Do You Support Obama's Plan For More Syrian Refugees.

[esmith]

@esmith First off, the article in the second link misspelled Michael Steinbach's last name. That's always a bad sign. And the rest of the article quotes Republican politicians so I'm not surprised on their refugee stance. I'm assuming that's a conservative website.

I've spent 20 minutes researching for an unbiased source to substantiate the quote linked to Michael Stenbach. I haven't found one yet. I'll keep looking and get back when I have time.

Following took me about 5 min.
Well let take a look at the quote:
FBI director James Comey said during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on Wednesday that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S.

“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said in response to a line of questioning from Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson .

“And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/f...refugees-for-terror-ties-video/#ixzz44DvTVD4P

 

[Buttercup]

Well, I was looking for that quote from Steinbach - that's why I couldn't find this.

How old is this video? Is it from this year after the terror attacks in Paris? Or prior?

 

[esmith]

Well, I was looking for that quote from Steinbach - that's why I couldn't find this.

How old is this video? Is it from this year after the terror attacks in Paris? Or prior?

In the famous quote "What difference does it make". In other words has the FBI's veting process improved...and the answer is NO.

 

[Buttercup]

In the famous quote "What difference does it make". In other words has the FBI's veting process improved...and the answer is NO.

I'm not sure if any changes have been made to the process in recent months so I can't comment on that.

In any case, we can't disallow Syrian refugees into the country simply because Americans are scared.

We have to rely on our best sources for vetting, like always.

 

[Quagmire]

We can't set someone's house on fire and then lock them inside.

Wish I could like this twice.

 

[Augustus]

That's partly because you have accepted so few compared with Europe.

It's not been the refugees carrying out terror attacks in Europe though...

 

[Underhill]

So all the gun toting republicans are afraid of letting the Syrians in. What's the point of all those guns again?

And for those who claim ISIS is the result of Obama's policies, that is like the husband walking into the kitchen after his wife has been baking all day, pulling some pies out of the oven, then claiming he helped.

Obama's policies played a small part, as did the Iraq war, the unrest in Syria over Assad and the whole ethnic hatred problem that has been around the region for centuries. The blame really falls on Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Assad, Putin, the Syrians, the Iranians and probably the British (who I imagine are all dead by now) when they decided to split the region up into their not so neat little boxes (and I am sure to be forgetting a half dozen others) and let's not forget ISIS...

 

[FTNZ]

"Do You Support Obama's Plan For More Syrian Refugees."

Yes. Why on earth wouldn't I?

NB I'm obviously not American, so I will let you know, I support NZ's refugee policy, which sees us taking in refugees and supporting them until they can earn their own income. They are precious new Kiwis and most of us welcome them with open arms and wish we could help more of them.

 

[Quetzal]

In this case, there is a real threat demonstrably present in other countries that have accepted refugees. Although I don't think its fair to them, that isn't America's fault...(snip)

Are you sure that this isn't, in any way, the product of American actions? Not saying it is the sole cause, but it is a part of the problem.

 

[Quetzal]

In the famous quote "What difference does it make". In other words has the FBI's veting process improved...and the answer is NO.

The day we let extremists determine our foreign aid policy because we are too afraid of the consequences is the day we let them win.

 

[Tumah]

Are you sure that this isn't, in any way, the product of American actions? Not saying it is the sole cause, but it is a part of the problem.

That doesn't matter. America's government is "of the people, by the people, for the people" (to quote Lincoln). The government is not an independent body with its own right to do whatever its wants like a monarchy or dictatorship. We hired them and they work for us. Their job is to take care of our interests above all else. This is their prime directive and all other global pursuits are secondary to that. They can tax us to be able to provide for our needs, pass restrictive laws for our safety, etc. For instance, the gun control debate is about how the government should fulfill two of their responsibilities towards us: to protect our freedom vs. to protect our health.
To import a danger to society, I think directly contradicts the governments directive and without a majority of American agreement, I don't think the government has a right to do so. Whether its the right thing to do or not.

 

[Quetzal]

That doesn't matter.

It most certainly does matter. We have a moral responsibility to help people if we, in any way, are responsible for events that lead to their displacement.

They can tax us to be able to provide for our needs, pass restrictive laws for our safety, etc. For instance, the gun control debate is about how the government should fulfill two of their responsibilities towards us: to protect our freedom vs. to protect our health.

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with gun control.

To import a danger to society, I think directly contradicts the governments directive and without a majority of American agreement, I don't think the government has a right to do so. Whether its the right thing to do or not.

I don't think you have a solid grasp on this situation. Let me ask you, do you think if we turn away all of the refugees ISIS will give us a gold star and postpone their little plans? Do you really think that? You seem to have this impression that we should condemn tens of thousands based on the threats of a hundred. The math doesn't add up and I, personally, am not ready to condemn people because we aren't ready to grow a pair and stand up for what is the right thing to do.

 

[esmith]

It most certainly does matter. We have a moral responsibility to help people if we, in any way, are responsible for events that lead to their displacement..

Just a couple of questions.
1. Are not the majority of the refugees Syrian?
2. In what way is the U.S. responsible for the civil war in Syria?
3. The last time I checked was that ISIS wanted to form a Islamic Caliphate, in what way was the U.S. in any way responsible for this idea?
In other words in what way is the U.S. responsible for the refugees?

 

[Quetzal]

1. Are not the majority of the refugees Syrian?

Correct.

2. In what way is the U.S. responsible for the civil war in Syria?

I would encourage you to expand your thinking and not look at Syria in a vacuum. Instead, take the US politics as a whole regarding Syria's history instead.

Look at this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

This article is huge, look at all of the players and moving pieces. And this is just the outcome of a very complex series of events.

3. The last time I checked was that ISIS wanted to form a Islamic Caliphate, in what way was the U.S. in any way responsible for this idea?
In other words in what way is the U.S. responsible for the refugees?

There are many that argue that the US involvement/meddling in the Middle East created a series of events that led to the founding of ISIS. Again, a very complicated situation that you can't simplify with a single question.

 

[esmith]

1. Are not the majority of the refugees Syrian?

Correct.

Fine we seem to agree on that point, I'm surprised you did not bring up those fleeing Libya though

2. In what way is the U.S. responsible for the civil war in Syria?

I would encourage you to expand your thinking and not look at Syria in a vacuum. Instead, take the US politics as a whole regarding Syria's history instead.
Look at this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

This article is huge, look at all of the players and moving pieces. And this is just the outcome of a very complex series of events.

The article basically blames the civil war in Syria on the people of Syria wanting to rid themselves of Assad. Foreign intervention was by Russia and other Muslim nations. The U.S. was only involved by a token backing of militants against Assad which turned out to be a multi-million waste of money. Now the U.S. did late in the game, 2014 to be exact, start an air campaign against ISIS in northern Syria. However, the rules of engagement did not inflict serious civilian casualties. Now if the forces of Syria and their supporters did not start moving against ISIS in the north along with rebel (anti-Assid) forces who also clashed with each other, the civilian population there would not be fleeing the area due to U.S. air strikes. The refugee problem in this area was due to the clash between ISIS, anti-Assad forces, and pro-Assad forces. In other words the direct involvement of the US in Syria did not cause the refugee problem.

3. The last time I checked was that ISIS wanted to form a Islamic Caliphate, in what way was the U.S. in any way responsible for this idea?

There are many that argue that the US involvement/meddling in the Middle East created a series of events that led to the founding of ISIS. Again, a very complicated situation that you can't simplify with a single question.

I point you to this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/syria-iraq-incubators-isis-jihad

Now this focus the blame mostly on the Civil War in Syria as the driving factor for the growth of ISIS. However, you will see that part of the blame is placed on Nouri al-Maliki. Now if you want to place part of the blame on Nouri al-Maliki, which appears plausible, then you can open a can of worms and say the U.S. is partially to blame for Nouri al-Maliki hence ISIS. But do you really want to go that route? Remember who is responsible for walking away and allowing Nouri al-Maliki policies to flourish. However I do not want to enter into that discussion.
It is my contention that the U.S. has little or no blame for what is going on in Syria and I think in all honesty you also agree.

 

[Quetzal]

It is my contention that the U.S. has little or no blame for what is going on in Syria and I think in all honesty you also agree.

The US had their hand in the cookie jar, they made choices that impacted the outcomes we are now seeing. Period. Regardless of our own bias, that simple fact stands.

 

[tytlyf]

I don't see a problem. People are vetted before coming into the US. Don't trust conservative media when they say otherwise.

ISIL is already in America.

 

[Tumah]

It most certainly does matter. We have a moral responsibility to help people if we, in any way, are responsible for events that lead to their displacement.

Its true that we have a moral responsibility to help them. But not if that requires that we ignore our primary responsibility to our family, friends and nation. Charity begins at home. I'm not equally responsible for taking care of Ahmed as I am for my daughter. And if there is a chance that Ahmed may endanger my daughter, then it is irresponsible to bring Ahmed into my home. It doesn't even matter if I was the one who caused Ahmed to lose his home. If there is reason to suspect he will endanger my daughter, bringing him into my home is not an option.

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with gun control.

Sure, if you exclude the first part of the sentence, then it won't have any relevance.

I don't think you have a solid grasp on this situation. Let me ask you, do you think if we turn away all of the refugees ISIS will give us a gold star and postpone their little plans? Do you really think that? You seem to have this impression that we should condemn tens of thousands based on the threats of a hundred. The math doesn't add up and I, personally, am not ready to condemn people because we aren't ready to grow a pair and stand up for what is the right thing to do.

No, I am not speaking about ignoring the refugees altogether. And yes the math does add up: 1 family member's safety > 1,000,000,000,000 refugees safety.
As I said before, they do need help and helping them is the right thing to do. Undeniable. They are human beings in need. But not at the expense of my primary responsibility. An off shore method should be found to help take care of them.

 

[Quetzal]

Its true that we have a moral responsibility to help them. But not if that requires that we ignore our primary responsibility to our family, friends and nation.

No reason why we can't attempt to do both.

As I said before, they do need help and helping them is the right thing to do. Undeniable. They are human beings in need. But not at the expense of my primary responsibility. An off shore method should be found to help take care of them.

When you think of your Nobel Prize winning solution, let the powers at be know.

You never did answer my question by the way, as a reminder: Do you think our foreign aid policy should be dictated by terrorists, yes or no?

 

[Tumah]

No reason why we can't attempt to do both.

Sure. As long as it doesn't bring suspected terrorists, or increase crime in my neighborhood.

When you think of your Nobel Prize winning solution, let the powers at be know.

That's a separate problem. Just because there is currently no other solution, does not mean the original solution should be implemented.

You never did answer my question by the way, as a reminder: Do you think our foreign aid policy should be dictated by terrorists, yes or no?

Because I didn't see it. Yes, I think that our foreign policy should be reactive. And by that I mean, tailored to every individual situation. If that means, that because terrorists know how we will respond they can cause us to act a certain way, so be it. We have to act in a way that supports our interests, not act in a way that shows we're the top dog. It doesn't matter how we get to the correct answer.