Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

There is no way to properly vet people coming from a country where you can literally buy whatever identity you want via bribery. It would be nice if we could, but we can't and Obama is straight out lying when he says that's what he is doing.

 

[Kramodlog]

Since 9/11, the US has let 745,000 refugees in the US and none of them has been arrested for domestic terrorism charges. http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ng?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/yearningtobreathefree

Seems vetting is possible.

 

[Umbran]

There is no way to properly vet people coming from a country where you can literally buy whatever identity you want via bribery.

You can buy what documents you want, but "identity" goes rather deeper than documents, if you are digging.

But that is neither here nor there. Reacting to this attack by blocking Syrian refugees is kind of like insisting that everyone in town by snow tires after a terrible car crash in the summertime. The response may seem to have some logic to it, but it is not evidence-based. One actor in the Paris attack had a (fake) Syrian passport, but the rest were European nationals. The guy who planned it was Belgian. Restricting refugees would not have stopped the attack.

The fact of the matter is, trying to come in via the refugee path is *stupid*. The process takes years, you cannot count on which individuals will be chosen, and the people are scrutinized carefully. I saw it best summed up in this way:

“Hmm, we want to attack the United States. I know! Let’s go in as refugees! First, we have to hope that the UN High Commission for Refugees or another official entity places us in that lucky 1% that’s eligible for resettlement, which will take 4-10 months to determine. Then we’ll hopefully be referred to the Resettlement Support Center and pass that extensive background check and in-person interview with the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to further security clearance processes from the Consular Lookout and Support System and potentially the Security Advisory Opinion. If all of these bodies say we’re clear and then we pass the medical screening, are matched with a sponsor agency, and then pass an additional security check to see if anything new has developed, then we might be admitted! It will only take us at lowest a year and a half, but probably two years or maybe even three. It’s probably the toughest way to come in to the US - pretty much every other way is easier - but we must do this refugee route!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ming-to-the-u-s-as-refugees-in-one-paragraph/

Refugees are a non-issue.

"A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian.” The spokesperson declined to specify what exactly the security concerns were, how many of the dozen were arrested, and for what charges."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-been-arrested-on-domestic-terrorism-charges/

So that's one percent of one percent of refugees in 14 years. So far, statistically, white guys with guns are a much bigger threat than terrorists masquerading as refugees.

 

[Ryujin]

You can buy what documents you want, but "identity" goes rather deeper than documents, if you are digging.

But that is neither here nor there. Reacting to this attack by blocking Syrian refugees is kind of like insisting that everyone in town by snow tires after a terrible car crash in the summertime. The response may seem to have some logic to it, but it is not evidence-based. One actor in the Paris attack had a (fake) Syrian passport, but the rest were European nationals. The guy who planned it was Belgian. Restricting refugees would not have stopped the attack.

The fact of the matter is, trying to come in via the refugee path is *stupid*. The process takes years, you cannot count on which individuals will be chosen, and the people are scrutinized carefully. I saw it best summed up in this way:

“Hmm, we want to attack the United States. I know! Let’s go in as refugees! First, we have to hope that the UN High Commission for Refugees or another official entity places us in that lucky 1% that’s eligible for resettlement, which will take 4-10 months to determine. Then we’ll hopefully be referred to the Resettlement Support Center and pass that extensive background check and in-person interview with the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to further security clearance processes from the Consular Lookout and Support System and potentially the Security Advisory Opinion. If all of these bodies say we’re clear and then we pass the medical screening, are matched with a sponsor agency, and then pass an additional security check to see if anything new has developed, then we might be admitted! It will only take us at lowest a year and a half, but probably two years or maybe even three. It’s probably the toughest way to come in to the US - pretty much every other way is easier - but we must do this refugee route!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ming-to-the-u-s-as-refugees-in-one-paragraph/

Refugees are a non-issue.

"A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian.” The spokesperson declined to specify what exactly the security concerns were, how many of the dozen were arrested, and for what charges."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-been-arrested-on-domestic-terrorism-charges/

So that's one percent of one percent of refugees in 14 years. So far, statistically, white guys with guns are a much bigger threat than terrorists masquerading as refugees.

Ultimately, people will believe what they choose to believe. For instance there are still a fair number of Americans who believe that the 9/11 terrorists got into the US by way of Canada, due to early poorly vetted reports in the media.

 

[Umbran]

Ultimately, people will believe what they choose to believe.

Yes. And it thus behooves us to give them reasons to believe things that are at least vaguely related to reality.

 

[Cor Azer]

Yes. And it thus behooves us to give them reasons to believe things that are at least vaguely related to reality.

Now that's just crazy talk!

 

[Kramodlog]

Ultimately, people will believe what they choose to believe.

So in a representatie democracy, should elected officials act according to what the population wants and believes, even if it is wrong, or should they act according to what is true and best? Probably defined by intellectual elites in various areas of expertice.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I pointed out in a similar discussion elsewhere, fearing the Syrian refugees because of the past or possible actions of terrorists among them is as nonsensical as blaming all whites for the actions of the KKK or all NRA members for the actions of family annihilators and spree killers (mass murderers who, by and large, commit their crimes with legally purchased guns).

The word for that is "paranoia."

Not only that, it is paranoia that endangers us more than in protects: studies show refugees are more likely to become radicalized the closer they are to the conflict they're fleeing; they are more likely to become radicalized if forced to live in camps & return instead of being allowed to resettle elsewhere. (The leader of the recent attacks in Paris was apparently radicalized in a Iraqi POW camp.)

The odds of radicalization among Middle Eastern refugees drop even further when they are allowed to resettle in Western nations.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halp...terrorists-and-xenophobia-hurts-democracy-968

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-in-not-accepting-syrian-refugees-into-the-us

 

[tuxgeo]

So in a representatie democracy, should elected officials act according to what the population wants and believes, even if it is wrong, or should they act according to what is true and best? Probably defined by intellectual elites in various areas of expertice.

That's the central quandary of western democracy. Thank you for pointing it out.

The answer, according to the founders of the USA, was to insulate the actions of government from too much popular opinion by recognizing, and stating explicitly in the Constitution, that the people have rights that they cannot easily abandon; and by restricting the ability of the government to change the rules on a passing whim -- for values of "passing" that extend to decades or even centuries.

As to the "Probably defined . . ." portion of the quote above:
More likely defined by the accumulated perspective of more then two thousand years of history. The current elites of the western democracies are largely on board with one pervasive, current, passing whim of largely shared policy, but that's not the best guide for how the government should act because it's so 'passing.'

(Unanimity in delusion is a prescription for catastrophe.)

 

[Maxperson]

\
But that is neither here nor there. Reacting to this attack by blocking Syrian refugees is kind of like insisting that everyone in town by snow tires after a terrible car crash in the summertime. The response may seem to have some logic to it, but it is not evidence-based. One actor in the Paris attack had a (fake) Syrian passport, but the rest were European nationals. The guy who planned it was Belgian. Restricting refugees would not have stopped the attack.

They have no business being here. It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis. There is always a crisis of some sort somewhere. There are many surrounding countries that should be taking the Syrian refugees in locally so that they can go home when the crisis is over.

“Hmm, we want to attack the United States. I know! Let’s go in as refugees! First, we have to hope that the UN High Commission for Refugees or another official entity places us in that lucky 1% that’s eligible for resettlement, which will take 4-10 months to determine. Then we’ll hopefully be referred to the Resettlement Support Center and pass that extensive background check and in-person interview with the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to further security clearance processes from the Consular Lookout and Support System and potentially the Security Advisory Opinion. If all of these bodies say we’re clear and then we pass the medical screening, are matched with a sponsor agency, and then pass an additional security check to see if anything new has developed, then we might be admitted! It will only take us at lowest a year and a half, but probably two years or maybe even three. It’s probably the toughest way to come in to the US - pretty much every other way is easier - but we must do this refugee route!”

You don't think that they plan things years in advance? Or that they would try several different avenues to get into the country?

Refugees are a non-issue.

"A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian.” The spokesperson declined to specify what exactly the security concerns were, how many of the dozen were arrested, and for what charges."

A dozen is an issue, and that's just the dozen that was caught.

So that's one percent of one percent of refugees in 14 years. So far, statistically, white guys with guns are a much bigger threat than terrorists masquerading as refugees.

Statistically, accidental deaths from cars dwarfs the number of deaths from even 9/11, so I guess we should just stop security altogether. It doesn't matter if someone else is a bigger threat, you still need to take care of the small threats when you can.