebut your opinion.
I see no reason to question whether vetting is done. It is and rightly so. To do so is neither racist nor bigoted. I think I made that fairly clear with the very first post I made.
If you have a specific problem with understanding what I’ve posted then by all means quote it and challenge me with a specific question. I’ll be more than happy to elaborate and explain.
Something like this…do you think that ISIS will try to smuggle terrorists into western nations under the umbrella of Syrian refugees?
They won’t try very hard, because it would be exceptionally difficult, with little chance of success. Because it’s so freakin’ obvious, and so easy to prevent.
What they WILL do, and ARE doing is lie and propagandize that they really are smuggling terrorists into western nations as refugees. And they will really hope that some complete fucking idiots in the west will buy this garbage and spread the fear for them. Yay! They have some helpful frightened little turds in the west doing their terror job for them!
But you seem to be assuming that vetting is inadequate to the task of screening undesirable applicants, without actually citing any problems with the process.
Well, you’ve already stated you do believe that, so it would kind of stupid for me to ask you that.
I support the arguments made by the OP and others that it would make no sense for ISIS to pursue that pathway into the US, and make not much more sense them to try and do it that way into Europe, where they already have recruits with actual citizenship in those countries.
These are people willing to strap bombs to their bodies and take on suicide missions willingly, what do you think “trying hard” looks like to them?
ISIS packs off a few score of its people to mingle with the real refugees. A few young men with no papers amongst a multitude of genuine young male refugees with no papers and some small risk of being caught. They don’t need that many to make it in order for it to be considered a success.
And exactly what vetting has been done on the thousands of Syrian refugees that recently travelled through Greece, the Balkans and on into Austria and Germany? (Prior to the Paris massacre of course), what easy prevention is in place to stop them?
You know, the ones that were purposefully not screened and processed at the first point of European entry because those initial countries knew that the final destination lies further west and so can be considered someone else’s problem.
Well there we go then. Your method of counter-terrorism seems to amount to a doctrine of
“No need to worry, they are hardly likely to try a pathway we consider too obvious”
Good luck with that. I sincerely hope I’m wrong but I have a strong suspicion that we will have headlines over the coming months and years that identify ISIS terrorists in the west as a result of exploiting the migration of unscreened refugees from Syria and elsewhere.
Who are these “unscreened refugees”? The US has a long (over a year) process for screening refugees.
Well if you’re going to rephrase my arguments into different arguments, I guess we’re done. Go on with your bad self. Have fun cowering in the castle.
If you have to rely on complete and pathetic lies (unscreened refugees) to make your point, you have utterly, utterly lost the argument.
Read my post. I specifically don’t claim that refugees are not screened before making it to the USA. They are, I admit as much.
The unscreened refugees I talk about are those who crossed to Greece and then through the Schengen countries into western Europe.
I take it at least you admit that they exist?
Has the refugee crisis in Europe totally passed you by for the last couple of years?
This is from the that bastion of rabid right-wing paranoia The Guardian.
It clarifies the additional screening undertaken by the USA…but
And understand that this route was under even less scrutiny prior to Aug/Sep this year. This has been an ongoing point of concern for the European countries for some time.
If ISIS are not seeking to exploit this then they are as stupid as they are brutal.
Those are the unscreened refugees to which I refer. At no point have I claimed that unscreened Syrian refugees reach the USA.
A clear diagnosis of the fear of refugees by Eric Posner at Slate:
Unfortunately, his conclusion is that the politics of fear have probably decisively won on this issue:
Also, they don’t freaking need to. They’ve got Frenchies and Belgians and Brits and even Americans willing to do the dirty. What the hell would they want Syrian refugees for ?
You specifically mentioned the identification of ISIS terrorists in the West and exploiting unscreened refugees in a thread about terrorists (not) infiltrating refugees bound for the US! What the hell were you thinking?