A Common Sense Approach to Middle East Refugees.

[wu_shizzle]

I'm not afraid of 70 year old grammas, but I am concerned that if we let gramma in, the President will demand that her entire extended family is reunited with her in the near future, just as he did with the Central American "refugees".

[ShockdaWorld]

If the question is about 70 year old grandmothers, I say as soon as we take care of our old and helpless, then we start worrying about the rest of the world's old and helpless. If the question is about children who have been orphaned, my first question would be are they orphans because their fathers decided to join and fight for isis, or are there other reasons? I know we can't answer this question, so if they're babies, toddlers, under 10, I again say, take care of our own, then worry about the rest of the world's. As for anyone between the ages of about 10 and 60, I say put up the proverbial wall and keep them outside of it.

[shocka khan]

I'm not afraid of 70 year old grammas, but I am concerned that if we let gramma in, the President will demand that her entire extended family is reunited with her in the near future, just as he did with the Central American "refugees".

Now THAT's what I'm looking for.

I'm not a big fan of the dream act. I'm not a big fan of letting young men (and possibly women) who are in the age slot for military service, so I agree with that, too. A lot of 16 year old men can be enticed by cavorting in eternity with 40 virgins, but not many 70 year olds.

And that's my premise. We should let them in, but NOT military age men and women. Only the old and very young. People who don't care about cavorting with 40 virgins in eternity.

[shocka khan]

If the question is about 70 year old grandmothers, I say as soon as we take care of our old and helpless, then we start worrying about the rest of the world's old and helpless. If the question is about children who have been orphaned, my first question would be are they orphans because their fathers decided to join and fight for isis, or are there other reasons? I know we can't answer this question, so if they're babies, toddlers, under 10, I again say, take care of our own, then worry about the rest of the world's. As for anyone between the ages of about 10 and 60, I say put up the proverbial wall and keep them outside of it.

Shockda, there are a whole bunch of people in this country who are more obsessed with rescuing animals and could care less about rescuing abused children. So we have that one, too (though I agree with your premise). One of the most interesting learnings I ever had was that the Hermann and Sons (German) fraternal here in Texas has a old-folks home in Comfort specifically designated for poor people. You can go there and live provided you buy a $50,000 insurance policy with Hermann and Sons as the beneficiary.

I thought if we could replicate that, there would be a lot of poor old people in this country living better.

[shocka khan]

I'm not sure how transferrable the IT security concept of an insider thread is to this subject, but I do believe that it has some applicability. An insider with elevated privileges (such as granted to them in the Bill of Rights) are a bigger risk than the jihadists in Syria.

I also think that there are profiles to insider threats. A young idealistic male who is a citizen would be a much bigger threat than a Syrian swimming across the river in Reynosa, Mexico.

Which is why I agree with the concept that high-risk people ought be monitored. I'm not sure we do a great job of that, but we appear to be doing well enough.

[SB Shock]

I'm not sure how transferrable the IT security concept of an insider thread is to this subject, but I do believe that it has some applicability. An insider with elevated privileges (such as granted to them in the Bill of Rights) are a bigger risk than the jihadists in Syria.

I also think that there are profiles to insider threats. A young idealistic male who is a citizen would be a much bigger threat than a Syrian swimming across the river in Reynosa, Mexico.

Which is why I agree with the concept that high-risk people ought be monitored. I'm not sure we do a great job of that, but we appear to be doing well enough.

Remember you can't profile - that is not politically correct. Law enforcement and intelligence agency have to work in the most inefficient manner possible so as not to offend.

[shocka khan]

Remember you can't profile - that is not politically correct. Law enforcement and intelligence agency have to work in the most inefficient manner possible so as not to offend.

I do not agree with all aspects of political correctness. I think when we have an enemy of the state (such as a terrorist), we ought to do as much as we can with the least amount of intrusion into privacy. I am not in favor of bulk collection of personal data, but I am in favor of a system that can identify, validate and monitor risks to the state.

[RoyalShock]

Apparently, Canadians feel about the same as Americans in regards to the security risk of refugees. And the Canadian Prime Minister isn't going to allow unattached males to come into the country.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/23/report-single-male-syrian-refugees-not-welcome-in-canada/

On Monday, the Canadian TV station CBC reported that newly-elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would only accept women, children, and families from the 25,000 Syrian refugees Canada plans to resettle. Single males looking to enter Canada are out of luck.

As in the United States, many Canadians have serious concerns about welcoming Syrians into their country. A Forum Research poll published last week found that 51 percent of Canadians don’t want the refugees to enter the country, while 60 percent believe they pose a security threat. In the United States, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 54 percent of Americans oppose taking in Syrian refugees.

[wufan]

I believe that the title of this thread is 'A Common Sense Approach to Middle East Refugees', and as such doesn't deal with the situation in Paris. I think you're getting a little off-topic. The context of the discussion is whether or not we (i.e. the United States) should be admitting these Refugees. IIRC there is already a thread on the Paris terrorist attacks.

And I agree, the NRA has nothing to do with Paris, I'm just trying to understand how a person's mind can accommodate the notion of a 70 year old female refugee as a threat and yet fail to grasp that a 20 year-old white male paranoid schitzophrenic with a legal gun is not also a threat.

In fact, I'd say the 20 year old is a much more real threat because he already has a labor saving device designed to kill people. I'd like to know why you disagree.

I hope you understand my notion that you're adamantly opposed to allowing the 70 year old female refugee into our country because she is a threat to you, correct?

I do not reject grandma's from entering the country because they are a threat. I reject allowing Syrian refugees into the country. We are not obligated to take in refugees from hostile countries. We gain no sympathy or positive relations from ISIS by doing so.

Again, this has nothing to do with 20 year old gun toting schizophrenics. They are different issues.

[shocka khan]

I do not reject grandma's from entering the country because they are a threat. I reject allowing Syrian refugees into the country. We are not obligated to take in refugees from hostile countries. We gain no sympathy or positive relations from ISIS by doing so.

Again, this has nothing to do with 20 year old gun toting schizophrenics. They are different issues.

But of course it does. One of the synonyms of hostile is malicious. We are talking about malicious people here. Whether the malicious people are from inside or outside the country makes no difference in my world. Evidently you're perfectly OK with malicious people like Dylan Roof and the Sandy Hook shooter having access to guns or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Seems like you want to ignore hostility from the threat among us and focus on hostility from external sources. Threats among us can be much more dangerous than external threats and can be fixed just as easily by legislation.

Except most of the people who think Syrian refugees are hostile want to perpetuate an environment where we have to deal with mass shootings for any reason every couple of months.

[MoValley John]

But of course it does. One of the synonyms of hostile is malicious. We are talking about malicious people here. Whether the malicious people are from inside or outside the country makes no difference in my world. Evidently you're perfectly OK with malicious people like Dylan Roof and the Sandy Hook shooter having access to guns or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Seems like you want to ignore hostility from the threat among us and focus on hostility from external sources. Threats among us can be much more dangerous than external threats and can be fixed just as easily by legislation.

Except most of the people who think Syrian refugees are hostile want to perpetuate an environment where we have to deal with mass shootings for any reason every couple of months.

You totally muddy the water. They are two separate issues, both with separate solutions. Gun violence is bad, and there are solutions, but just because we have a problem with bad people having guns doesn't mean we should ignore other risks to our society, that's silly talk. All you are doing is trying to confuse others, or maybe you're already confused yourself.

Here is one solution to the refugee problem. You mitigate the threat of terrorism from refugees by vetting refugees. Constitutional or not, you set up receiving centers. All refugees must pass through a center and be cleared, one at a time, their paperwork is checked and doublechecked, passports are verified, we know each and every person. Then they are accepted into country and delivered to the agencies that will establish them in our society and also monitor them. Keep in mind, refugees are, by definition, guests that intend to resettle back into their own country when hostilities are ceased. If this approach was taken, we would be full of Syrian refugees and we wouldn't have near the issue. Unforunately, this is not how Obama wants it, he wants all or nothing and so people object to any Syrian refugees in this country.

On the other hand, keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people has different solutions. But,vyes, there are solutions, the NRA and the ban all guns liberals are just too polarized to see the forest for the trees. In fact, if you look back at other gun control posts, I have given a few solutions. On the other hand, when asked to define what is "reasonable gun control" liberals can't or won't. Until reasonable is defined, we are at an impasse.

They are two separate issues, by trying to make them singular, you are going nowhere.

[SB Shock]

Here is one solution to the refugee problem. You mitigate the threat of terrorism from refugees by vetting refugees. Constitutional or not, you set up receiving centers. All refugees must pass through a center and be cleared, one at a time, their paperwork is checked and doublechecked, passports are verified, we know each and every person. Then they are accepted into country and delivered to the agencies that will establish them in our society and also monitor them.

So kind of a "Ellis Island" of the 21st century?

[MoValley John]

So kind of a "Ellis Island" of the 21st century?

Yes. But there needs to be more than one point of entry.

I just don't get arguments based on moral relativism. Good is good, bad is bad. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Obama isn't good because Bush is bad, or vice versa. Syrian refugees do not equate the American pilgrims. Abortion isn't the same as war. Potential terrorists don't equate gun laws that don't and can't prevent mass shootings. It really isn't that difficult.

When we cloud issues with other issues, we never solve either.

[Rlh04d]

I'm well behind on most of this conversation.

I just have one simple point about most of these discussions:

When there is a clearly evident threat that a lack of gun control will lead to crazy people acquiring guns and killing as many people as they can manage, we deem this an acceptable risk, because ... freedom.

Where there is a clearly evident threat that every time you get behind the wheel of your car, you are far more likely to be killed than in a terrorist attack, we deem this an acceptable risk, because otherwise we'd have to change our lives.

When there is a clearly evident threat that eating hamburgers is going to kill you with heart disease, we completely ignore it.

There are a million threats we deal with on a day to day basis. Every single one of those is more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack.

Panicking over the relatively minuscule dangers of terrorist attacks is the entire point of terrorism.

The majority of you are playing exactly into the point of terrorism.

I'll be flying on Thanksgiving, and heading into crowds, and if Maryland hadn't backed down on the issue, I would have gladly taken a family of Syrian refugees into my home, and greeted them with kindness and compassion. **** the terrorists. I'm not going to panic over the possibility once every five to ten years, maybe, they'll get lucky enough to match a week's drunk driving fatalities. Quit being babies. Fear is the tool of the weak, and it only works if you're too cowardly to reject it.

[MoValley John]

I'm well behind on most of this conversation.

I just have one simple point about most of these discussions:

When there is a clearly evident threat that a lack of gun control will lead to crazy people acquiring guns and killing as many people as they can manage, we deem this an acceptable risk, because ... freedom.

Where there is a clearly evident threat that every time you get behind the wheel of your car, you are far more likely to be killed than in a terrorist attack, we deem this an acceptable risk, because otherwise we'd have to change our lives, and we're lazy.

When there is a clearly evident threat that eating hamburgers is going to kill you with heart disease, we completely ignore it.

There are a million threats we deal with on a day to day basis. Every single one of those is more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack.

Panicking like little children over the dangers of terrorist attacks is the entire point of terrorism.

Except... The Syrian problem isn't here yet. Once that problem is here, we accept it. And, no, I don't accept gun violence under the guise of freedom. That said, it makes perfect sense to come up with a better vetting process before we begin accepting Syrian refugees. It is crazy to simply state, "well, we already have a bunch of risks to our society, let's add a few more."