Obama should tell the public specifically—in meticulous detail—what the Syrian refugee vetting process IS. Since Clinton once again failed to do that.
There has been a great deal of concern about the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program. Are we letting terrorists into the United States? How much do we know about the Syrians being admitted? Is our vetting process strict enough?
For more than two decades, I’ve devoted my professional life to refugee resettlement, working and collaborating with nongovernmental organizations, the U.N. Refugee Agency and the U.S. government. Now I lead one of the few global agencies involved both with refugee resettlement for displaced communities and in the policy sphere.
Here are the facts:
— America already uses strict refugee vetting. Here are the facts., Sasha Chanoff, op-ed today in the Washington Post
The facts are a multi-step, lengthy process. Multi-step. Lengthy. Why does Clinton repeatedly fail to detail this in response to Trump’s outlandishly false representations? And since Clinton refuses to do so, why doesn’t Obama take up that slack?
I forgot to include that issue in this post this morning. And it’s beyond frustrating.
Yes our wonderful president should explain how the first step in the vetting process is to murder members of their families with drones and/or cluster bombs .
If the goal is to inform the American public, it would be worth telling us how many refugees came into the country over the past twenty five years or so, and how they have fared. Are they more or less likely to be criminals, or depending on the public purse than the average American? Are they more likely to set off bombs at marathons, shoot up night clubs, or engage in honor killings than the average American? What about their children? Are their children more or less likely than the average American to be off fighting for ISIS in the Middle East or for al Shabaab in Africa than the average American? And if the answer is yes, then the we should be told how the previous refugees were vetted, and whether vetting going forward will be better or worse than the vetting of the past.
After all, a lengthy 31 step vetting process is not impressive if it happens to be the the shorter, more condensed version of an earlier vetting process that generated results which would piss off the average American.
Yup. This country shoulda never let in all those damn Holocaust-survivor Jews after WWII, nor the small-quota number let in in the eight years preceding Pearl Harbor—a number as small as it was precisely so as to not piss off the average American. Especially since, had there been a statistical check they would have uncovered some Commies and radical union organizers!
And, Lordy, all those former- Soviet-bloc Jews who’ve flooded into this country since the fall of the Berlin Wall! I mean, DIDN’T THE TWO BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION KNOW ABOUT THE ROSENBERGS?!
And speaking of UNION ORGANIZERS, I know for a fact that some of them were IMMIGRANTS. And others were children of IMMIGRANTS. From places like Wales. And Ireland. And POPLAND. And even, OMG, GERMANY AND AUSTRIA!
And I haven’t even MENTIONED the Eye-TALIANS yet. Who were only allowed into this country in light of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre because the people they were killing were IRISH. And a few OTHER EYE-TALIANS. So while they did piss off some of the average Americans, other average Americans thought it was fine to admit more of them.
And then there were those average Americans who in the lead-up and during WWII weren’t enamored of the German-Americans who tried to be Fifth Columns for Hitler. There weren’t many of them, although some of the ones in the old German neighborhood in Chicago did meet regularly at Hogan’s Tavern near the Lincoln-and-Lawrence Avenues Six Corners for wiener schnitzel and lager—among other things. Probably at greater numbers than the MOOOOSLIM yunguns involved in the Boston and Orlando and San Bernadino terrorist acts. Combined.
I mean, who knows? If any of your German-American ancestors lived in Chicago back then, they might have frequented Hogan’s.
Proving your point, I guess. Or maybe mine.
I AM glad, though, that you’re finally getting down to brass tacks. Before we let any more immigrants into this country, we should scour the history of the various ethnic and racial breakdown of various groups of Americans, in order to discern their propensity toward terrorism. Or lateness and absenteeism at work.
And, as per your comment to me in the comments thread to your own recent post, we now have your admission that you think the specific claims of the Black Lives Matter movement are fabricated, you don’t know why this movement is supported by anyone not interested in freeing blacks to commit more crimes and get away with it, and that this all was foreseeable and should have been undermined by having the police shoot all blacks upon sight. (You do allow that the NFL player’s taking-a-knee thing in support of Black Lives Matter’s complaints was unforeseeable, but now that we know such a thing can develop we should round up black NFL players and have them shot.)
Btw, I posted a lengthy reply to that comment of yours on Wednesday. Run deleted it as well as a reply supporting a comment by longttooth, and emailed me a nasty message. Run’s gone off the rails in turning himself into a pretzel to defend his continued posting of this incredibly vile stuff.
Finally, I’ll say this: Your ideology has gone from side of the political spectrum to the extreme side of the other since the 2012 election. From something you said in a post (I’m guessing) two years ago or so, you hinted at this change and, as I understood it, attributed it to something connected with your wife’s (and now yours as well) business in Rust Belt Ohio buying, rehabbing and renting out homes. But regardless of the reason, you’re continuing to post here based on your significant contribution to progressive economics.
It’s not that common, but it’s by not all that rare either that people change from one ideology to another. You have, and the powers that be at this blog should accept that and decide on that basis whether or not they want to continue to provide you a platform for your racist and xenophobic ideology posing unsuccessfully as some data-based economic and sociological cause-and-effect facts that only you have the insight to recognize.
When you consistently attack people with ad hominems or directed at the person and not the argument, I have issues with it. You are lucky as Dan was ready to delete many of your comments because of your attacks. There is no going off of the rails here, you have reached troll status and will be treated as such. As is typical Bev in the past, you persist in nt taking direction.
There is nothing wrong with Mike other than your blathering.
Apologies. To be more precise, I should have asked placed the night club shooting in the children of refugee set of questions.
I use the following logic in response to our post:
1 Vetting Syrians in order and for the specific purpose of assessing whether they are a threat or potential threat to US peace and prosperity… more specifically a threat of promoting or manifesting terrorist acts.
2. Vetting would therefore consist of inquiring into
a. Back-ground if available from Syrian gov’t records supplied freely and unaltered by the Syrian gov’t to US.
b. Questions of presently US resident relatives or acquaintances related to back ground of the person being vetted.
c. Questioning in person the person being vetted to assess truthfulness of answers, motivations for wanting resident status in the U.S., etc…. the list of such questions could be 100’s long.
d. Evaluating objective information provided —
d.1 assets being brought to US or available to the persons in the U.S. or elsewhere… verifying assets &/or the availability.
d.2 English language verbal and written level of achievement.
d.3 Skills acquired &/or educational attainment achieved and evidence of same (by written &/or other tests or verified educational or skill diplomas.
3. Since item 2.a is not available nor ever likely to be, then vetting consists most dominantly and significantly of personal assessments by agents doing and evaluating the queries and responses in 2.b and 2.c
4. You are questioning
a. Whether US agents are trained &/or capable of making “proper” and “reliable” assessments, .
b Whether the right questions are being asked.
5. By your questioning (4a, & 4.b) you don’t trust that your gov’t is capable of protecting the U.S.’s best interests, properly weighing risks and uncertainties, or even giving sufficient weight to uncertainty of assessments.
6. From (5) you don’t feel safe or safe enough or feel the U.S. is safe or safe enough from harm which may be caused by Syrian refugees at some point in the future (near or far).
Did I get this right? Otherwise, I fail to see the reason for your post on the topic.
My reason for my post on the topic is that Trump has demagogued the issue, with false representations of fact, claiming that there is no vetting process for Syrian refugees and no process for settling them. And it’s been effective with two middle-aged white, non-college-educated men I know, who cannot be disabused of this belief:
Them: “If Hillary is president, MOOOSLIMS will be STREAMING INTO THIS COUNTRY.”
I haven’t a clue to why you interpret my post as you do, and why you think that if that was the not the purpose then there was no purpose that you can discern.
But … whatever.
I absolutely positively certainly do not want to speak for Beverly. However, another reason to post on this topic is to state “look, the refugees go through a very thorough vetting process and therefore we know they are going to be model citizens.”
It used to be many immigrants got sponsored by people who more or less guaranteed they wouldn’t become dependent on welfare. Theoretically it is still in place: https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/affidavit-support
We don’t do it for refugees, but it would be interesting to see what changes would occur if it did happen.
One thing that should be mentioned but never gets mentioned because it is not politically correct is the fact that every race or ethnic group over the past history of our country has been discriminated against in some way or other.. I do not need to go into any great detail for you to know what I’m talking about but one could reasonably expect this new group to be discriminated against in some way.. What we don’t know is how will this group of people will react when it happens and become angry enough to fight back…
Exactly, William. I just commented at length on that in this thread, and mentioned what I assume based on your surname is your own ethnic ancestry, at least in part.
Kimel’s claim is pure alt-right. Just bizarre.
60 Minutes did a good story on this Sunday.
One point they made is that there is not a single case of Syrian refugees engaging in terrorism in the U.S.
No, no, no, Spencer, you just don’t get it. I mean, SO there hasn’t been a single case of Syrian refugees engaging in terrorism in the U.S. That doesn’t mean there WON’T BE. Say, 10 or 20 years ago. By the current refugees’ kids. Or grandkids. A single case, at least. Maybe even two cases.
And anyway, who are you to dispute Mike’s data-based conclusions? You’re probably not even a STEM worker!
Ooops. I meant, “Say, 10 or 20 years from now,” not “10 or 20 years ago.”
Thanks Bev for the no attack on me…I have Irish ancestry that were looked down upon for a large part of history both world wide as slaves and later in early America but so were many other groups. What one must remember though is that America is still the melting pot of people and cultures of the world and we must continue to gain and leverage from that to our gain and advantage. Where I worked there were people from all over the world not just the US. That broad diversity is extremely valuable to gain from other peoples perspectives if you learn how to use it wisely and not stupidly.
I agree completely.
Bev, from your reaction to my post is it OK if I assume you believe in sending people to prison because they might commit a crime sometime in the future?
My comment was facetious, intended as a slam at Mike, who believes in keeping people out of this country because they might commit a crime sometime in the future–he’s made that clear–and probably believes in sending people to prison because they might commit a crime sometime in the future, but only if they’re Hispanic or Muslim. The ones who are already here, of course; not the ones who aren’t. Those should be barred from entering, in order to ensure that they won’t commit a crime sometime in the future.
And let all that protein go to waste when it can be repackaged as sustenance for the indigent? That seems terribly inefficient. On the other hand, if you combine incarceration with marination for improved flavor, your suggestion might have some merit. But that raises another question: do you advocate wet rub or dry?
It figures. Another place where we disagree.
The point I was trying to make in my post was that the vetting process is necessarily subject to interpretation of subjective information, must of which is completely unverifiable There is not now nor will there ever be certainty on who is or isn’t gong to be a “model resident” or no matter how “detailed” the process is.
It makes zero sense even zero common sense to think that those who question the process have any rational reason’s for doing so, and thus their reasons are purely irrational… e.g. they either don’t trust “gubment” gr they have an irrational bias against those who are not like themselves — xenophobia or racism, or who aren’t Christians or whatever… probably both reasons.
There is no amount of detail about the vetting process that they will accept as sufficient unless and until those the process admits are
1. Christians (provably so),
2. Are bringing $1 million or more worth of assets with them.
3. Speak nearly perfect English and write and read it as well as an Engish teacher .
4. Are light skinned enough to pass for lily white.
5. Are never given a right to fly from or to any destination in the US, nor use our railroads or subways.
6. Never have a right to bear arms
7. Have a 24 hour federal agent watching and checking everybody they talk for the next 20 years…
Then and only then might they not live in constant fear that their culture will change or that the culture their kids, and grandkids and great grandkids will experience hasn’t changed either or that the immigrants will rise up with weapons of mass destruction the secretely smuggled into they secretly smuggled into the country to blow LA or Kansas City or NYC or Chicago or Salt Lake City or Charleston S.C off the face of the earth with everybody that lives there.
You can’t reason with the irrational.
In my prior post I didn’t intend for the logic I used to apply to “you” personally. It was my attempt to provide some rational analysis to the irrational b**shi* that passes for “reason” and “just cause” in congress, in state gov’t leaders rhetoric, in the current GOP nominee for President, and many of the 20 or so candidates for the GOP nomination who just egg the irrationality onward and upwards.
BTW, the items I listed above come from actual real people I’ve spoken with just in my neighborhood alone — which is upper middle, even lower upper class in university degrees. I didn’t make them up…but they’re a composite of what my highly educated irrational neighbors say.
The were then and are still opposed to the Vietnamese refugees and immigrants. One of my neighbors that I know has a virtual arsenal in his refrigerator sized safe, with ammunition loading equipment, powder, casings and eveyrthing he needs to ward off the “masses of Mexican’s and blacks who are going to attack us some day”. I kid you not (and I don’t live in Texas). I know his arsenal exists and how huge it is… I’ve seen it several times… he doesn’t hide it. And for the most part it’s al legal and registered.
And this will get your goat. One new neighbor heard about the arsenal and called the cops. The cops came with a federal agent, no warrant, and he let them in willingly and showed them the arsenal and all his equipment, and they all walked out buddy, buddy laughing and joking about the lady who had called them about the arsenal. I live across the street.. my neighbor and I have had good relations for 20 years because we both know the other is on the opposite side of the divide and no amount of rational logic or irrational belief systems will change either or our minds an iota. We’re not buddies, but we’ve been close enough for 20 years to dine at one another’s homes, help each other out with heavy lifting or major projects, borrow one another’s tools and cars, pick up stuff from the store for the other when convenience allows, etc. In other words , quite good neighbors.
Oh, did I mention already that my next door neighbor who was a city cop until he retired, also had an arsenal in his refrigerator sized safe n the garage… he was our neighbor for 15 years before he sold and moved to a mansion in Idaho. We were also on good terms.
The point is that there’s no sense in trying to argue with people who aren’t in the least likely to change their minds…. and there’s no reason t be unfriendly with them just because they aren’t on the other political extreme —- as long as what they do and say isn’t intended to cause problems with anybody else. And we all know what “intent” is even people say it wasn’t their “intent”.
There is such a thing as maintaining full civility even with people on the opposite extremes of political divisions. But it takes both sides to agree to do so. .
If I thought you were a piece of sh*t, you would have been gone into spam a long time ago. You can still post here within reason. I am intrigued; but, I also write on this stuff you are espousing. Never finished my paper; but, I do know what it is like to be poor. I am in CA from time to time. If you care for coffee, I will buy. Just another old guy. X-Marine, Masters from Loyola Chicago, and still working into my late sixties.