CALIFORNIA (218): Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown says he'll work closely with President Barack Obama to ensure any Syrian refugees coming to California are "fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way." He says the state can help uphold America's traditional role as a place of asylum while also protecting California residents.
COLORADO (5): Colorado's governor isn't ruling out Syrian refugees. But Gov. John Hickenlooper says the federal government needs to make sure the verification process for refugees is "as stringent as possible."
CONNECTICUT (42): Gov. Dannel P. Malloy says Connecticut will continue to accept refugees from Syria. The Democrat told NBC Connecticut on Monday the state is committed to accepting the refugees and believes background checks could easily be performed...
HAWAII (0): Gov. David Ige says Hawaii would welcome refugees from Syria with aloha. Ige says safety is his first priority, but that the U.S. accepts refugees only after conducting the highest level of screening and security checks....
MINNESOTA (7): Gov. Mark Dayton isn't objecting to the possible placement of Syrian refugees in his state as long as they undergo rigorous screening first. The Democrat released a statement Monday saying he's been assured by the White House that any refugees from Syria would be "subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States."...
VERMONT (0): Gov. Peter Shumlin says his colleagues across the nation who say they won't allow Syrian refugees into their states are "stomping on the qualities that make America great." Shumlin says there is an extensive screening process in place for refugees...
VIRGINIA (13): A spokesman for Virginia's governor says his public safety team is communicating with federal authorities about refugee resettlements, including those involving Syrians. Brian Coy issued the statement Monday on behalf of Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe. The statement says every refugee settled in the U.S. undergoes intensive security screening.
WASHINGTON (22): Gov. Jay Inslee says Washington state will welcome Syrian refugees. In a statement Monday, Inslee also criticized other governors who have threatened to stop accepting refugees.
१७ नोव्हेंबर, २०१५
Where all the governors stand on resettling Syrian refugees in their state.
AP has an extensive run down. I'll focus on some governors that I would expect to be relatively supportive of the President's agenda. The number in parentheses is the number of refugees who have already arrived in the state. Boldface is mine:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४२ टिप्पण्या:
Are you a jihadist?
Are you a jihadist?
Are you a jihadist?
-Extensive screening process
I welcome all refugees after they have passed the most rigorous screening.
I also think abortion should be legal, but only if it's performed in a hospital, by a board-certified physician, and ...
Isn't the question of taking them into the U.S. primarily a federal issue? How does this work out when Obama lets them in but no governor wants them in his state? After all, the credit you get for being humanitarian can get dashed pretty quickly if a terrorist sneaks in with the others.
I haven't been following the issue closely enough to know: How does a refugee get across the ocean to arrive all the way over in California or Colorado? Isn't that expensive? Who's footing the bill? Couldn't that money be used more productively toward helping a much larger number of people more locally to the problem?
The U.N. posted an unintentionally hilarious statement today that said the world must uphold it's commitments and only 6 of 1.1 million refugees have been flagged for likely terrorism ties.
Which just reflects how completely inadequate the screening is and how the UN doesn't see that as an issue.
There is simply no way to adequately screen thousands or millions of syrian, libyan, and similar country refugees and immigrants for ties to terrorism groups. The databases don't exist.
....
Now, on the flip side, it appears the Paris attack was basically going to be done by french nationals and NOT by people who travelled from the mid east.
Rigorous Screening Process: "That guy standing there listening is a Syrian Christian. Recite the Nicene Creed, please."
How can you extensively vet someone from a war-torn country with a dangerous dictator and multiple factions?
What database is there to tell us who is who?
It would probably be cheaper to resettle them in Libya. After all, didn't Hillary tell us that country was one of her success stories? Surely a success story like that could take in some co-religionists.
Brando said...
Isn't the question of taking them into the U.S. primarily a federal issue? How does this work out when Obama lets them in but no governor wants them in his state? After all, the credit you get for being humanitarian can get dashed pretty quickly if a terrorist sneaks in with the others.
The solution is simple - settle them in the DC metro area. We're assured the refugees are harmless so it shouldn't be a problem, right?
The weasel words here of course are "fully vetted." Up till now, no one would think that a single interview, asking a few rote questions is "vetting."
Vetting is asking for a list of prior residences, employers, friends, social contacts and chasing those down in some followup. No one imagines that Syria's government maintains any terrorist database, or that any US official could access it. But his morning on Morning Joe, Mika argued "you do what you can, and that is vetting." I am sure despite each of these Democrat governors political posturing, whatever the Obama Administration deems "fully vetted" will be fine with them.
@MayBee,
How can you extensively vet someone from a war-torn country with a dangerous dictator and multiple factions? What database is there to tell us who is who?
You don't. I think this is a nice way for the Democratic governors to not quite say no, but to raise the bar so high that the Feds just can't reach.
Comey himself says real vetting can't be done. You can query empty databases "until the cows come home," and so on.
No. It is just blather. In a couple of weeks this will be "old news," and the Feds will do as ordred fom the White House.
"The solution is simple - settle them in the DC metro area. We're assured the refugees are harmless so it shouldn't be a problem, right?"
As a show of confidence, the president and each of his advisors in a national security capacity (Sec of Defense, National Security Advisor, VP) should take in one refugee family picked at random. It's not like they live in cramped bungalows--they have the space. And think what a compassionate message it would send!
Republican Presidential candidates need to press hard to expose the lie of "fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way."
Any Government official who says they will vet the refugees "fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way." will lie about pretty much anything else as well...
There is no central database of refugees from the Middle East they can consult.
The idea they can fully and completely vet these people is a filthy lie. And they know it.
That's an indication of just how little they think of you.
"Any Government official who says they will vet the refugees "fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way." will lie about pretty much anything else as well..."
I see it as less a lie and more a loophole. After all, who will be doing this vetting? Not the state governments--it'll be the Feds. If they take them in and something blows up, they can say "clearly the Feds did not vet enough!" Otherwise, they could just refuse to take them in and say "I don't think that vetting you're doing will be enough, no sale!"
I predict anyone we take in at all from that region will be kept in holding camps until we can send them back. No politician wants to be the one who let in the next bomber.
Stringent and utterly reliable? Those two words have never been properly associated with Governor Moonbeam. When he was mayor of Oakland he did get feisty with the unions, which surprised us all. But Ol Moonbeam can generally be best thought of as utterly unreliable.
"The solution is simple - settle them in the DC metro area. We're assured the refugees are harmless so it shouldn't be a problem, right?"
Nope, McAuliffe will accept them, then ship them down to Hampton Roads, next to my family and far far away from his donors and supporters in Alexandria. They get the virtue signaling and we get the risk.
The Dem Governors are posturing and CYAing at the same time. What they are really saying is, yeah we'll take them, but I want to be on record that I won't risk MY citizens. I also need Federal sound bites as to how very, very well these guys are being vetted. And, should something go wrong I'll need a scapegoat that dropped the ball on vetting.
They come from a part of the world that is rabidly anti-American. Their hostility to us is defined as being anti-imperialistic and considered a virtue. My wariness about accepting these refugees is defined as bigotry and considered a vice.......I think the fact that they are so anti-American puts them ahead in Obama's book.
I prefer the George Bush method to doing this.
Instead of bringing them over here, let send our military over there, kill the bad guys, and help them build a country of their own.
fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way
Just like his high-speed rail budget?
Saudi Arabia has over 1 million EMPTY air conditioned tents....THEY don't want them!! WHY???? Why won't they take muslims in their country?? It is an invasion. Period. There is NO VETTING...There are NO databases. They are going to interview them... Muslims NEVER lie??? Look up Taquiya!!!
What possible harm could come from importing tens of thousands of people who have been taught since birth that unescorted women are whores and that you can't rape a whore because she obviously wants it badly, from a lot of guys at once.
Colorado says one thing, but in practice is doing another. Do you know how many Syrian refugees they've taken in thus far? ONE.
"Rigorous screening" is a fine sounding term, but can even one of these governors (or one leftist looking to undermine the safety of the American people) discuss what that screening consists of? What sort of investigation are we going to conduct on each one of the 65,000 (or 100,000, or whatever) refugees?
Just coming off that startlingly dishonest Althouse post about how, because we made a mistake in turning away 900 Jews 75 years ago, we therefore must open our borders to 100X that many Middle Easterners. Because the two are exactly the same. I have to wonder if even one person who isn't worried about these refugees has the slightest idea what they're talking about.
So to summarize the Dem Governors are holding themselves out as having the same concerns as the Republicans, but are doing so in a way that is either misleading the public or misleading the media.
I'm going with "mislead the public".
May we ask about the vetting process the Boston Marathon Bombers' families went through?
How does this work out when Obama lets them in but no governor wants them in his state?
Easy; the Governors don't get to control their borders - that's a Federal power.
Governor posturing here is exactly that - posturing.
They have nearly zero power to do anything at all about this issue.
(They might, maybe, depending on local laws and State constitutions, be able to restrict some State welfare/aid disbursement. And probably get sued [or the State sued] for doing so.
That's about it.)
"Easy; the Governors don't get to control their borders - that's a Federal power."
-- I imagine that the states have some cards to play. I don't see how it can be that hard though; New York and California have lots of empty spaces, and I'm willing to bet their governors are fine with this decision. Just move the people, and the attached government money to help care for them, to the states that are open to them.
It's quite amazing to see government officials throw away their credibility in this fashion, assuming they still have any.
Many up-thread note that it's not possible to engage in a meaningful screening program without some acceptably accurate source of data about the person being screened. For the hundreds of thousands fleeing from Syria, Afghanistan and similar places, that just doesn't exist. Anyone paying the slightest attention knows as much.
We live in a dangerous world. It becomes more dangerous when John Q Public becomes convinced that he cannot trust government officials -- what they say is a function of how useful it is to them in saying it, true or not -- which is clearly where we are today. Yet those officials, from Obama on down, keep proving that distrust is the only rational response. All you can do is ignore what they say, watch what they do and see how it turns out. Probably badly is my guess.
The easy vetting is to invite them into a bar and watch if they drink half a bottle of bourbon. If not, no asylum. It's no accident that the most virulent murderers, like Hitler and Osama, abstain. Our country much prefers raging drunks like FDR, Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson (actually, every single founding father) and Winston Churchill.
Obviously, we have fine American abstainers (I'm required to say, without really believing it) but limiting immigration to drunkards is no different than breeding domestic terrorists but limiting terrorist immigration.
[Also, can we not call them "asylum seekers" and "refugees"? They are economic migrants, just like Central Americans. No one is killing Afghans, Syrians, et al in the Jordanian and Turkish camps that they emigrate from.]
the only vetting they're doing is making sure they register as a Democrat Party voter.
I would suggest taking orphans, women with children, and men with families. Men without families, especially young men, that's a whole different matter.
The answer is pretty simple: We should take as many refugees as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Quatar combined: 0 (That would be "zero.")
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/
It's quite amazing to see government officials throw away their credibility in this fashion, assuming they still have any.
Here’s the thing: the guy pushing for this is going to be gone in about a year and he’s unlikely to be running for anything ever again. The governors who are objecting to this are planning to be around for the next two or four years or longer and if something does go wrong, it will happen where they live. Unfortunately in this case, the incentives to protect the public don't seem to be on the guy who actually gets to make the decision. Nor would he ever be held accountable so long as there is a pliant media that will blame any problems on his successor since "it happened on their watch."
Just a thought:
those who fail the vetting - whether terrs or just some jerks or otherwise ineligible -
what do we do with them?
Connie:
The reason the Arab states would prefer to avoid fostering a humanitarian crisis, is because their position is informed by past experience with the palestinian people. They do not welcome aggressive people who are seeking to overturn their governance, pose a threat and competition to native people, and undermine national stability.
That said, the refugee quasi-solution has "oil for food" motives written all over it.
Some useful data. Most of the refugees are under 18. Many are under 12. Half are women.
For a different parallel to the crisis, I would suggest looking at the Indochina refugee crisis. More than a million refugees eventually settled in the United States. Poverty was a much bigger challenge to host countries than terrorism.
Another case worth studying is the Mariel Boatlift. In this case the Castro regime intentionally included criminals among the refugees. The vast majority were ordinary Cubans. In total over 100,000 resettled in the U.S., most in the Miami area.
Nichevo: Just a thought:
those who fail the vetting - whether terrs or just some jerks or otherwise ineligible -
what do we do with them?.
Get them a tax-payer funded lawyer to appeal their case; case is won on the grounds that not letting anyone on earth into the Western country of their choice for any reason is a violation of their "human rights"; get them settled on the taxpayers' dime with a large settlement for damages for violation of said rights; if they or any of the family members that they're allowed to bring in via "family reunification" policies get up to murdering and maiming the locals, churn out lots of moronic propaganda about the locals' xenophobia and/or racism.
See, no worries. All eventualities covered.
There are estimated to be 7.2 billion people in the world today
http://www.census.gov/popclock/
Ann thinks we can solve all their problems by bringing them here. And if you doubt it, YOU'RE A RACIST!
Angelyne, you're so smrat, you must be a Democrat! ;-)
Henry: Some useful data. Most of the refugees are under 18. Many are under 12. Half are women.
Thanks for the link, Henry. (It's for the "2.1 million Syrians registered by UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, 1.9 million Syrians registered by the Government of Turkey, as well as more than 26,700 Syrian refugees registered in North Africa.")
Castro regime intentionally included criminals among the refugees. The vast majority were ordinary Cubans. In total over 100,000 resettled in the U.S., most in the Miami area.
You think that criminals are the same thing as soldiers under cover intent on terrorism? Seriously? BTW, were you *in* Miami 1979, 1980? Why would we do that to a US city on purpose?
Viet Nam had no further quarrel with the US and had no movement to attack us here. It was only right to take in those fleeing the communists.
This is entirely different.
If the "rigorous screening" process doesn't include screening for those who may have had sex with Charlie Sheen, I say it isn't rigorous enough.
Send them to the sanctuary cities
The Daily Mail on screening:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320356/Fake-Syrian-passport-used-MailOnline-shocking-frailty-migrant-registration-used-suspected-Paris-terrorist-travel-Europe.html
Sorry @Peter, I just simply cannot believe that a terrorist would be so dishonest as to purchase a fake passport.
Governor Moonbeam: "fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way."
In other words, oopsies!
They don't mean it. It's weak cover, but it's cover.
Why would we do that to a US city on purpose?
I would say we did it in 1979 because, in the context of the Cold War, we felt a special obligation to refugees from a communist country.
I would say that in the context of the global war on terrorism, in which the United States plays a key part, we should find ways to support the refugees of state (or tribal) terrorism.
There is significant risk to accepting refugees, of course, though I think the scenario of terrorists being smuggled into the country in the guise of the dispossessed is overblown. The terrorists in the Parisian attacks include naturalized French citizens, citizens of former French colonies, and at least one suspected radical using a forged passport. More concerning is the fear that refugees will be radicalized after resettlement. This is the case with at least one of the Parisian terrorists. It was also the case with the Tzarnev brothers. This possibility is accentuated by the fact that refugees will almost certainly face poverty, crime, acculturation issues, and limited prospects after resettlement.
Like illegal immigration, it's a profoundly irresolvable issue. In the face of such a problem it's easier to reject any involvement than to try to find some way forward. Yet refusing to grapple with a problem doesn't make it go away, nor is it an answer to the question of moral responsibility.
We're from the government and we're here to help.
Trust us, we're with the federal government.
Sure, some large government projects haven't gone so well, but THIS time it's different.
If we can program websites for Obamacare we can screen people thoroughly. Wait, bad example.
Any questionable ones will be headed to the state of Washington. :)
Just send them to Mexico where they can then walk across the border without any background checks.
Taking the refugees is crazy. This level of PC is going to get some Americans killed.
"it's a profoundly irresolvable issue. In the face of such a problem it's easier to reject any involvement than to try to find some way forward."
Probably because, as you just said, it's 'irresolvable'. Why should I stick my arm in the snake pit just because all the cool kidz say I should -- when it will introduce problems that can't be fixed? Why not just try to avoid, for once, heaping new problems on top of what we all ready have?
"Yet refusing to grapple with a problem doesn't make it go away,"
I don' see "refusing to grapple" here. I see pushback against a mindless broken status quo.
James Taranto and Chris Christie make the point that it is not possible to trust this incompetent administration to get any kind of background check right.
I don't see how it is our responsibility to reach halfway across the world to scoop up people who wish they were here just like uncountable millions of others in far worse conditions.
The only reasonable argument is that we deserve it, good and hard, for electing Obama.
"For a different parallel to the crisis, I would suggest looking at the Indochina refugee crisis. More than a million refugees eventually settled in the United States. Poverty was a much bigger challenge to host countries than terrorism."
The problem with that parallel was that even the Viet Cong (who conceivably could have been infiltrated into the Vietnamese refugees) were not launching attacks on U.S. soil. With the Commies taking over that country, it made less sense for a VC to try and get into America to do us harm in 1975.
"Another case worth studying is the Mariel Boatlift. In this case the Castro regime intentionally included criminals among the refugees. The vast majority were ordinary Cubans. In total over 100,000 resettled in the U.S., most in the Miami area."
That's true that some criminals got in with the other Cuban refugees, and the U.S. did suffer the risk of them committing further crimes in the U.S. But terror attacks are another thing entirely.
I get the argument that most of these refugees are innocent victims--that's what makes this whole thing so nasty. Terrorists ordinarily work to undermine our better nature (such as strapping bombs to wounded people we are trying to help, or hiding in hospitals to ambush us). But if we cannot realistically "vet" these refugees, we are taking a deadly chance.
Throwing open the gate alters who comes in. Yesterday they were refugees; throw the gate open today; tomorrow ISIS will be sending terrorists. Look what happened on the Mariel boat lift. Legitimate refugees were coming from Cuba. Then Castro opened a chance for anyone to go, thiking no one would. There was huge overwhelming response and then Castro emptied his jails sending his criminals and insane and then he closed the Mariel.
The hardest part is to understand why the US / state government doesn't try to protect the American people. And why the government is so sure they are safe in Washington when that is where the terrorists said they would strike next.
And. PS, where is Al Gore speaking next?
khesanh0802 said...
James Taranto and Chris Christie make the point that it is not possible to trust this incompetent administration to get any kind of background check right.
This is actually two separate issues. (1) No administration could execute rigorous and accurate background checks given the conditions. (2) The Obama administration is so completely incompetent (as demonstrated by the Obamacare exchange debacle) they believe "execution" refers to political enactment instead of a successful policy.
On the second point recall the exchanges were rectified only because the public was trying to use it and the media couldn't avoid covering the failures. But in an immigration circumstance the failures won't be visible for long afterward so there will be no effort or path to correct them.
From "The Refugee Act of 1980";
Here’s the real important point: “With respect to the location of placement of refugees within a State, the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) shall, consistent with such policies and strategies and to the maximum extent possible, take into account recommendations of the State.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427191/federal-law-office-refugee-resettlement-must-consult-states-jim-geraghty
ISIS: We want you to be terrified and afraid.
GOP: We are! Terrified and afraid!
Well, garage, your notion seems to be that we should give in to them, so I guess you should thank the GOP for winning the war. You're welcome.
How is refusing shelter to children "winning a war"?
ISIS: We want you to be terrified and afraid.
False. (But then consider the source. If it's garage, it's either false or trivial.)
Listen up, tubby, Quaestor is gonna school ya.
ISIS: We want you Islamic (and by that we mean our kind of Islam, none of your Twelver and Sevener bullshit) or enslaved or dead (our choice)
Obama: Fine by me.
How is refusing shelter to children "winning a war"?
One of the 11/13 killers was 15 years old. You'll need to define your terms, garage.
The average age of the 12th SS Panzer Division was 17. The holy wars in Africa (both Christian and Muslim) are being fought by children. Children can be very capable killers.
I want them vetted like a REPUBLICAN candidate for President.
ISIS wants the west to crack down on refugees
The left seems to be stuck in a Baader-Meinhoff loop when it comes to terrorism. Like Quaestor said they want us dead.
ISIL wants us to pass gay marriage to show recruits how degenerate the west is, therefore....
And while we're on the subject...
So, garage, what earthly complaint can ISIS hold against Germany? Hasn't Angela been their angel of mercy?
Henry: Like illegal immigration, it's a profoundly irresolvable issue.
I'm going to assume you misspoke here and meant to say "profoundly difficult". Otherwise the following would just be crazy talk.
In the face of such a problem it's easier to reject any involvement than to try to find some way forward. Yet refusing to grapple with a problem doesn't make it go away, nor is it an answer to the question of moral responsibility.
You seem to be suggesting that the only "way forward" is resettling these people in the West. Maybe the states' "rejecting any involvement" is part of the "way forward" that forces the players to step back and recognize that the refugee "solution" they've pushed for decades can no longer be the answer to every fuck-up by Western pooh-bahs, and every other Bad Thing happening in the world.
Popular dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of immigration policy/refugee programs was already coming to a boil across the West before the Syrian crisis exploded. Leaders also have a paramount "moral responsibility" to not keep pushing policies that are becoming destructive of the stability of their own countries.
What refugees are claiming to want to enslave us? Again you sound hysterical. Do you not have the resources to fend off a 7 yr old refugee?
The war on poverty comes to mind, where the solution was to consume several trillion dollars and abort over one million Americans annually. The social justice-fostered humanitarian disaster in the Middle East and Africa has been treated in the same way with the same solutions that profit from the perpetual treatment of symptoms while ignoring causes.
Vetted like the Tsarnaev brothers were? Nice.
This'll make your skin crawl. Decadence...
The 'vetting' process is classified.
Obama and Kerry will be gone in a year.
There is no accountability.
They should be settled in Hyde Park - Chicago, and Chevy Chase, Maryland.
What refugees are claiming to want to enslave us? Again you sound hysterical. Do you not have the resources to fend off a 7 yr old refugee?
Pathetic, garage. You must be truly desperate to try that simpleminded dodge.
garage mahal said...
How is refusing shelter to children "winning a war"?
11/17/15, 2:26 PM
Ah, IQ trouble.
Refugees are fleeing ISIS. just thought I'd throw that out there.
Refugees are fleeing ISIS. just thought I'd throw that out there
I agree with garage on this one. No terrorist would ever think to infiltrate through a wave of refugees. Nor would any terrorist be so dishonest as to obtain fake documents. That "refugee" involved in the Paris attack? One off, six sigma type event. Never happen again in a million years.
Not in France it won't.
And the vetting process appears to be "classified" so I am sure it is rock solid.
How many terror attacks by "refugees" would be too many for you, Garage? How many times would you let your daughter be raped? (I'm not wishing that that happens - goodness knows having you as a parent is punishment enough.)
Meade said...
If the "rigorous screening" process doesn't include screening for those who may have had sex with Charlie Sheen, I say it isn't rigorous enough.
11/17/15, 12:34 PM
My laugh of the day!!!!
A.G. Lynch has assured us that we can vet refugees much better than the Europeans did. We all know that the French have little experience in the Arab world, and so have no idea how to go about it, which explains their failure. At least that is what we are supposed to think, what we have been told to think. Just because the FBI director says vetting them is not possible, well, he hadn't been told by Obama yet that there are no terrorists among the refugees, except that one guy in France. Which is so weird, it's almost like seeing a bird get hit by a meteor. I mean, in the history of the planet you would think it would have happened, but you would never expect to see it first hand.
I feel bad for the Syrian people who are fleeing by the millions however, no one in their right mind trusts a word Obama says anymore. The man is simply alone in his own fantasy world along with the female groupies who make up his inner circle. IF he had gone into Syria when it crossed his red line, IF he had created a no fly safe zone, IF IF IF.....
The real problem here is, America has elected a timid mama's boy as leader of the free world and it's pretty much a mess everywhere. I can't think of a single thing this man has done well save getting elected, kinda pitiful actually.
The governors have more power than Ann implies. The primary refugee resettlement program is mostly state-administered and mostly federally-funded. So I'd the governor is willing to give up some money, he can reuse to cooperate with the feds. There's no way they can prevent any given refugee from moving to their state, but refusing to give assistance will make our much hard for a refugee to settle somewhere than it does for a lifelong American moving to a new state.
There appear to be two kinds of Governors: those who are counting on the federal government to really thoroughly, rigorously, and completely vet the people sent to their state, and those who watched the Obamacare website go live.
From instapundit:
SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them,” self-described “Iraqi born writer & founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement” Faisal Saeed Al Mutar notes:
Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.
It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:
“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”
“No you didn’t.”
“Wait, what? Yes we did…”
“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”
“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”
“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”
“Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”
“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”
“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”
“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”
“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”
“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”
“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”
Secretary of State John Kerry suggested on Tuesday that there was a “rationale” for the assault on satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo, unlike the more recent attacks in Paris.
Just think for a moment, this idiot almost won the White House...
Garage
Like the little drowned boy on the beach? The one who had lived with his parents, safely, in Turkey until his parents decided they wanted something more and the father of the drowned boy put them in a leaky boat in horrific weather.
You believe they were fleeing ISIS? They were not.
And the legions of young men without women or children are fleeing ISIS too? They are leaving their wives and children to ISIS? Is that the sort of man you are hoping to welcome to our country?
If you find your way to the Drudge Report you will find on the left side of the page a number of links to foreign newspapers: everything from the Lefty Guardian to the Telegraph to Der Spiegel. You would do well for yourself if you read some or all of them. Daily. Because what you are reading is not making you look even like a smart lefty.
Like illegal immigration, it's a profoundly irresolvable issue. In the face of such a problem it's easier to reject any involvement than to try to find some way forward. Yet refusing to grapple with a problem doesn't make it go away, nor is it an answer to the question of moral responsibility.
There is, literally, zero moral responsibility to allow an invasion of your shores. That is crazy talk. And it is not a problem that cannot be solved. It is eminently solvable. The President doesn't LIKE the solution, but screw him.
What refugees are claiming to want to enslave us? Again you sound hysterical. Do you not have the resources to fend off a 7 yr old refugee?
It's the astonishingly large number of military aged men that are the problem.
Unless you are now arguing that the Paris attacks were the work of precocious kids.
Refugees are fleeing ISIS. just thought I'd throw that out there.
And? The concept that both groups of people are rather terrible is an impossibility? Assad's forces were fighting ISIS. Would you demand we take Assad in here?
And the vetting process appears to be "classified" so I am sure it is rock solid.
With how great the documentation is in that part of the world, I bet it is amazing. Look at how great we're vetting Mexican immigrants.
Derp wrote: I agree with garage on this one. No terrorist would ever think to infiltrate through a wave of refugees. Nor would any terrorist be so dishonest as to obtain fake documents.
An acceptable bit of tongue-in-cheek. However, let no one deceive himself. It is hardly necessary for a terrorist to go to such lengths. Polls show that among the prime demographic, 18-26 y.o. Muslim males, fully a third agree with ISIS. Any sizable body of random "refugees" will contain all the personnel required to pull off another 11/13 attack. All they require are arms and coordination. (OT. You anti-gun types will need to explain how repealing the 2nd Amendment could prevent or even appreciably hinder similar attacks here, considering the EU's much more draconian gun laws have failed so miserably.)
So most of the people advocating completely opening our borders to anyone who calls themselves a refugee also doesn't want the government to do anything about the source of the problem, ie why people are fleeing Syria.
Is it really honest to believe that if we had just let in all the Jews and homosexuals and gypsies and Catholics, everything would have been hunky dory in Europe? Is the leftist solution to just completely empty the region?
Well, Jeb Bush says "Bring 'em on!" Great.
So many of the attackers were unassimilated "French" and "Belgian" nationals. What does that say of the likelihood that these refugees, even if they are not terrorists themselves, will ever assimilate. It is against their religion to assimilate.
Fully vetted? We can't even figure out how to spell Syrian names in a consistent manner.
There are enough sympathetic commenters on HuffPo to take all the Syrians for California. I think we should offer free transportation to a HuffPo commenter's house, one way of course, for as many Syrians as there are HuffPo virtue signalers.
Vetting is impossible. There will be no Vetting worthy of the name. Since the governors are well aware that they will be literally torn apart like the IDF reservists at Ramallah, should they be seen as acquiescing to this bool cheet, they will not acquiesce. At least not without some weasel words they conceive may save them.
They WILL attack us. It is written. You dilettantes who take the other side know this, right? You KNOW this. So when you are torn apart limb from limb, you will know to blame yourselves, right?
"you will know to blame yourselves, right?"
Of course not. They will blame George W. Bush. And the Koch brothers.
I don't understand why this is such a hard problem to solve. Obviously the best thing to do is have the [fully vetted] refugees relocated into the States where the democratic governors are happy to accept them. I mean, Obama is so much better than the rest of us (more moral and compassionate than any of us could ever hope to be), so why would he subject a refugee to the hatred and misery of living in a republican controlled state that doesn't want him or her anyway?
And if Obama does force the refugees into the states run by Republican Governors as a big "F U" to his political opponents [Obama wouldn't do that, would he?], then we have proof positive that he doesn't care about any of the refugees one iota. He is simply using them as political pawns; dumping them in places that (by Obama's own view) will subject them to hatred and bigotry, and possibly even executions by the terrorist tea party people.
I mean, when you think about it, the refugees would actually be BETTER OFF right where they are rather than subjecting them to the horrors of republican controlled states. My God, they might get thrown of buildings if the mean republican governors find out they are gay.
ok sarc complete.
"So when you are torn apart limb from limb, you will know to blame yourselves, right?"
ISIS isn't even in the top 25 threats I foresee in my neighborhood.
>>ISIS isn't even in the top 25 threats I foresee in my neighborhood.
You might feel differently if you lived in Paris. Or New York.
As long as Obama promises "stringent" and the media dutifully parrot that bogus promise, it will all be OK.
Perhaps we should listen to our security officials in the CIA and FBI? nah. obama knows!
"fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way."
How? Explain How.
Just saying there's a rigorous screening process IS the screening process.
Oh garage...why bother...pretty, pretty garage.
Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown says...the state can help uphold America's traditional role as a place of asylum while also protecting California residents.
Katie Steinle could not be reached for comment.
Obama is making good progress on his task of destroying the Democratic Party.
They are not vetted at all. How are they vetting these refugees? What records are they using to verify ID and how are they tracking them once they are here? Answer/ there are no records and they are not tracking them in any way. Democrats need to be REALLY careful here. They want to push this, but ONE attack gets through after they basically poo poohed any sort of security concerns, they are going to get so shellacked it's not even going to be funny.
garage mahal wrote: ISIS isn't even in the top 25 threats I foresee in my neighborhood.
The top 24 threats foreseen by garage mahal involve a Twinkie famine.
"a Twinkie famine."
EEeeeeek !
A Twinkie famine ! Run, garage, run !
For all the hysterical commenters mocking the screening process for incoming refugees here's some helpful reading material if you're at all interested in the facts. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-it-takes-almost-year-refugee-be-processed/
Of course the alternative to admitting refugees--WHO ARE FLEEING ISIS (HELLO!)--is to play directly into the terrorists' hands and refuse all muslim refugees and thereby validate ISIS's claims about the west and America in particular, that we are hostile to Muslim peoples, etc.
The only alternative to not aborting 40 million voters, which presumably would have given Leftists the fabled Permanent Majority, is to import replacements with proper vetting being based on presumed future fecundity.
There is no better friend to the Leftist in America than the refugee Muslim with 6 wives, each having six American children, paid for by the greedy rich white infidels and their devil-inspired culture.
Rigorous Screening Process: Refuse entry to anyone named Ahmad Almohammad
Realpolitik: Say you import 3 million Muslims since 9/11/2001, half of which are female, which average 2.5 children per within ten years.
That's a lot more future Leftist voters than will be lost to any extremist fundamentalist workplace-violence instigator lone-wolf's actions, and some of those victims will be GOP leaning anyway, so...
The funny thing is, if these racist GOP voters hadn't raised holy Hell about McCain's immigration plans, we probably wouldn't even be in this position as we could have easily secured enough Latinos that Middle Easterners would have been redundant population replacement/displacement.
LOL racist GOP LOLZ!!! Somebody shoulda told them about the bible and reaping what they sow.
I keep hearing about a 'stringent vetting process' (which is classified). What I don't hear from anyone -- not Obama, not Kerry, not Lynch, not any of the governors -- is a promise that they will take responsibility if any of these refugees turns out to be a jihadist.
"ISIS isn't even in the top 25 threats I foresee in my neighborhood."
One hundred twenty-nine murdered Parisians would have said the same thing last week.
You are kind of dense, garage mahal.
So many of the attackers were unassimilated "French" and "Belgian" nationals. What does that say of the likelihood that these refugees, even if they are not terrorists themselves, will ever assimilate. It is against their religion to assimilate.
Exactly
We don't need any more muslims imported to the US. Period. 2nd generation Muslims in the West are much more radicalized than their parents. A substantial fraction of those 2nd generation Muslim kids will grow up to become Islamist sympathizers and some fraction of those act out on those feelings and either go overseas to fight or will eventually attack us here (for example the Tsarnaev brothers).
Additionally every muslim imported to the US is one more person for our overtaxed intelligence services to track. It is insane! Stop it with the leftist bleeding heart guilt trip about poor Syrian refugees and let the muslims take care of the muslim refugees. Over there.
And this is assuming none of the Muslim refugees are actual trained terrorists infiltrating our country. That just makes it worse.
Of course the alternative to admitting refugees--WHO ARE FLEEING ISIS (HELLO!)--is to play directly into the terrorists' hands and refuse all muslim refugees and thereby validate ISIS's claims about the west and America in particular, that we are hostile to Muslim peoples, etc.
Either do what ISIS wants or ISIS sympathizers will hate us more? Fortunately most Americans are not that foolish.
Henry: The data you linked gives the total of all UN registered refugees. It is not an accurate breakdown of who is actually coming to Europe, the US, etc.
"Of course the alternative to admitting refugees--WHO ARE FLEEING ISIS (HELLO!)--is to play directly into the terrorists' hands and refuse all muslim refugees and thereby validate ISIS's claims about the west and America in particular, that we are hostile to Muslim peoples, etc"
Great point... ISIS:"The West is so evil that they won't take in all the people trying to escape from us murdering them." Very strong logic.
Not all are fleeing ISIS. Some are ISIS members heading out on a working vacation- LIKE GOING TO PARIS (HELLO!).
Angelyne, thanks for your response.
A few clarifications.
You wrote, I'm going to assume you misspoke here and meant to say "profoundly difficult".
No, I did mean irresolvable. First, it's politically irresolvable. There is no solution that responds to the different concerns of every political party or every legitimate concern. Second, it's irresolvable in the present. There's no way to know if any solution (accepting refugees, for example) is better in the long run when compared against alternate solutions (refusing to accept refugees, accepting specific demographic groups, providing aid but only to refugees in current camps, etc.). We don't know if accepting refugees will lead to onshore terrorism, nor do we know if not accepting refugees will lead to their genocide (the Hitler analogy that has been popping up). To put it another way, there is nothing we can do that isn't already compromised.
You seem to be suggesting that the only "way forward" is resettling these people in the West.
I strongly support that as a specific way forward, but I understand the risks and welcome caveats. One reason I support it is because of its specificity. The alternatives are much more amorphous and actually potentially more disastrous. If you think 10 or 20 or 50 years into the future you might contrast the historical impact between (a) the West of a billion people accepts 1 million refugees versus (b) those refugees living in limbo among violent, increasingly impoverished Middle Eastern dictatorships. On a utilitarian level, which way will generate the most radicals and the most future terrorism? Morally, which way will lead to the most people and their descendants recovering their lives from utter disaster?
Popular dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of immigration policy/refugee programs was already coming to a boil across the West before the Syrian crisis exploded.
I agree with that. It touches back to the irresolvability of illegal immigration that I compared with the dilemma of resettling refugees. A better administration would focus on better administration of the law, but the issue would still be impossible to solve. People migrate, sometimes freely, sometimes forced. The West is an open society. We don't accept a police state. We must figure out a way to respond to the first reality without abandoning the inalienable principles of the second. We won't, but we can do better.
@livermoron -- A map of refugees and migrants via the Mediterranean sea postulates that 65% of these are adult males. This data combines refugee populations with economic migrants. Analysis of refugee trends, here suggests that the number of refugees, including many more women and children, is exceeding the number of economic migrants in recent years.
In any case, a proactive resettlement policy could actually target those refugees most in need in the camps where they are registered, which would get us back to the overall demographics.
DC, San Francisco, and New York are too "expensive." Notice that the refugees are being sent to places that didn't vote for Obama.
Progressives are cowardly in every sense of the word.
11/17/15, 9:23 PM
Mark H: this sounds like a teenager trying to get into her pants by saying "fuck me or else I'll hate you/tell everyone you're a cocktease." Yeah ok pig, whatever, you're not guilting an adult woman into giving up the pussy quite like that.
Is he, Althouse?
11/17/15, 9:59 AM
fivewheels said...
I haven't been following the issue closely enough to know: How does a refugee get across the ocean to arrive all the way over in California or Colorado?
If global warming is the biggest problem facing the planet, shouldn't we be concerned about the carbon impact of moving all these refugees? Or maybe Al Gore could move them in his private jet...
"garage mahal said...
"So when you are torn apart limb from limb, you will know to blame yourselves, right?"
ISIS isn't even in the top 25 threats I foresee in my neighborhood. "
What a fucking stupid comment. Yeah garage, your double wide is safe.
Henry: I agree with that. It touches back to the irresolvability of illegal immigration that I compared with the dilemma of resettling refugees. A better administration would focus on better administration of the law, but the issue would still be impossible to solve. People migrate, sometimes freely, sometimes forced. The West is an open society. We don't accept a police state. We must figure out a way to respond to the first reality without abandoning the inalienable principles of the second. We won't, but we can do better.
Thank you for your response, Henry.
I know you're trying to grapple honestly and honorably with the problem, but when I read the above I can't help thinking "This is the way the West dies." We have a fundamental disagreement here about what having a "free society" entails. I don't know when or how the idea that any non-criminal person on earth has a right to migrate into the West became embedded in popular thought, and that if we control or stop the flow we're a "police state" or "betraying our values", but it's arrant nonsense. Five minutes thought ought to reveal why. (You can start with asking yourself what the "we" and "our" you keep using actually signify.)
The mass migration into the West in recent times, with incompatible cultures stuffed on top of each other, is not strengthening our freedom, quite the opposite. It takes lots and lots of repression to keep the lid on "diverse" societies. Surveillance cameras on every corner. "Hate speech" laws. Civic society withers, social capital drains away. (This isn't apocalyptic pessimism, this is what honest sociological research says.) Culturally chaotic and tribalized societies aren't wide-open and easy-breathing. Is this the "freedom" you're trying to preserve?
Have to run, one more quick comment:
If you think 10 or 20 or 50 years into the future you might contrast the historical impact between (a) the West of a billion people accepts 1 million refugees ...
But it's not a matter of "1 million refugees". Close to that many (or more, don't have the latest figures at my fingertips) have already poured into Europe this year. Officials are already throwing around much higher figures for "the number we have to take in in the near future", and we all know what that means - it always turns out to be a lot more (a lot more) than the official figures.
In short, I don't think a lot of people quite understood the scope of the migrant/refugee problem.
Politifact truth-ometer! LOL Thanks for the laugher.
I bet politifact wishes they had their credibility back. What they are is a group of rationalization generators to make lefties feel good about the stupid things they believe.
"Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown says he'll work closely with President Barack Obama to ensure any Syrian refugees coming to California are "fully vetted in a sophisticated and utterly reliable way.""
Whom, exactly, will be held personally and fully and utterly accountable for the results of this "vetting"? Obama? Brown? ... Bueller?
As there is blood on the hands of Germany's Merkel, France's Hollande, there will be blood on the hands of Obama, Brown, et al.
But they will remain - if not in power - rich, protected and benefiting from their treachery and corruption.
Nichevo said...
Mark H: this sounds like a teenager trying to get into her pants by saying "fuck me or else I'll hate you/tell everyone you're a cocktease." Yeah ok pig, whatever, you're not guilting an adult woman into giving up the pussy quite like that.
I don't quite understand the analogy, but you sure did say it in as vulger a way as seems humanly possible.
Anyway, yeah, Alhouse please explain!
OK Mark, more IQ trouble I see.
You are trying to guilt people into following your preferred policy. So is the teenage boy trying to make the teenage girl.
I don't choose to recognize the indictment of vulgarity from someone whose first instinct is to blanket his opponents with labels like "hysterical."
Sorry. I'm sure it's beside the point, but I found the crassness of your analogy remarkable. So I remarked on it.
But thank you for clarifying. My point is that it's un-American to refuse refugees fleeing war-torn lands. It's un-American to pre-judge people based on their religion or place of origin. In fact. it's prejudice! If saying that helps people feel guilty for refusing refugees and moves people away from this silly mob mentality that we can't allow any Syrian refugees to our shores then great. But other than being un-American to refuse refugees, it's also tactically a mistake. The only way the terrorists can win is if we are terrorized and overreact.
"My point is that it's un-American to refuse refugees fleeing war-torn lands."
Bullshit meter off the scale.
You don't get to decide what is and what is not"un-American" pal.
It's un-American for you to tell what I have to believe to be an American.
Idiot.
I wasn't going to go ad hom on you but yes...un-American? By what code? By what right? By what standard? Plenty of yearners have been sent home. We had zero immigration for a while.
And I don't follow your "the only way they can win" spiel. No, not follow, I do not agree. The only way we can lose is to get pushed around by a bunch of foreigners. If you don't control your borders you are not a country.
I suppose that it goes without saying that we should allow unlimited immigration from Mexico and Central / South America oh, & I guess that they should all become citizens whenever they want, to suck the welfare teat and vote Democrat forever?
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Or...fuck em!
Mark Hamilton: Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Or...fuck em!
Mark, one day you'll learn to reason like an adult, instead of just emoting. In the meantime, why don't you just go back to emoting with the rest of the teenage girls on facebook and twitter. It's more your speed right now.
P.S. Emma Lazarus's schmaltz-fart isn't part of the Constitution or any other founding document of this country.
Just think, if only Emma Lazarus had been in the Bataclan hall, she never would have written that. Sometimes immigration is good, sometimes it is not so good, and all the time, the dose makes the poison.
Fuck those dirty refugees!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा