Over twenty State governors have now “declared” a ban on all refugees coming to America and are blaming the President for even allowing them here in the first place. These bans BTW are illegal as no State government has the power to discriminate against any immigrant by closing their borders. The fear is that IS operatives will sneak in and wreck havoc here in the hinterland. Republican candidates are having a hay day whipping up anti Islamic sentiment and aiming it at the Administration, e.g. Our own sainted Governor John Kasich wants to create a new Governmental agency to promote Judeo-Christian values to the rest of the World. Has your State governor gone wacko as well?
Cap’t Jack
We’re the good people here in Minnesota. Dayton came out immediately in support of Syrian refugees.
I suspect that it’s probably already too late to shut that particular barn door, but not too late to make political hay out of it, sadly.
I’ve been really depressed since the latest attacks in Paris. I have to confess that I was really angry at first. If the only thing these people understand is violence, I was all for giving it to them. The hell with “due process”! Set up an agency to keep track of anyone who harbors the slightest IS sympathies, hand the list over to the Mafia or somebody, and make it clear that for every person killed in one of these senseless attacks a HUNDRED of their “brothers” will also be executed, selected at random from the list. Thankfully I came to my senses just a few minutes later. We can’t be like them.
You’ve probably seen the memes by now, the ones where someone ponders, if only there were some sort of story that could provide hope and show the value of caring for our neighbors, a story of people being forced to travel by their repressive governments and needing a place to stay just for the night, maybe one of them could be with child and someone would give them whatever meager accommodations they had.
The Republican Governors (and 1 Democratic Governor) and the Repub Pres. Candidates are making political hay by saying they won’t allow Syrian refugees into the US.
They take advantage of the ignorance and cowardice of their constituents. They react in ways that are most pleasing to the DAESH a-holes that slaughter innocent free people.
The truth is, with our current vetting process, allowing 10,000 Syrian refugees in our country will pose almost zero risk.
These pathetic politicians are the same people that one year ago were grandstanding with idiotic policy ideas re: dealing with the Ebola crisis.
The sad fact is that most Americans are reactionary enough, nationalistic enough, ignorant enough, and cowardly enough to agree with them.
I think it is time that we change the last word of our national anthem from “brave” to “ignorant cowards”.
The French (who if anyone is at risk) are standing by their plans to admit 30,000 Syrian refugees, because they are unwilling to submit to “terror”.
We should all be ashamed to share the title of “American” with the likes of these piss-in-their-pants Governors and Repub Presidential Candidates who profit politically by utilizing their constituents’ ignorance and fear.
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn’t lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, “I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism.” Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can’t imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don’t accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn’t they get priority? What’s wrong with this suggestion?
Lois
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion?I assume you have scientific support from sociology, psychology and historians that such a strategy would help in mitigating radicalising Islam? Or is your posting just caused by some gland of yours?
Over twenty State governors have now "declared" a ban on all refugees coming to America and are blaming the President for even allowing them here in the first place. These bans BTW are illegal as no State government has the power to discriminate against any immigrant by closing their borders. The fear is that IS operatives will sneak in and wreck havoc here in the hinterland. Republican candidates are having a hay day whipping up anti Islamic sentiment and aiming it at the Administration, e.g. Our own sainted Governor John Kasich wants to create a new Governmental agency to promote Judeo-Christian values to the rest of the World. Has your State governor gone wacko as well? Cap't JackWith what is going on in the U.S. I believe I fully understand what Gandhi meant when he said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion? LoisSo what is the basic value you are promoting here? It sounds like you are saying people who claim a religious identity can be required to say a pledge. Applying that value consistently, the same requirement could be made to an atheist, they could be told to renounce something written by Pol Pot for example. Or, we could stick the principles of religious freedom and the supreme court ruling that we can't force people to say pledges.
We’ve been playing into the Terrorist’s strategies since the greedy pigs of the Cheney/Bush administration* decided potential profits and consolidating their power was more important than thinking through what would happen - which was as predicable as… well as predictable as increasing our atmosphere’s insulation would warm the planet and disrupt weather pattern like humanity has never experienced.
Seems to me, considering the progression of the past 50 years that the world is in a race of sorts,
between humans melting down into fighting in every neighborhood -
or will extreme weather events cripple our global society first?
- Although Carter doesn’t get off either - his Afghanistan policy was a short sighted disaster,
and our reaction to the Iranian embassy hostage taking was idiotic macho - void of serious statesmanship and foresight.
At the time I remember reading an article that interviewed some big time Islamic scholar - who did a wonderful job of explaining why what those idealistic students were doing was total against Islamic teaching, etc., etc.
And I’ve forever asked myself - why couldn’t Carter appear on TV with a few of these scholars and give them students a royal religious tongue lashing purely from a religious moral perspective, treating them with a little respect and humanity - but making clear they are taking the wrong road. At least try.
But no, from the gitgo there was nothing but chest-thumping and distorting those kids into demons that they really weren’t, they were desperate. -
… so there you have it -
never offer them any validation and pretend we are without sin - treat them like contemptible scum, but expect them to listen to us.
Hmmm, why has that plan gone so horrible wrong?
Canada should take them so they can show the world how multicultural they really are.
Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." ... I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation.You can't? Try this: imagine you tried to make Christians do the same thing -- "I piss on those parts of the Bible that--" Even the most Liberal Christian in the country would stop you right there. "ALL of the Bible is the Word of God," they would say. "You will not get me to piss on ANY part of it!" Now, I'm not saying that there aren't moderate Moslems out there. But as I understand it, IS hates moderate Moslems as much as they hate us. What do you think they've been doing in Syria and Iraq all this time? They've been mostly killing other Moslems! It would be worthwhile simply to get Moslems in America to denounce terrorism in the name of Allah. That would brand them as moderates and they would be just as much "infidels" as the rest of us.
Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." ... I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation.You can't? Try this: imagine you tried to make Christians do the same thing -- "I piss on those parts of the Bible that--" Even the most Liberal Christian in the country would stop you right there. "ALL of the Bible is the Word of God," they would say. "You will not get me to piss on ANY part of it!" Now, I'm not saying that there aren't moderate Moslems out there. But as I understand it, IS hates moderate Moslems as much as they hate us. What do you think they've been doing in Syria and Iraq all this time? They've been mostly killing other Moslems! It would be worthwhile simply to get Moslems in America to denounce terrorism in the name of Allah. That would brand them as moderates and they would be just as much "infidels" as the rest of us.I agree. The best thing that could happen now is for moderate Muslims everywhere to rise up and denounce these radicals. A similar thing needs to happen in dealing with the radical Christians who infect Congress. Moderate Christians need to rise up against them. Think 130 people is horrible because of the IS terrorists in France? How about the hundreds of women who will die or be injured as a result of the terrorists we have in Texas congress who have closed women's healthcare clinics? They're every bit as terroristic/religious as the worst of IS.
Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." ... I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation.You can't? Try this: imagine you tried to make Christians do the same thing -- "I piss on those parts of the Bible that--" Even the most Liberal Christian in the country would stop you right there. "ALL of the Bible is the Word of God," they would say. "You will not get me to piss on ANY part of it!" Now, I'm not saying that there aren't moderate Moslems out there. But as I understand it, IS hates moderate Moslems as much as they hate us. What do you think they've been doing in Syria and Iraq all this time? They've been mostly killing other Moslems! It would be worthwhile simply to get Moslems in America to denounce terrorism in the name of Allah. That would brand them as moderates and they would be just as much "infidels" as the rest of us.Its hard to say who is killing who, but some reports have Assad's forces responsible for most of the muslim deaths: http://www.ibtimes.com/syrias-civilian-death-toll-islamic-state-group-or-isis-far-smaller-threat-bashar-1775238 The ideology of ISIS is based on the Salafi branch of Sunni Islam, but many of their victims seem to have been non-muslims because a lot of them live in the area where ISIS is most powerful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." ... I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation.You can't? Try this: imagine you tried to make Christians do the same thing -- "I piss on those parts of the Bible that--" Even the most Liberal Christian in the country would stop you right there. "ALL of the Bible is the Word of God," they would say. "You will not get me to piss on ANY part of it!" Now, I'm not saying that there aren't moderate Moslems out there. But as I understand it, IS hates moderate Moslems as much as they hate us. What do you think they've been doing in Syria and Iraq all this time? They've been mostly killing other Moslems! It would be worthwhile simply to get Moslems in America to denounce terrorism in the name of Allah. That would brand them as moderates and they would be just as much "infidels" as the rest of us. Think 130 people is horrible because of the IS terrorists in France? How about the hundreds of women who will die or be injured as a result of the terrorists we have in Texas congress who have closed women's healthcare clinics? They're every bit as terroristic/religious as the worst of IS.You must be a very sensitive man.
... Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." ... What's wrong with this suggestion? LoisI'm not an expert on the Quran, but I think you would be hard pressed to find parts of it that support terrorism, per se. The Daesh types, I think rely more on cherry picking from parts of the historical versions of what Muhammad did and said. And that stuff is considered more or less valid, or not, depending on which Islamic Scholar you hear from. Anyway, that would be a religious test, and good Americans tend to decry that sort of thing.
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion? LoisSo what is the basic value you are promoting here? It sounds like you are saying people who claim a religious identity can be required to say a pledge. Applying that value consistently, the same requirement could be made to an atheist, they could be told to renounce something written by Pol Pot for example. Or, we could stick the principles of religious freedom and the supreme court ruling that we can't force people to say pledges. Actually, i've now thought it through. I would not just demand it of Muslims, i would demand it of everyone wanting to come into the country, no matter what their religion. So there would be no indication of treating one religion differently. There is precedent for it. Starting in the 1950s every person coming into the country had to sign an affidavit swearing that he or she was not a communist and had no plans to violently overthrow the US government. That was imposed on EVERYONE, no matter where they were coming from or what their religion was. In addition to that, all non citizens were required to register every year at a Federal office (it was usually a Post Office) and swear again that they were not communists or planning to violently overthrow the US government. Males of combat age also had to register for the draft. My husband, who came here from England in 1972, had to do this every time he reentered the country and also had to register at the Post Office every year. He was asked to sign affidavits when he applied for a Green Card, too. If it worked and was legal to do this to keep out communists why not for potential terrorists? I can't imagine anyone objecting to saying he did not plan to blow anything up. Oh, wait! Some damned fool is bound to object. Better to not ask any uncomfortable questions about bombing people. It would be unAmerican. Lois
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion?This idea may make people feel better but we're talking about terrorists who commit mass murder. Faced with abandoning their mission or lying on an affidavit I think they are going to lie. Also many American Islamic terrorists have been people born here or who came here as innocent children and were radicalized here. Being born somewhere else doesn't make someone an enemy and being born here doesn't mean they are a loyal American. Actions are what are important, not place of birth.
Syrian refugees who survive death by Daesh or Assad and survive all of the deadly obstacles encountered in their escape journey, to reach a UN center are first screened by the UNHCR.
Only those recommended by the UNHCR, as being a potential good fit, get a shot at being placed in the US.
The eventual number of referrals by UNHCR will be WAY more than 10,000. So if we only take 10,000, we can be very picky about who we select, from among those already screened by the UNHCR.
The referred refugees are, then, vetted by our National Counterterrorism Center, and the FBI Terrorist Screening Center, and the Department of State, and the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security over a period of 18 to 24 months.
I suspect these agencies have methods beyond interviewing by trained specialists to determine the refugees’ fitness for placement here. But even if vetting is primarily reliant on interviewing, over 18 to 24 months, the interviewers, would IMO, be pretty pathetic if they could not weed out someone who might be a problem, reject or put them at the bottom of the list, and move on to the next applicant.
Also, you should note that only 2% of those who have been admitted, have been single males of combat age. Out of 10,000 that would be only 200. Do you think those 200 would not get particularly close attention during the vetting process?
Making the vetting process more rigorous than it already is, for Syrian refugees, to the point of making placement impossible, is a political tactic designed for politicians who get support from ignorant, xenophobic constituents. But worse than that, it is focusing on an infinitesimally small threat rather than addressing other ways that Daesh types, are ACTUALLY likely to infiltrate, e.g., sneaking in and avoiding vetting, flying in from European countries without the requirement of a Visa, being radicalized here, etc.
I might agree to allow Muslims in if they agree to publicly renounce all aspects of Islam that would support terrorism in any way and be required to repeat it on a regular basis. It would not guarantee that most Muslims wouldn't lie, but it would be a start. Let them prove that they do not accept the inhumane parts of the Koran. Let them say, "I piss on those parts of the Koran that support terrorism." Maybe it would reduce the percentage if terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to a level we can handle. I can't imagine anyone refusing to make such a renunciation. If they don't accept it, they can stay out. There are probably a lot of Syrians waiting to get into the US who would make that statement. Why shouldn't they get priority? What's wrong with this suggestion?This idea may make people feel better but we're talking about terrorists who commit mass murder. Faced with abandoning their mission or lying on an affidavit I think they are going to lie. Also many American Islamic terrorists have been people born here or who came here as innocent children and were radicalized here. Being born somewhere else doesn't make someone an enemy and being born here doesn't mean they are a loyal American. Actions are what are important, not place of birth. But it would be worth making the statement, as a matter of principle. Something like demanding everyone recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the National anthem. That doesn't keep any crazies out either.