A Common Sense Approach to Middle East Refugees.

[Rlh04d]

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."

We have a vetting process. Make the vetting process better, by all means, but don't pretend like we don't already have one.

Minimizing risks is entirely rational.

Panicking over an astronomically small chance of terrorist acts is not.

I'm fine with most of your suggestions through this, btw, except for the "Constitutional or not" line you used. If it's not Constitutional we find a different way. Violating the Constitution for expediency out of fear is beyond irrational. I'd rather take in the entire Syrian refugee population wholesale than accept ignoring the Constitution to fit the needs of the moment.

[MoValley John]

We have a vetting process. Make the vetting process better, by all means, but don't pretend like we don't already have one.

Minimizing risks is entirely rational.

Panicking over an astronomically small chance of terrorist acts is not.

I'm fine with most of your suggestions through this, btw, except for the "Constitutional or not" line you used. If it's not Constitutional we find a different way. Violating the Constitution for expediency out of fear is beyond irrational.

Define the vetting process. All we have heard is that we have a vetting process that works, but few details. On the other hand, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a naturalized citizen from Jordan. His father was a fundamentalist, yet our vetting system led him right to Chatanooga.

[wufan]

I will put two issues out there that seem the same on one level, but are totally separate:

If you believe abortion is okay, the taking of a life prior to birth, prior to committing any crime, then obviously you must believe that the death penalty is acceptable. A person that commits is obligated to be punished.

The reverse must also be true. If it is not okay for a fetus to be aborted, then all life is pressious and one must believe that a violent offender has the same right to life regardless of a crime.

Both scenarios are simpler to the single point that I believe that it is/is not okay to sentence a human being to death.

Of course the above flies in the face of reality when discussing conservative/liberal view points. Similarly, I would say that accepting the risk of one form of violence does not necessitate that you would accept the risk for another form of violence. They ARE in fact different issues with different causes and effects and different ways in which to deal with them.

In the simplest terms, I do not believe that gun control laws are the correct solution to gun violence. While I would be supportive of restricting gun ownership to responsible (competent) citizens, I fear that any such laws would have a great potential to violate the freedoms of those who are competent, I.e. Who gets to decide and on what grounds. What grounds are there for fighting such a ruling? If such a law is proposed, I would look at it carefully, similar to the way liberal leaning folks might look at the civil liberties of refugees.

On the discussion of Syrian refugees. They are not US citizens and have no such rights under the constitution. The role of the federal gov is to protect its populace from enemies. While I am not opposed to accepting refugees from countries that we support, I feel that receiving refugees from a country that is a threat to us is a bad practice and not one that is protected under the civil liberties of the constitution. Similar to some above posts, I would be okay with refugees from Syria being accepted under certain restrictions and if they were willing to give up some of their liberties in order to sustain a pieceful coexistence. I would have to read such legislation carefully prior to being for it.

I feel that I have not fully stated the argument, but it's plenty long enough and I'm on my phone.

[60Shock]

We just flew back from Amsterdam Sunday and landed at Miami international. They have a huge passport control area and it was cram packed with perhaps 3-5,000 people. It took us over an hour to get through our line which was the shortest one consisting of around only 24 people ahead of us (18 foreigners). The other lines had 100's. Non-US citizens were finger printed and their pictures taken. Could only view about 1/10th of the control booths, but I did not see any foreigners detained. Apparently, all it takes to get into our country at the present time is a passport. And as of today, the first European Union country the Syrians arrive in are required to issue them a valid passport. That is my understanding as to how the system is presently operating. There is little to no control, whatsoever.

[Kung Wu]

Why Syrian Refugees?

There are about 60 million refugees in the world, but Obama is hell bent on bringing in Syrian refugees specifically. Why?

Instead, we could bring in orphans from war torn areas all across the globe.

The Syrian refugee problem goes beyond the fact that we know for certain terrorists targeting the U.S. have intentionally infiltrated their ranks -- though that's enough right there for any rational President to halt the import of that specific demographic until we have a better handle on it.

- 73% of the refugees have a negative attitude toward U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. (duh)
- 66% blame the U.S. for the rise of ISIS. (duh)
- 43% say "Absolutely Not" when asked about the US sending ground troops to attack ISIS. (that's not good)
- 13% have a positive view of ISIS. (that's REALLY not good)

That adds up to quite a few angry folks (and many that sympathize with ISIS) to be importing into the U.S., and are just going to get angrier if we deem it necessary to attack ISIS on the ground in "their" country.

So why not Colombia? They have a massive refugee crisis and share our Western values. They see the U.S. as the "hope" and not the "cause". Why wouldn't we take in people that want to assimilate, and have just as much need?

Why not Lebanon? If Middle Easterners are more your flavor ... 100% of Christians and Sunni Muslims view ISIS unfavorably. Wouldn't those people be a better fit in the U.S.?

There are literally millions and millions of better options, that would be received more favorably by a very charitible but rightfully cautious American public -- so why is Obama so "laser-focused" on what is probably the worst case scenario for the American public? It's certainly the worst case and unnecessary political choice he could make.

It almost feels like he is doing it out of contempt for the American public. It just doesn't feel like compassion.

[MoValley John]

Here's my common sense. I'm drinking Blue Moon and cheap white zinfandel on thanksgiving. What could go wrong?

[Kung Wu]

Here's my common sense. I'm drinking Blue Moon and cheap white zinfandel on thanksgiving. What could go wrong?

Kiss your sinuses goodbye tomorrow, that's what!

[60Shock]

Kung Wu, Great points.

Several countries in the Balkans, even before the Syrian refugee problem existed, specifically prohibited refugees from their welfare programs.

Big surprise - they do not have a refugee problem as once the refugees become aware of this, they quicklly pass through looking for freebees elsewhere.

And just why should any country automaticaly put refugees on their welfare progranms when they have never contributed anything into them?

[shocka khan]

Another day, another shooting. By a domestic terrorist. But hey, wufan, it's all good, we need to let any domestic terrorist who wants a gun to have one. And while we're at it, let's keep those 70 year old Syrian grandmothers out because they're 'hostile'.

[wufan]

Another day, another shooting. By a domestic terrorist. But hey, wufan, it's all good, we need to let any domestic terrorist who wants a gun to have one. And while we're at it, let's keep those 70 year old Syrian grandmothers out because they're 'hostile'.

I'm not seeing the point of trying to antagonize me here. What I said was in good faith and in an attempt to add to the discussion. I've answered your questions. I attempted to point out a flaw your logic. I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. Nothing much more to add.

[wu_shizzle]

Another day, another shooting. By a domestic terrorist. But hey, wufan, it's all good, we need to let any domestic terrorist who wants a gun to have one. And while we're at it, let's keep those 70 year old Syrian grandmothers out because they're 'hostile'.

Still politicizing tragedies before anyone knows the facts.

SMH.

[shocka khan]

Still politicizing tragedies before anyone knows the facts.

SMH.

So why do you think a middle-aged white male from North Carolina would want to shoot up a Plannned Parenthood on Thenksgiving weekend?

If you look at this man's mug shot, he looks like he lives in a homeless shelter. Most normal people who care about their families and are responsible don't look like they live in a homeless shelter.

It's way past time for our society to say enough is enough and to work together to take the lessons from past shootings in order to try to prevent this from becoming a normal routine. That would mean trying to prevent these occurrences while balancing the right to own a gun without being overly intrusive.

Yes, I may be jumping to conclusions early, but seriously, I'd like for anyone out there to justify this. We have a bigger problem with terrorists inside this country than we do with Syrian refugees, but no one seems to want to do anything about it.

[wufan]

So why do you think a middle-aged white male from North Carolina would want to shoot up a Plannned Parenthood on Thenksgiving weekend?

If you look at this man's mug shot, he looks like he lives in a homeless shelter. Most normal people who care about their families and are responsible don't look like they live in a homeless shelter.

It's way past time for our society to say enough is enough and to work together to take the lessons from past shootings in order to try to prevent this from becoming a normal routine. That would mean trying to prevent these occurrences while balancing the right to own a gun without being overly intrusive.

Yes, I may be jumping to conclusions early, but seriously, I'd like for anyone out there to justify this. We have a bigger problem with terrorists inside this country than we do with Syrian refugees, but no one seems to want to do anything about it.

You can't justify a shooting. I don't know why you keep asking people to do so. Shooting people is illegal.

If only we had a pre-crime division!

[ShockTalk]

So why do you think a middle-aged white male from North Carolina would want to shoot up a Plannned Parenthood on Thenksgiving weekend?

If you look at this man's mug shot, he looks like he lives in a homeless shelter. Most normal people who care about their families and are responsible don't look like they live in a homeless shelter.

It's way past time for our society to say enough is enough and to work together to take the lessons from past shootings in order to try to prevent this from becoming a normal routine. That would mean trying to prevent these occurrences while balancing the right to own a gun without being overly intrusive.

Yes, I may be jumping to conclusions early, but seriously, I'd like for anyone out there to justify this. We have a bigger problem with terrorists inside this country than we do with Syrian refugees, but no one seems to want to do anything about it.

You can't justify a shooting. I don't know why you keep asking people to do so. Shooting people is illegal.

If only we had a pre-crime division!

Absolutely, @wufan:. The shooting/killings in Colorado Springs is horrible. I feel we should have better stronger methods of vetting gun ownership and the responsibilities of that owner to see it does not get into the wrong hands. However, @shocka khan:, if you want to get my full attention, work on a way to get illegal firearms out of the hands of the urban areas as well.

Last year, within the Chicago city limits, there were 2,587 shootings. So far this year, 2,712 with around 400 deaths. You are not going to convince a large portion of our population for stronger gun control if they threatened, whether that threat is real or not to them personally.

[shocka khan]

Absolutely, @wufan:. The shooting/killings in Colorado Springs is horrible. I feel we should have better stronger methods of vetting gun ownership and the responsibilities of that owner to see it does not get into the wrong hands. However, @shocka khan:, if you want to get my full attention, work on a way to get illegal firearms out of the hands of the urban areas as well.

Last year, within the Chicago city limits, there were 2,587 shootings. So far this year, 2,712 with around 400 deaths. You are not going to convince a large portion of our population for stronger gun control if they threatened, whether that threat is real or not to them personally.

I have to admit you have great point. What I don't understand is why Houston's murder rate is half Chicago's.. However, we do seem to get a lot of people here in Texas for illegally exporting AR-15's and AK-47's. As well as Barrett 50's. And even though everyone here says that you can't make a Barrett full auto, I'm betting if anyone has, it's people in Mexico. They will take a pickup and put a gun turret in the bed, which they mount the Barrett into. Unless you look at the bedliner, you would never know it could support a Barrett. Also note they've nailed at least two police/military helicopters this year.

I believe that some of those people trafficking to Mexico are the source of your problem in Chicago.