Shootouts and explosions in Paris

ISIS is already here and the countdown to a Paris-esque attack on U.S. soil already in motion, I fear. I suppose I'm all right with helping the refugees out. That's what this country is supposed to be all about. I hope people understand it is exposing us to more risk...but we can't let ISIS force us to compromise on our own ideals.

I see both sides of it, really.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Assuming we find the author trustworthy, which I don't. She is an activist for a cause who has a clear bias in favor of admitting refugees.

Moreover, I think it is ridiculous to spend those kind of investigatory resources on bringing in those refugees. Not worth it to us, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The cost is repaid.

From a US News and World Report: Would Syrian Refugees be an economic boon or burden.


Granted the cost doesn't cover the screening process, but it isn't that difficult to see how it gets rewarded.

Have a look at a cost analysis from the Brookings Institute regarding the impact on Leanese/European economies. Many of these refugees don't have UNHCR designations, but are refugees nonetheless.

EDIT: I should add, refugees are expected to pay back the cost of travel. They are given travel loan (interest free) to a U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program. After resettled, they must repay the loan.

Sumac13 said:

They don't go anywhere. They stay in the refugee camp. Worth noting, each refugee camp is different. Those in Malawi wouldn't appear as a refugee camp, but more like a normal village. People there are free to move about, but have chosen to stay put and establish a new life there. That they are welcomed by Malawians helps. Others camps are much different. Google images of the Syrian Refugee camps or the Karin camps.

And to be clear, the total number of refugees to U.S. listed above post are not all from Syria, but rather from around the world. I wasn't clear on that.

There are roughly 16 to 19 million refugees worldwide. The average length of stay in a camp is 15 to 16 years. As with generalized averages, the numbers are a bit distorted. Nonetheless, they do give a general idea that people are not easily funneled through them. It just isn't practical way to plan a terrorist attack in the U.S.

One more point to add, the allowable quota for refugee changes year to year in the U.S., very rarely (perhaps never, not sure) does the U.S. reach the max quota. It isn't like the U.S. just opens the doors and waits until the quota is reached before closing for the year.

Click to expand...

If all is accurate, I don't see any reason not to let them in. Unless someone is radicalized within that two year period that hadn't been beforehand, the risks seem to be much lower than many are making it out to be.

If I thought we would have shitloads of people coming in tomorrow with zero vetting, I'd say absolutely not. If the screening process is detailed and takes an extended period of time...sure.

Maximus said:

Only 1/4 of the public agree with Obama's stance on this one.

34 governors and climbing want him to pump the brakes too.

Click to expand...

The way that quote is phrased (and the answer options provided) feeds into the idea that Obama just wants to pick up refugees and bring them over here no questions asked.

Is that what he's doing?

Maximus said:

Only 1/4 of the public agree with Obama's stance on this one.

34 governors and climbing want him to pump the brakes too.

Click to expand...

It would make for an interesting study to correlate people's understanding of the process that refugees go through before being admitted into U.S and their responses. Somehow I think ignorance will correlate highly.

Provocative article by Shadi Hamid in the Washington Post. Not sure I agree with him, but, it does bring an interesting light to general study of religion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...us-risks/?postshare=281447884197540&tid=ss_tw

I'll also post a link to a debate that I think is relevant. How we study and discuss religion is important. People who say "Islam has nothing to do with ISIS" sometimes ignore the other side. Whereas some people who say "ISIS is representative of Islam" can come across as complete bigots. To truly understand religion and religious arguments we need to talk with, not past, the opposing side.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/587-islam-is-dominated-by-radicals

. Posted in wrong spot

Sumac13 said:

The cost is repaid.

From a US News and World Report: Would Syrian Refugees be an economic boon or burden.

"In Cleveland, for example, local refugee services agencies spent about $4.8 million in 2012 as they helped refugees get established in the area, according to a study conducted by Chmura Economics & Analytics. But the economic impact those refugees had on the community weighed in at about $48 million, roughly 10 times the initial resettlement costs.

The World, Visualized as 100 People
"Refugees are more likely to be entrepreneurial and enjoy higher rates of successful business ventures compared to natives," the report said. "At the local level, refugees provide increased demand for goods and services through their new purchasing power and can be particularly revitalizing in communities that otherwise have a declining population."​

Granted the cost doesn't cover the screening process, but it isn't that difficult to see how it gets rewarded.

Have a look at a cost analysis from the Brookings Institute regarding the impact on Leanese/European economies. Many of these refugees don't have UNHCR designations, but are refugees nonetheless.

EDIT: I should add, refugees are expected to pay back the cost of travel. They are given travel loan (interest free) to a U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program. After resettled, they must repay the loan.

Click to expand...

If every business owner were given the tax perks and other perks immigrants are given for 7 years they'd be as successful.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Assuming we find the author trustworthy, which I don't. She is an activist for a cause who has a clear bias in favor of admitting refugees.

Moreover, I think it is ridiculous to spend those kind of investigatory resources on bringing in those refugees. Not worth it to us, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

NPR says the same thing about the vetting process.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

I assume most people, like myself until a few hours ago, believed that we were just letting people into the country willy-nilly and letting them stay here while they're checked out. That's not the case.

The argument that the cost is an issue is more valid than whether that author's facts are straight, as her facts are indeed straight on how it's done.

I would also question how effective the background checks are and how often they miss threats, which I suppose we'll find out over the next few years.

The Oi said:

NPR says the same thing about the vetting process.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

I assume most people, like myself until a few hours ago, believed that we were just letting people into the country willy-nilly and letting them stay here while they're checked out. That's not the case.

The argument that the cost is an issue is more valid than whether that author's facts are straight, as her facts are indeed straight on how it's done.

I would also question how effective the background checks are and how often they miss threats, which I suppose we'll find out over the next few years.

Click to expand...

That is a valid concern, the costs.

I was listening to a local right wing radio talk guy who admitted no evidence any Syrian Refugee has ever committed a terrorist attack of any nature., but the costs aspect is a different story.,

We have serious homeless, poverty and deficit issues domestically. When are we going to stop paying to take everyone else's headaches with public funds. Now if this was privately funded, i would say let them in if the private funding checks out as non extremists, but it is becoming a bit much to futhter exhaust an already exhausted budget.

Great thoughts on radical Islam.

The Oi said:

If all is accurate, I don't see any reason not to let them in. Unless someone is radicalized within that two year period that hadn't been beforehand, the risks seem to be much lower than many are making it out to be.

If I thought we would have shitloads of people coming in tomorrow with zero vetting, I'd say absolutely not. If the screening process is detailed and takes an extended period of time...sure.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that you can't generalize how most refugees were processed since 9/11 and assume it applies to the Syrians. It doesn't.

First, ISIS was a blip on the radar for most of that period, and it was only since the Syrian Civil war exploded that large numbers of refugees have been coming out of Syria. So the vast majority of people that have been coming in haven't been from Syria.

Second, the FBI director himself testified that we cannot vet these new Syrian refugees the way we vetted all those that came out of Iraq because we had access to records, etc. in Iraq that we either don't have, or don't have cost, in Syria. Here's a link to his testimony - the clip is short but important:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2e7i-NZ48


So this whole idea that we shouldn't worry about Syrian refugees because other refugees generally have been okay doesn't hold up because we cannot have the same degree of vetting. And, most of those prior refugees predated the growth of ISIS, who have affirmatively stated their intention to use the refugee system to infiltrate.

But it's almost impossible for us to have fully informed opinions on this because the governement refuses to tell us what vetting occurs, and who is doing it. Is every potential refugee interviewed by the FBI or CIA? If not, exactly who is doing it?

Lee said:

That is a valid concern, the costs.

I was listening to a local right wing radio talk guy who admitted no evidence any Syrian Refugee has ever committed a terrorist attack of any nature., but the costs aspect is a different story.,

We have serious homeless, poverty and deficit issues domestically. When are we going to stop paying to take everyone else's headaches with public funds. Now if this was privately funded, i would say let them in if the private funding checks out as non extremists, but it is becoming a bit much to futhter exhaust an already exhausted budget.

Click to expand...

Actually, I was thinking less about money, and more about the opportunity cost (time and effort). Our limited number of intelligence/investigative people have a huge mission to track down bad guys, etc., and we're apparently diverting huge numbers of them to individually vet each of the tens of thousands of refugees who wants to come into the U.S..

That does not seem to be the most efficient use of the folks who job it is to protect us. And if course, there is also the dollar cost of all that as well.

The Oi said:

NPR says the same thing about the vetting process.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

I assume most people, like myself until a few hours ago, believed that we were just letting people into the country willy-nilly and letting them stay here while they're checked out. That's not the case.

.

Click to expand...

The only vetting entity I saw specifically mentioned in that NPR article is the U.N. High Commissioner on refugees, in which i'd have zero faith. Just because there is a "process" in place doesn't mean it is reliable.

Especially when we're talking about the U.N., which cannot even keep its own peacekeepers from raping civilians.

Just to add, that article says we've settled 1500 refugees from Syria in the last two years. But now, the President is going to ramp that up to 10,000/year, more than ten times that rate. I think you're dreaming if you think that huge an expansion won't result in a deterioration of that process as it expands to meet the President's demand.