patrick.net

SoftShell says

The only reasonable strategy is to take in the women and children lowering the overall risk, and send the men back to fight for their country.

You think they won't just send in the women and children with strap-on bombs? I think there is a verse about that in the Koh-ran.

Lowers the risk...does not eliminate it...

Philistine says

You think they won't just send in the women and children with strap-on bombs? I think there is a verse about that in the Koh-ran

YesYNot says

No one is asking to skip the vetting process or even to do things quickly.

How would you even vet for such a thing? Criminals of all kinds surprise people with their actions.... "He was always a quiet young man. Never played loud music. Always polite." You cannot really know what's going on in someone's head. A radical fundamentalist doesn't have to admit to being such on his tourist visa application. Unless a person is a well-known higher-up in the terrorist organization, would we really be able to find out which "little guys" attended meetings and subscribe to fundamentalist beliefs? Do they keep attendance records when they hold their meetings in caves? Even for the moms and children... You don't know what those mommas are teaching their kids. How would you vet for that? Osama was once a little boy. The desire to remove oneself from a dangerous place to one that is safe is pretty basic need for a mother with children. That doesn't mean that they are going to check their beliefs at the border.

Philistine says

SoftShell says

The only reasonable strategy is to take in the women and children lowering the overall risk, and send the men back to fight for their country.

You think they won't just send in the women and children with strap-on bombs? I think there is a verse about that in the Koh-ran.

Muslims are preached to love their Prophet more than their children. They can be sacrificed.

turtledove says

would we really be able to find out which "little guys" attended meetings and subscribe to fundamentalist beliefs?

Worse. What about those that sympathize from afar, but are never directly involved in organized activity? All it takes is once for somebody to surprise us with criminal actions.

turtledove says

doesn't mean that they are going to check their beliefs at the border.

Forget The Other. I know plenty of people that live right in my own city and work in my very own office that barely conceal their beliefs specific to their racial, ethnic, 3rd-generation-nationality, indeed, even *individual* experience, that they will spend a lifetime Not Checking at the Door, let alone any border.

"The Danish Infidels took my 40-year old husband away. I, Aisha, 14 years old of the Bakalaka Clan, vow revenge. I will name my son Mua'dib Al-Lisan Al-Grozny, he will terrorize these disgusting Shirk apes! He will be raised with the knife! We will take their money and their disgusting oatmeal food, fit for only camels and monkeys, and rise up with the righteousness of God against these destroyers of Holy Sanctified Marriage and Goodness! What filth they make me go through, to declare my Legal Islamic Marriage haram under the false Crusader Ape Pig Law by those who add Gods to God to 40-year old Mohammed Al-Baldy as his second wife, as performed by Imam Bakaklakadaka and the approval of my Mother, Father, Grandmother, and Aunt Dirkadirka!"

thunderlips11 says

Danish....

I couldn't find a source for that but found this instead: "Danish girl, 15, and her Muslim boyfriend, 29, stab her mother to death after watching Islamic State beheading videos"

turtledove says

How would you even vet for such a thing? Criminals of all kinds surprise people with their actions.... "He was always a quiet young man. Never played loud music. Always polite." You cannot really know what's going on in someone's head. A radical fundamentalist doesn't have to admit to being such on his tourist visa application. Unless a person is a well-known higher-up in the terrorist organization, would we really be able to find out which "little guys" attended meetings and subscribe to fundamentalist beliefs? Do they keep attendance records when they hold their meetings in caves? Even for the moms and children... You don't know what those mommas are teaching their kids. How would you vet for that? Osama was once a little boy. The desire to remove oneself from a dangerous place to one that is safe is pretty basic need for a mother with children. That doesn't mean that they are going to check their beliefs at the border.

The process was explained in some source or other I posted over the last couple of days. It's not perfect of course. But according to the sources I've found no one who has gone through the process has committed any terrorist act in the US. We let 60,000 to 70,000 refugees into the US every year. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/refugees-fact-sheet

Here's a page that discusses Syrian refugees. http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/11/16/9745318/syrian-refugees-us-isis

Looks like the House agrees with you.

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762054/congress-obama-refugees-syria

I would imagine that once in the US, these people would be watched carefully rather than just dumped in and forgotten about.

YesYNot says

according to the sources I've found...I would imagine

There's your problem. Anybody on the Interwebs can find sources (often driven by advocacy) they want to believe, and then imagine what they want to imagine. For example, a guy from HRW (an organization that I respect) claimed (falsely), "There’s 70,000 refugees coming to the United States every year, and not a single one has been involved in a terrorist incident." His claim had already been proven definitely false, beyond a reasonable doubt, but that didn't stop him from saying it. Thunderlips11 listed examples, and as I said before I've read of more. At some point, you have to engage critical analysis and judgment. Otherwise you end up like bgamall with his conspiracy theories, or partisans/sectarians who live in almost equally unreal parallel universes. Of course bgamall might say the dead and injured are all actors, and the arrests are fake or baseless, but his repeating it doesn't make it so. There have definitely been cases of Muslim refugees engaging in terrorism in the USA, including arrests and fatalities.

Here are two more for you:

"Former Iraqi Terrorists Living in Kentucky Sentenced for Terrorist Activities "

"The men were living in the United States and had been granted refugee status, despite their insurgency activities in Iraq and their role in attacking U.S. troops."

These are actual cases, convicted after being proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that some advocates continue saying it's never happened shows those advocates cannot be trusted: they are either ignorant or lying.

In fact, even your own linked source acknowledges arrests and convictions, which makes me wonder why you stuck by your claim:

YesYNot says

curious2 says

YesYNot says

There have been zero arrests of refugees for terrorism in the US since 2001.

What is your source for that assertion? I have read of three cases, and I don't presume to know of most, let alone all. Furthermore, calling ISIL/Daesh "a positive influence" is not an arrestable offense, even though it suggests an alarming risk level.

http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refugees-dont-pose-serious-security-threat

That link says that "three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks...." You said zero, and cited as your source a document that says three. Thunderlips11 and I have listed at least five, and neither of us claims to know of every example.

YesYNot says

The process was explained in some source or other I posted over the last couple of days. It's not perfect of course. But according to the sources I've found no one who has gone through the process has committed any terrorist act in the US. We let 60,000 to 70,000 refugees into the US every year. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/refugees-fact-sheet

I'll repost this. Two Refugees were AQ Operatives and busted by the FBI trying to buy arms. What's worse? They claimed to have killed US Soldiers in Iraq. They came under the 2009-system implaced by Obama.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrorists-refugee-program-settle-us/story?id=35252500

YesYNot says

I would imagine that once in the US, these people would be watched carefully rather than just dumped in and forgotten about.

Nope. Already lost track.

BATON ROUGE- State leaders blasted the feds Monday for not alerting them about 14 Syrian refugees who were resettled in Louisiana. It's unclear when they arrived.

The majority of them are in the New Orleans area, but one came to Baton Rouge two months ago. WBRZ has learned Catholic Charities helped the refugee who settled in Baton Rouge, but said the immigrant left for another state after a couple of days, and they don't know where the refugee went since they don't track them.

So, the state didn't know they were resettled there. Nobody in authority knows even when they arrived. And the refugee left for another state according to a Charity organization, and nobody knows where the fuck they are, certainly not the Catholic Charities the government dumped them on, since it's not Father Maieye's job.

Just more neolibcon head pats. "Don't you worry about it." If a Neolibcon says Don't Worry, be very worried.

curious2 says

There's the problem. Anybody on the Interwebs can find sources (often driven by advocacy) they want to believe, and then imagine what they want to imagine. I have seen sources claiming that no refugees have been arrested for terrorism, but they're wrong. Thunderlips11 listed examples, and as I said before I've read of more. At some point, you have to engage critical analysis and judgment.

My critical analysis tools allowed me to differentiate between someone who entered through the refugee program (aka a refugee) from the child of someone who entered on a tourist visa (Boston bombers). Do you agree that there is a difference? Do you consider the Boston bombers to be refugees and think that they are proof that the refugee program does not work?

In addition to keeping an open and critical mind, it is important to not be swept up with the fear-driven crowd thinking that big tragic and dramatic events inspire. A lot of what we do as a society is reactionary and illogical. Events like 9/11 and the Paris attack bring that out in spades.

bgamall is on my ignore list, b/c he is a nut job spewing nonsense that is wrong in every sense of the word. Sometimes it's best to just ignore and not engage.

I haven't been selectively ignoring articles that are contrary to what I've posted. I just haven't found any.

Abdulazeez came over when he was 3 years old. Mohamed Osman Mohamud was recruited in the US, and that is how the FBI found him. I don't know how ether came into the country, and I don't know how old Mohamud was. These examples suggest that kids of people from these countries are susceptible to recruitment. These are examples of foreign born kids people turning bad, but it's not clear that they were refugees.

YesYNot says

Do you consider the Boston bombers to be refugees

Reading to respond to your questions, I found this in the Washington Post:

"Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said the Tsarnaevs had received refugee status. The parents of the Tsarnaev brothers reached the United States on tourist visas and applied for asylum. To get asylum, an applicant must meet the definition of a refugee, but unlike a refugee he or she has already reached the United States and is subject to a different application process. After the Tsarnaevs obtained asylee status, they successfully applied for derivative asylee status for their children. The story has been corrected."

I had seen sources calling them refugees, but I can believe they were asylees instead.

YesYNot says

I haven't been selectively ignoring articles that are contrary to what I've posted. I just haven't found any.

The article that you linked to contradicted you.

YesYNot says

These examples suggest that kids of people from these countries are susceptible to recruitment.

Thanks for acknowledging that at least. Under the 14th Amendment, any kids born here are citizens, and surveys show 10% of Muslim Americans support the death penalty for cartoons of Mohammed. I've posted separately about the ongoing machete murders of writers and publishers in Bangladesh, for example. If you want to help the Muslim refugees who claim that they want to return to their homes, then advocate that they should be sheltered nearer to where they live, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

curious2 says

That link says that "three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks...." You said zero, and cited as your source a document that says three. Thunderlips11 and I have listed at least five, and neither of us claims to know of every example.

Those were convicted for helping terrorism outside of the US. My original quote was based on terrorism in the US. I will admit that there was some serious parsing of terms wherever I got the original quote. Arguing the point with you and Thunderlips has clarified the issue quite a bit for me, and I admit that it is a rational (if overblown) fear.

YesYNot says

it is a rational (if overblown) fear.

I can likewise admit that the leading causes of death in America are heart disease and cancer, and will likely remain so even if we bring in 10k refugees from Syria. The issue of Muslim terrorism, however, is the tip of a dangerous spear. As others have written, Islam differs fundamentally from other religions; it combines the global missionary proseletyizing of late New Testament Christianity with the holy violence of early Old Testament Judaism. A very substantial % of Muslims tend to be Muslim first, all else second. Even in America, half say that a Mohammed cartoon should be a criminal offense, and 10% say it should be a capital offense. I see on the left a zeal for compassion bordering on Christian martyrdom, and a categorical refusal to think through the consequences of policy decisions. It is the "logic" of Christian martyrdom and Obamneycare: the more it costs, in blood and treasure, the more virtuous the believers feel for having sacrificed so much. Surely, they shall be rewarded in the certainty of the resurrection. Meanwhile, those of us who live here on earth have more earthly concerns. You can feel virtuous or whatever for proclaiming your coercive generosity and recycling to atone for your conspicuous consumption, but I would prefer not to have Charlie Hebdo massacres here like those in Bangladesh; even if the % murdered is not large enough to change dramatically the overall mortality statistics, the consequences for the culture (including terror and self-censorship) can be profound.

thunderlips11 says

YesYNot says

I would imagine that once in the US, these people would be watched carefully rather than just dumped in and forgotten about.

Nope. Already lost track.

I'm not convinced that the federal agencies lost track, but think they ought to be looping in state authorities. I would fully support a program whereby refugees are required to check in with handlers. That doesn't seem like a big imposition.

If the government is not using these people to help learn about foreign terrorist recruiters and activities, then they are asleep on the job. It seems like they are surveiling them, though, as they have intercepted a number of these guys.

curious2 says

If you want to help the Muslim refugees who claim that they want to return to their homes, then advocate that they should be sheltered nearer to where they live, e.g. Saudi Arab

I'm not advocating that we take them all. It is just bad form to help create such a boondogle, and then expect everyone else to do the right thing by the people who are legitimately displaced.

YesYNot says

bad form to help create such a boondogle, and then expect everyone else to do the right thing

That's an argument against invading Iraq (which W decided to do and then-Senators Clinton and JFKerry voted to authorize), bombing Libya and Syria (Hillary's war and Kerry's war, respectively, and both on O's watch), all without planning for refugees' need for local shelter. It isn't an argument to bring people to America who reject American democracy. That isn't "the right thing," it's murder. I had a similar conversation recently with someone who said Napoleon had drowned Muslims, as if that excused some number of murders in Paris. See above regarding Christian martyrdom (I update my comments with sources and clarifications). The Californians murdered in Paris were too young to have even voted for W, but they got murdered because somebody thought it was "the right thing," and even their Obamneycare could not save them. The military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex have their mouthpieces working overtime selling wars and pills, and everybody gets conscripted into it, and honestly I don't agree about it being "the right thing;" likewise, perceptions of "bad form" worry me less than other, more practical, concerns.

curious2 says

You can feel all virtuous or whatever proclaiming your coercive generosity, but I would prefer not to have Charlie Hebdo massacres here like those in Bangladesh; even if the % murdered is not large enough to change dramatically the overall mortality statistics, the consequences for the culture (including terror and self-censorship) can be profound.

My views aren't based on a feeling of virtuosity, it's just a difference of opinion. I truly do believe that fear is driving a very reactionary response right now, and it is similar to what happened after 9/11, except on a small scale.

In my mind, overreacting to these terrorists legitimizes them. Killing a few hundred people is sad, but it's nothing. Getting us to go to war in Iraq was huge. The overreaction gives them power that they otherwise couldn't dream of. Krugman had a good post about this on Monday. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/fearing-fear-itself.html?_r=0.

curious2 says

even if the % murdered is not large enough to change dramatically the overall mortality statistics, the consequences for the culture (including terror and self-censorship) can be profound

It sure would be nice if we had leaders who could help put these attacks into perspective, so that we could worry more about real risks and less about overreactions (consequences for the culture).

curious2 says

A very substantial % of Muslims tend to be Muslim first, all else second. Even in America, half say that a Mohammed cartoon should be a criminal offense, and 10% say it should be a capital offense.

These numbers surprise me, but are in line with what I've read of muslim opinion in other western countries. The appropriate response IMO is to say that freedom of speech trumps freedom to not be offended. If I had my way, all religions would die out, but they are too useful for too many people for that to happen.

YesYNot says

Killing a few hundred people is sad, but it's nothing.

I don't agree about it being "nothing", but I do agree it's sad.

As for Krugman, he can't even count honestly the number of tunnels under the Hudson River, and the commercial NY Times publishes his false claims as "opinion" (by which they seem to mean counterfactual advocacy), and I do suspect money changes hands (e.g. related to the tunnel project). They publish advocacy, to (mis)lead in service of a commercial agenda, e.g. Judith Miller and the NY Times supporting the Iraq war.

I suppose the lives lost can seem incidental, even "nothing," if you focus only on the goal ("doing the right thing," selling more wars and pills in the name of "helping" and avoiding "bad form").

YesYNot says

Those were convicted for helping terrorism outside of the US.

Oh come now. So if they assisted with terrorism outside the US, that's no indicator they will assist with terrorism in the US?

Good thing we don't apply this standard of thinking to non political criminals, such as those who have murdered or raped in their countries of origin, when they try to immigrate.

"Well, Jorge was arrested three times for raping women in Guyana. But I don't see how that means he'll rape American women. American women aren't Guyanese Women Let him in!"

This is what we mean when we say "People bend over backwards" to justify mass refugee admittance.

curious2 says

I had a similar conversation recently with someone who said Napoleon had drowned Muslims, as if that excused some number of murders in Paris.

I agree with this. There was no justification for the bombings in Paris. I've never thought or said or implied that there was.

curious2 says

and honestly I don't agree about it being "the right thing;" likewise, perceptions of "bad form" worry me less than other, more practical, concerns.

That's fine. We don't have to agree. But it's not about perceptions. It's about doing the right thing, and I believe in cleaning up my own mess. I believe it's the right thing for a country to do as well. To me, the risk is small and worth taking.

Perceptions are important, too, but not so that people like us. It's because being overly anti-Muslim and reactionary is likely to help ISIS and other extreme Muslim groups to recruit members. It might help convert people who are born in the US and already here.

YesYNot says

We don't have to agree. But it's not about perceptions. It's about doing the right thing, and I believe in cleaning up my own mess... To me, the risk is small and worth taking.

Fine, go to Syria and help those people clean up. Don't pretend that you're doing "the right thing" when you conscipt other people into getting killed, simply because the statistical risk to you personally is remote. Killing hundreds of people isn't "nothing", especially when the murderers are trying to kill more than that.

YesYNot says

Perceptions are important, too, but not so that people like us. It's because being overly anti-Muslim and reactionary is likely to help [Daesh] and other extreme Muslim groups to recruit members. It might help convert people who are born in the US and already here.

Fear of how Muslims will perceive you is a terrible reason to do anything. When they say they want to kill you, whether in the worst possible way or some other way, don't offer to meet them halfway. Religious charlatans don't compromise, they merely wait for the opportunity to fulfill their quest, one step at a time.

It's just common sense, you don't bring in refugees from a country you are actively bombing.

What we call terrorists out here, these people might call their saviors.

#politics

Confirmed by the DHS: The two Al Qaeda operatives nabbed by FBI trying to smuggle arms abroad were indeed admitted as Refugees.

Two al Qaeda terrorists who had killed American soldiers were able to enter the country as refugees, according to a report released Wednesday from the House Homeland Security committee.

Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, after killing American soldiers, whom they bragged about having “for lunch and dinner.” In 2010, they were caught handling weapons, including included a machine gun and a missile launcher, that they planned to smuggle to insurgents in Iraq.

WAPO factchecker: Two Pinnochios to the claim not one refugee has been convicted of terrorism. Why? Relies on overly technical/legalistic definition of Refugee (vs. "Asylum" Status, for example) and "Domestic Terrorism".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/19/the-viral-claim-that-not-one-refugee-resettled-since-911-has-been-arrested-on-domestic-terrorism-charge

The Neolib/cons are sneaky bastards. They deliberately mislead with the Technical difference between Asylum and Refugee, with the only major difference being where you apply, knowing that the general public is not composed wholly of Immigration Lawyers who would spot the Shell Game.

YesYNot says

Do you consider the Boston bombers to be refugees and think that they are proof that the refugee program does not work?

I don't see the nepalis and ethiopian christians doing shit in Atlanta. So yes, I guess it works. But I see somalis doing shit in minneapolis and detroit. So no, I guess it doesn't work.

curious2 says

Don't pretend that you're doing "the right thing" when you conscipt other people into getting killed, simply because the statistical risk to you personally is remote.

How noble, enough to make a chicken hawk proud.

curious2 says

Fear of how Muslims will perceive you is a terrible reason to do anything. When they say they want to kill you, whether in the worst possible way or some other way, don't offer to meet them halfway. Religious charlatans don't compromise, they merely wait for the opportunity to fulfill their quest, one step at a time.

My thinking is different having spent time in India the world's largest democracy and 2nd largest muslim population in the world. Most of the comments come from people with limited exposure. Most of these people have never even had close contacts with muslims much less attempted to have a conversation about religion with someone they think is 'moderate'.

I have muslim friends but we never talk about shit like France or Benghazi or religion or anything that most non-muslims would think is stupid about the Quran. Thus my friendships are 'arms-length'.

General rule of thumb: the longer the beard the more likely to be radical.

Of course exceptions exist, but why take a risk trying to help the suicide bomber yelling 'help?'

curious2 says

A very substantial % of Muslims tend to be Muslim first

Muslims in India since the Mughal empire and before still mostly feel this way. Also largest source of insurgency in India as well. But I'm waiting for the apologists to whitewash facts.

Honor killings don't make the news in India, not because it isn't newsworthy, but because talking about it probably would lead to hair-trigger rioting if it;s a muslim. In fairness, It's also fairly common amongst illiterate North Indian hindus also.

At least since 2011, the Supreme Court in India is saying that those involved in honor killings should face the death penalty, reported by none other than the venerable BBC. Still, more than I can say about countries where people prefer Sharia law.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30125116

Here is some fire for the muslim apologists: honor killing isn't an islamic problem but a 'universal problem'

http://www.meforum.org/3287/hindu-muslim-honor-killings

From article (as I said before reading this) Though no less gruesome, the Hindu honor killings seem largely confined to the north of India and are perpetuated by sociocultural factors largely specific to India. Translation: lower caste Illiterates.

Harry Potter actress beaten and threatened with death for dating non-Muslim...she comes from a liberal muslim family because conservative families wouldn't even support her acting career

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/20/harry-potter-actor-attacked-allegation

Most hated comments are the ones closest to the truth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340222/Harry-Potter-actress-beaten-branded-prostitute-brother-dating-man-Muslim.html#comments

MMR says

Most hated comments are the ones closest to the truth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340222/Harry-Potter-actress-beaten-branded-prostitute-brother-dating-man-Muslim.html#comments

Great link thanks.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

mell says

but to say there is none is a blatant lie.

To say that there is none is to have made something up and put it in the mouth of someone else who never said it. You're lying. Please try not to do that, or at least not to do it so poorly.

Sometimes it's just better to show some grace and not argue every point.even if you think people are overreacting. This hit home for many and the last thing people need is being constantly lectured. Half of the states already made their decision and they did so very clearly, so did many European countries, what is so hard to understand about it?

curious2 says

Fine, go to Syria and help those people clean up. Don't pretend that you're doing "the right thing" when you conscipt other people into getting killed, simply because the statistical risk to you personally is remote. Killing hundreds of people isn't "nothing", especially when the murderers are trying to kill more than that.

By not letting any refugees in, you are conscripting people to die as well. It's just other people. Some of those other people might be refugees, some might be Americans 20 years from now. There are 3 year olds in the US with relatives in Syria and 3 year olds in the refugee areas who are going to be terrorists in 20 years. How many of them will be willing to attack us? Will our actions regarding their lives today make any difference? I would say yes. Paris wasn't nothing, but it was statistically insignificant, as you have already admitted. It's a war against ideology, and we need to set a positive example.

curious2 says

Fear of how Muslims will perceive you is a terrible reason to do anything. When they say they want to kill you, whether in the worst possible way or some other way, don't offer to meet them halfway. Religious charlatans don't compromise, they merely wait for the opportunity to fulfill their quest, one step at a time.

Letting refugees into the country isn't meeting terrorists half way. It is following our principles and doing what we have always done in spite of the terrorists. Shutting our borders, claiming that Islam is inherently violent and evil, and turning this into a holy war is more than meeting the terrorists halfway.

To be clear, I'd be in favor of people entering the country if they have been displaced by and have had people in their family killed by ISIS. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out who is for real by cross checking stories among the refugees. We are talking about a few thousand people out of millions. Obama wants to let in 30 people a day on average.

thunderlips11 says

They deliberately mislead with the Technical difference between Asylum and Refugee

I've already agreed that it was a misleading quote, and your and curious's arguments have clarified it a lot. Just because there haven't been any American lives lost on our soil due to refugees (the vetting system that would be used for Syrian refugees) coming in doesn't mean that there is no danger. The current rise of ISIS creates a new higher level of danger than in the past, but there is also a greater number of non-violent people who need a place to go.

YesYNot says

there is also a greater number of non-violent people who need a place to go.

Wealthy Arab Gulf States. Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestinians in the 90s, they can put them up in Kuwait in their place.

Saudi Arabia has massive air conditioned tents for the millions for the Hadj season, they're ready to go.

Of course, none of the Gulf States want Christians, Alawites, Not-Sunni-Enough Sunnis, or filthy heretic Shi'a. They're happy to give billions to build Mosques in Germany, with handpicked Sunni Extremist Imams, though.

My understanding is that there are no official UN Syrian refugees in Saudia Arabia, b/c SA doesn't use there system to process people. But, the UN estimates that there are 1/2 million Syrians who have gone to SA. SA claims to have hosted 2.5 million since the start of the conflict.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm going to try to stay away from it today for the sake of productivity.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

It's not hard at all to understand, mell, and I haven't said that people are wrong to distrust whether government can safely vet refugees or anyone for that matter. In fact, I've said accepting refugees right now would be foolish, but for some reason you don't really read what I say you just listen to what you hear.

By the way, reacting in fear is one of the least graceful things one can do. I am not concerned about nor do I fear an *invasion* of the West by ISIS. Neither do I sell short the agony they perpetrate. I fear an overreaction by people who have already forgotten how disastrous the Iraq war was. Blood lust is high right now. I don't owe it to anyone to pretend I support it, no matter how hurt we are by the deaths in Paris. And I don't plan to let you call me a liar without calling bullshit just because you're afraid.

Not sure why you internalize everything, you injected into the discussion of what I called blatant lie which I think is proven by the daily, weekly, monthly incidents, many caused by refugees/immigrants. Nobody said that you made that assertion. So what sort of overreaction have you seen? Not taking in more immigrants is not an overreaction, it's a natural reaction and common sense. Nobody is in the streets demanding the blood of resident immigrants or refugees, they are still being cared for and supported. There's propaganda that people are tired of (what backlash and repercussions?), and there is a difference between smart intake of some immigrants and giving up the roots of your country with unhinged immigration. The US is not there yet, but quite a few metropolitan areas in Europe have already arrived there.

mell says

Not taking in more immigrants is not an overreaction, it's a natural reaction and common sense.

Only take in those that are qualified to contribute something of value to the US economy. Even then it's a risky proposition. Why not simply set up a zone in Syria protected by the US military for those refugees?

The super motivated can simply sneak across the mexican border with the help of coyotes.

YesYNot says

Shutting our borders, claiming that Islam is inherently violent and evil, and turning this into a holy war is more than meeting the terrorists halfway.

Limiting them is a good strategy and spreading them apart so as to minimize the possibility of ghettoization, unlike Europe is a better strategy. Places like Dearborn, MI notwithstanding, muslims in the US are much less likely to be ghettoized as compared to Europe.

Also limiting immigration to people with capacity to work as well as women and children.

YesYNot says

Paris...was statistically insignificant, as you have already admitted.

@YesYNot, try quoting instead of paraphrasing. Otherwise, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, specifically misreading things to support what you want to believe. For example, to support your false claim that there had been "zero arrests of refugees for terrorism in the US since 2001," you cited a source that listed three. Now, you accuse me of having "admitted" something I never said. I am guessing that you are paraphrasing badly (really mischaracterizing) the comment where I admitted that the two leading causes of death in the U.S. are and will likely remain heart disease and cancer. By your latest illogic, everything else (gun violence, car wrecks) would then be "insignificant" because they don't change the top two. For the record, I NEVER said there was anything insignificant about Paris, and I resent your false and unsourced accusation to the contrary.

YesYNot says

By not letting any refugees in, you are conscripting people to die as well.

Again you use a fallacy to mischaracterize. I never said not to let any refugees in, although I do agree with Thunderlips11 that the Saudis have plenty of space and infrastructure to support the Muslim refugees.

YesYNot says

Letting refugees into the country isn't meeting terrorists half way. It is following our principles and doing what we have always done....

Either you are incredibly ignorant of American history, believing whatever makes you feel good to believe, or you are lying again. Read some of the history around WWII to learn about "what we have always done." Each side may have its own opinion about what we should do, but not its own facts about what America has actually done. I have demonstrated already in this comment three provably false statements from you in this one page, where you were either lying deliberately or did not care enough even to check the facts on the screen in front of you; three strikes and you are out. Stop lying and start quoting.

curious2 says

even if the % murdered is not large enough to change dramatically the overall mortality statistics

I took this to mean that you were basically saying that it didn't change the mortality statistics. I didn't bother going back to look up exactly what you said, so I missed the 'dramatically' part. I figured that admitting that 100 deaths is not statistically significant was sort of obvious. In the US, some 7,000 people die each day. That is 2.6 million per year. Over the 3 years or so since the rise of ISIS, 7.5 million people have died in the US. 100 / 7.5 million is 1 in 75,000. I would call that a statistically insignificant number. Apparently you disagree, but I don't want to put words into your mouth. I would call gun deaths statistically significant, because it is 100 deaths per day in the US. Not 100 per year or per 5 years or however often these events occur (depends on how you measure.)

curious2 says

Either you are incredibly ignorant of American history, believing whatever makes you feel good to believe, or you are lying again. Read some of the history around WWII to learn about "what we have always done."

Jesus, taking things overly literally today? There is no such thing as 'what we have always done, b/c we have done different things over really long time spans. I was referring to what we have been doing over the last 10 years or so - what we have been doing in recent history. The 10 years number is out of memory from my reading on the refugee program. So, look it up if you'd like something more specific, but don't get your panties in a wad if it is a bit wrong. Note there is only one significant figure on the number. In WWII, we put Japanese in internment camps. Most people are embarrassed about that. How do you feel about it? Do you have a point, other than looking for weird interpretations to try to catch me in a lie. Are you going to go back to slavery to find examples of how we did things in the past? It is completely meaningless in the context of this discussion, because it does not reflect our morality today.

First we have this exchange. Here, I am arguing that letting some refugees in is doing the right thing. You tell me that that would be conscripting other people to die.
curious2 says

YesYNot says

We don't have to agree. But it's not about perceptions. It's about doing the right thing, and I believe in cleaning up my own mess... To me, the risk is small and worth taking.

Fine, go to Syria and help those people clean up. Don't pretend that you're doing "the right thing" when you conscipt other people into getting killed, simply because the statistical risk to you personally is remote. Killing hundreds of people isn't "nothing", especially when the murderers are trying to kill more than that.

So, I reply that you can't eliminate risk by being overly cautious regarding the refugees.
curious2 says

YesYNot says

By not letting any refugees in, you are conscripting people to die as well.

Again you use a fallacy to mischaracterize. I never said not to let any refugees in, although I do agree with Thunderlips11 ...

You told me that I would be conscripting people to die by letting in some refugees. Then, you claim that you never said you wouldn't let any in. What kind of rabbit hole is this? It might be hard to figure out what you are arguing for (if anything), because you haven't come out and stated it.