Yesterday the House of Representatives voted by a substantial majority to severely tighten the screening process for Syrian and Iraqi refugees. According to the New York Times, Congress voted 287-137 (with 47 Democrats joining the Republicans) for a bill that “would require that the director of the F.B.I., the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence confirm that each applicant from Syria and Iraq poses no threat.”
From what I read elsewhere, such confirmation is nearly impossible, and would either stop the incursion of Syrian refugees cold or slow it to a trickle. This form of certification could take many years for even one individual, much less the thousands that President Obama wants to accept. Obama promises to veto the House bill, but Congress can override such a veto with a 2/3 vote, and 287/424 is 68%, slightly more than enough to cancel a veto. (One hopes that at least a few Democrats will defect.) The bill hasn’t yet been voted on in the Senate.
Alongside this embarrassing rejection of Obama’s humane policy of accepting refugees (one favored by Hillary Clinton), 31 U.S. state governors, more than half of all governors (all of these save one are Republicans), have said that they will take action to prevent the refugees from coming to their states.
This inhumane and unwarranted kneejerk reaction reminds many of our country’s shameful historical policy of rejecting “unwanted immigrants,” including pre-war Jews, who were turned away and sent back to Europe, where they faced extermination. I understand why people are nervous about these refugees, for they will probably include a few hidden terrorists, as they did in Europe. But they will also include vastly more people who are seeking refuge, many of whom, sent back, would face a fate similar to the rejected Jews who died in the Holocaust.
This shameful act betrays our values in two ways. America has historically been a refuge for the oppressed, and it smacks of bigotry to turn away a whole class of refugees because they might contain a few bad apples. Further, our country has been immensely enriched by immigrants; in fact, most of us (including me, the grandchild of people fleeing the Russian Revolution) have an immigrant only a few generations in our past. Steve Jobs’s biological father, for instance, was a Syrian immigrant.
How much does accepting these refugees endanger us? I suspect not very much, for that we already have in place a laborious vetting process that’s been largely successful. On top of that, if ISIS wanted to sneak terrorists into the U.S. it has many other ways to do so besides embedding them within Syrian refugees: for example sending terrorists of other nationalities—people who aren’t refugees. Recruitment of U.S. citizens or legal immigants by the internet can also work.
I don’t want to be part of a country that rejects threatened Syrians as it rejected threatened Jews 75 years ago. We are now ashamed of what we did then, and we’ll be ashamed in the future if we build a dam to stop the latest flood of refugees.
I feel caught between a regressive left that can’t acknowledge the role of religion in motivating religious violence and a xenophobic right that is inclined toward fascism.
I am ashamed of my country at times like this.
+1
When I read the Qu’ran, I see where the violence comes from. Apologists who deny that are arguing that there is no connection between the philosophy and the outcome, a position that I find preposterous.
I think we should insist that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, et. al. should take their coreligionists en masse.
I also wonder if we accept many Muslims, at what point they will insist that their misogyny and other dysfunctions be “respected”.
That said, when people are properly screened, they should not be turned away. We can’t abandon our values (if indeed we actually still hold any of them). L
Bernie Sanders in his Georgetown talk yesterday let it escape that ISIS receives material aid from Kuwait (which the US freed from Saddam, at least we freed the oil) and implied that Qatar may also have ISIS ties. How can we expect Arab nations that are nominally our friends, but also back ISIS or ISIS-like views, to accept unradicalized Muslims that are fleeing Syria! If it comes down to hanging Assad or hanging the Kings (less that of Jordan, whose king should perhaps be viewed as a somewhat benign dictator), I chose the latter.
Assad’s victims are estimated to be a five-digit or six-digit number.
You can accuse the other rulers, at best, in refusing to accept refugees. Assad is guilty in making these people refugees in the first place (not counting those who don’t need any refuge anymore).
I think Syrians need the USA to protect them where they are, not to take them.
“no connection between the philosophy and the outcome, a position that I find preposterous.”
Ah, “argument from personal incredulity”.
We hate it when creationists do that.
We know from empirical data that there often is little connection between philosophy and behavior. In fact, you’d probably agree to that if I asserted that Christians are more ethical than atheists.
“We know from empirical data that there often is little connection between philosophy and behavior”. Please provide a relevant reference (not one regarding personal choices, but rather, governmental/societal choices). We hate it when you don’t do that.
No. If you aren’t already aware of this fact, there is no hope for you.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
— Christopher Hitchens
Thus, I dismiss your argument.
“I think we should insist that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, et. al. should take their coreligionists en masse.”
Why would any refugee who grew up in a relatively moderate Islamic society, ever want to live in Saudi Arabia?
I agree that SA shares a large portion of the blame for this mess. But the refugees have voted with their feet and SA is not where their feet are headed.
cr
Meanwhile, France is accepting 30,000 refugees. Maybe we should send the Statue of Liberty back. We aren’t using it any more.
In other news, a Texas Republican legislator says we should keep refugees out because it’s too easy for them to get guns here.
“Maybe we should send the Statue of Liberty back. We aren’t using it any more.”
Zing!
Indeed. If that’s not already an internet meme, it should/will be.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
Yeah, and after sending back the Statue of Liberty, let’s remove “Home of the Brave” from the National Anthem.
Lou Reed in one of his albums of a decade or two ago (one of my dozen or so music purchases, ever) re-christened it “The Statue of Bigotry”. I forget what his particular beefs with it were.
Right. He’d rather keep the refugees out than to make it tougher to acquire firearms.
As if Syrian children will be making a beeline to gun stores.
It’s good to keep these numbers in mind:
Gulf countries have so far taken in zero (0) refugees.
USA makes a big deal about accepting 10k refugees in the future.
While Europe has already accepted 800,000 of them during this year alone.
I came across this poem the other day …
Maybe someone could inscribe that on a statue somewhere …
/@
… and then I saw Stephen’s comment.
I just sent into our little rag here in small town Iowa, a very short piece on this mess. I also mentioned the Statue of Liberty poem while mentioning disgust at Ted Cruz and his statement which others in his party jumped right on as theirs as well. The one about accepting none of the refugees unless they are Christian.
The article by FFRF reminds us that Timothy McVeiy, the most successful terrorist we’ve had was a good Christian boy and even asked for a Catholic chaplain at his execution.
And Bush says – you can tell if the refugee is a Christian. You can just tell.
Are not these the most moving lines ever written?
‘Are not these the most moving lines ever written?’
IMHO – no, not quite:
“We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”
“On the world’s great field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle –
Be a hero in the strife!”
Thanks for posting this. I was unfamiliar with the first part since the last part is the one most often quoted. It crept up on me as I read until the recognition hit. It was a gift from France and speaks of gratitude and appreciation for the way our country fits into history as a refuge.
+1
Sub
It’s a shame that the political experiment that started out so promisingly has turned into a paranoid military state.
The sheer, naked, pants-wetting cowardice of these yellow-bellied politicians is as embarrassing as it is unseemly.
These refugees are our kind of people. They’re literally abandoning their entire lives to flee the same enemies we ourselves hate in a desperate hope to come join our society, our family.
And, in the face of such courage and determination on their part, we have the fucking nerve to slam the door on them, send them back into the hornet’s nest lest one or two bugs from the swarm sneak in with them?
It’s bad enough we’re no longer the land of the free. But to abandon all pretense of being the home of the brave, on top of it all?
God damn. Like, seriously: what the fucking fuck!? What the hell is going to happen when we face some actual threat of adversity?
b&
I think you may have exceeded the allowable number of adjectives in a sentence here, but that’s okay. It sounds good.
I suspect it’s almost entirely about theatre, or just looking like they’re doing something to appease critics. Quite apart from the unfairness of turning away a lot of innocents – and a moment’s thought should reveal that the proportion of genuine terrorists must be overwhelmed by the number of non-terrorists – any terrorist determined enough to get into the US is hardly likely to be thwarted by a complete shutdown of immigrants. They just resort to alternative means of getting in, and illegal ones if necessary. This is before pointing out the threat of home-grown terrorists who won’t be affected by the shutdown.
This is a country, after all, where their judiciary emphasizes punitiveness out of all proportion to its actual effectiveness, as anyone who’s read The Spirit Level – or the crime stats against punitiveness of system – can testify.
The Land of the Fee and the Home of the Craven.
Well, I feel the same way, but actually this reflexive behavior is standard practice. Go back to the potato famine. The Irish were literally dropping dead in the holds of the ships arriving in NY harbor. There was a huge outcry to keep the bastards out from politicians and citizens alike. This is the norm. Hopefully Obama will veto and the Senate will have second thoughts.
It’s up to the Senate. The majority in favor in the House is veto-proof.
There is fear in Canada too. While most people want to accept the refugees, they don’t like the December 31 goal of settling 25,000 of them. That does seem rushed, but if we don’t rush, they are going to literally be left out in the cold.
We certainly could start with the many thousands languishing in refugee camps, who have already been vetted by the UNHCR.
Bernie also condemed rampant nativism in his Georgetown talk yesterday. Did Hillary mention it in her policy talk?
I saw in the news where Hilary had to kick one of her supporters out – A David Bower, mayor of Reanoke, Va. for going against the refugees. This guy is so stupid he even referred to FDR’s round up of Japanese during WWII, in being against the refugees. It’s kind of like saying, you just think the republicans are stupid….what me.
I agree with your sentiments 100%, Prof CC.
Jerry writes that to date the vetting of official Syrian refugees has been “largely successful.” This qualification is unnecessary. So far, vetting of refugees has been completely successful. Not a single refugee of the thousands the US has already taken from Syria has been convicted of any crime, let alone terrorism. (Immigrant vetting has been less successful.)
The process of refugees entering the US (and NZ) already takes around two years, and involves multiple layers of checks and interviews starting in the UN refugee camps they come from.
The refugees Obama is looking to settle are not the same as those who come through Europe. Many of those apply for official refugee status, and eventually achieve that, but because of geography, some of those could be terrorists who manage to slip through the cracks.
The refugees that come via the official camps are usually too poor to buy their way onto the boats to Europe. Or, one or two family members go on the boats, hoping the rest of the family can join them later.
I think the GOP politicians know all this. They’re cynically playing to the fears of the electorate.
It’s not this generation of refugees that matters. It’s the next one.
Not sure what that could mean. Why doesn’t this generation or refugees matter? What about the next generation of refugees matters?
First, the second generation is larger. Second, unlike the first, it is completely unvetted. As I’ve said, most IS supporters in Europe were born there.
Why is the second generation larger? (Did you not see that marriage rates among Muslims are falling dramatically?)
/@
There is a pattern that many Islamic terrorists that strike in the Western world are not infiltrators from abroad, but were ‘home grown’. They are the children of immigrants who, feeling disenfranchised from their Western peers who never fully embraced them, decide to explore their heritage to find a place of belonging. Only some of them overdo it and become radicalized.
Always blaming the victims. I guess Jews are also “feeling disenfranchised from their Western peers who never fully embraced them”, but we rarely if ever hear of Jews blowing up things. Our old Muslim minority has been badly disenfranchised from us, but did not turn to terrorism. Do you know why? I think, because most of them are actually atheists.
I am shocked that someone thinks that a person shouldn’t be given refugee status in case they have children that become radicalized.
No Italians – their children might become Mafia. No Chinese – their children might become Triads. No North Koreans – their children might form the core of an army brigade for Kim Jong Un one day.
No Cubans – their children might run for president for the GOP. Oh wait, that happened. If only someone had thought of this a couple of generations ago, we wouldn’t be subjected to Cruz and Rubio now.
The US is one of the better examples of how to integrate refugees and immigrants. It’s being treated badly because of things like a different religion that causes marginalisation and thus vulnerability to radicalisation. If anything has prompted young Muslims in the US to join DAESH it’s actions like this Bill.
“It’s being treated badly because of things like a different religion that causes marginalisation and thus vulnerability to radicalisation.”
-Well, then, it only makes sense to keep the potentially marginalized out of the country, where no American can treat them badly or marginalize them, and where they can hurt no Americans directly.
“If anything has prompted young Muslims in the US to join DAESH it’s actions like this Bill.”
-LOL! [citation needed]. And your attempt to tar your political opponents with the black flag is so transparent and baseless, I’m shocked you’d have thought I wouldn’t notice it.
Since when did I need a citation to give an opinion?
And I don’t have a political agenda. There are no parliamentary elections until the end of 2017 in my country, and electioneering is restricted by law to three months preceding that. In the meantime, every political party in my country supports the fact that the government is taking more refugees from Syria than usual.
We understand that an immigrant and a refugee are not the same thing, and a refugee that comes via the UNHCR camps has been thoroughly vetted.
In the US Syrian refugees have become a political football.
Incidentally, I disagree with the Democratic response of “it’s not who we are” too. That is irrelevant if the refugees posed a genuine danger.
“I disagree with the Democratic response of “it’s not who we are” too. That is irrelevant if the refugees posed a genuine danger.”
I think the intent of that defense of refugees is to say, whatever the small risk, it’s worth it because of the larger need. That accepting them is consistent with our national character is also relevant in itself. It represents the better angels of our nature.
I see what you mean. Although it’s probably impossible, I wonder if it’s the best way to get people on side when they’ve been whipped into a frenzy of fair? Because there’s such a high level of bad feeling between the parties, Republicans possibly feel like they’re being accused of being un American.
I got a bit sarcastic, which probably didn’t help either. Blame the frustration of a couple of hours watching the fear being fed on Fox. The actual journalists on the channel clearly know actual refugees that come via the UNHCR programme are safe, but they barely mention the fact. Instead they give air time to alarmists and make those calling for a pause seem like the reasonable ones.
The reasonable response is to look at the facts, which show UNHCR refugees are safe, long term as well as short term. Also to recognize that refugees and immigrants are not the same, and go through different processes. The refugee process takes a long time, typically 18-24 months, and is very vigorous. Terrorists would not use it. They radicalize citizens or use clean skins with passports and tourist visas. In the unlikely event there’s someone they really want to get into the US they can’t get in that way, they’re more likely to try the southern border.
Add to this, AIUI the administration’s request is really to fast-track 10,000 applicants out of 17,000 who were already in the pipeline. I.e., Syrian refugees that had applied for asylum months if not years ago. It seems conservatives are afraid ISIS agents might travel back in time and apply for asylum a year or two ago.
Excellent point.
Islamic extremism didn’t start with ISIS and will not die with it.
It is absolutely, fricking disgusting watching these politicians scramble to cultivate the worst aspects of human nature and then take advantage of the result, all for the selfish reason of increasing their personal access to power and wealth. These goulish, cowardly assholes do not represent me in any way.
If they had a shred of integrity they would be mortally ashamed. Since they do not my shame that my country enabled them to achieve political office will have to suffice. It is a travesty that people with such low ethical values should have political power in the US, or any country for that matter.
Hear, hear!
Les Américains sont un tas de faux fromage singes manger de rachat .
(I don’t speak French, I did the best I could)
Fake monkeys or fake cheese?
/@
Argh, does this one work better?
Les Americans sont faux singes capitulards bouffeurs de fromage.
I really have no idea; I was just ribbing you!
/@
Oh I know. I am very ribbable. I do hope my correction is, uh, correct.
Monkey-eating cheese surrenderers?
Language is hard.
I have no reservations about admitting Syrians to this country. But I do about Muslims. If Muslims are unassimilable [that’s an open question for me], it may be asking for big trouble down the line. We can use the cover of nationality to “discriminate” against a religious group. (Of course it would not be discrimination, but behavior to defend one’s self.) We don’t have to be heroes at the expense of later generations. Is it not so that Muslim immigrants in Europe are predominately ghettoized, marginalized, disaffected, all of which is to say not assimilated? And you know what young bucks do when they are in this plight.
To say this is a tough one is to make one of the great understatements. We are in what is known as a dilemma. If you treat this like a no-brainer, you will lose your credibility, and you should.
I think they are “assimilable”: see here.
/@
Yup. We’ve gone through this countless times…not that many generations ago, there was as much fear about Catholics as we have today about Muslims. A fair bit of that persists, in fact.
The kids in that video demonstrated the same thing I wrote about the other day, when I noted that you can be a good person or a good [fill-in-the-religious-blank], but not both. One guy said he was a Muslim, but he ate bacon once and liked it. Pretty much any Jew will agree that eating bacon makes you a bad Jew, but that doesn’t make you a bad person; perhaps you should also be a good Jew in addition to being a good person and therefore refrain from bacon, but they’re two separate things.
One of the local culinary landmarks is Haji Baba, a Middle Eastern restaurant and grocery, run by an immigrant family who’s been here forever. I’m not sure exactly where they hail from…maybe Lebanon. They’ve assimilated perfectly and are fulfilling the American dream. If I had to guess, I’d say that they’re still practicing Muslims, but there’s no more reason to think that than there is to think that the guy who runs the fish-and-chips shop down the road from them is Christian: statistically your best guess but you could perhaps be surprised. They’re just people making an honest living and plenty of really, really good food.
b&
And we eventually were ashamed of the Japanese internment camps. We will be deeply ashamed by this as well.
“I’m Muslim and my religion teaches me to love everyone”
I have serious doubts if the dude actually read Koran…
‘Sokay. There’s exactly as much support for universal love in the Gospels as there is in the Q’ran. I’d be happy to get into a knock-down drag-out theological argument with him about why he should abandon Islam entirely…and to do so while we’re standing side-by-side washing dishes in a United Church of Christ soup kitchen.
He’s living his life according to Enlightenment values. That he’s superimposed Enlightenment values on top of the Q’ran is plenty “good enough.” So long as he doesn’t abandon his Enlightenment values for Koranic ones, the theological framework over which he’s suspended them doesn’t matter all that much. Besides, the next generation after one such as him is likely to be only nominally religious, and the one after that won’t remember anything but the holidays.
TLDR: he’s part of the solution, not the problem.
b&
“There’s exactly as much support for universal love in the Gospels as there is in the Q’ran.”
At least one Muslim dares to disagree with you. Please watch the video I posted below (posted 11:31 am).
Sorry, I should have said Ex-Muslim.
She clearly hasn’t actually read the Bible, either. Sure, Jesus has a few out-of-context lovey-dovey quotes (of a very insecure and infantile type of love)…but the rest of the time it’s kill-all-infidels this and bring-swords-not-peace that and hate-your-family the other. Set, of course, amidst an ever-present backdrop of all the infinite torture he’s going to inflict when he returns Real Soon Now to lead his armies triumphantly in the war to end all wars.
I’m not as familiar with the Q’ran, but I bet you can find the word, “love,” here and there in it as well. Means no more when it’s put in Muhammad’s lips than when it’s put in Jesus’s; both are incomprehensibly evil monsters.
…but, of course, again with the caveat that I’d much rather that people believed in the Cliff’s Notes love god versions of those two than the actual characters in the text. But far better still would be for people to realize that there’s nothing any more real or special about those two gods than any of the others that litter the wastebasket of history.
b&
“Sure, Jesus has a few out-of-context lovey-dovey quotes (of a very insecure and infantile type of love)…but the rest of the time it’s kill-all-infidels this and bring-swords-not-peace that and hate-your-family the other. ”
Are you sure you aren’t talking about The Old Testament, i.e. Judaism, rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Have /you/ read the NT?
/@
>
Matthew 5:17-18:
“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Many people see the NT replacing the OT and its (even more) archaic morals and laws, but Jesus himself is said to have disagreed with that.
“I’m not as familiar with the Q’ran, but I bet you can find the word, “love,” here and there in it as well. Means no more when it’s put in Muhammad’s lips than when it’s put in Jesus’s; both are incomprehensibly evil monsters.”
Do you seriously think that a Jewish hippie and a pedophile warlord hellbent on beheading infidels are both monsters of the same caliber?
<sigh />
(Before crying, “Parable!” recall that the character Jesus is quoting in that verse is a stand-in for Jesus himself, and the parable is about Armageddon when Jesus will do exactly as is described in the parable, only worse.)
Jesus perfectly captures the entire sentiment of what later became Islamic jihadism in this snipped:
There’s your global war, the ripping asunder of families, the universal hatred even of one’s own families, and the call to suicide attacks.
I could keep going — even the Sermon on the Mount has Jesus ordering self-mutilation to avoid infinite torture for those who even think about love — but I’ve got better things to do with my day today.
b&
Oh well, that does sound rather hardcore for a supposed hippie to say…
But I still consider it a progress when someone leaves Islam for Christianity, if only for the fact that the latter has been largely civilized throughout the last two centuries and so Christians cause far less trouble today than the raging Islamists who still think they live in the 7th century!
Bertrand Russell in his “Why I am not a Christian”, gave another reason for not thinking Jesus the king of goodness. Jesus sent the evil demons into the pigs, to drown. This was unnecessarily cruel. Socrates was Russell candidate for king of goodness.
And BTW, here’s an example of someone who did…
When is she (wearing a prominent Christian cross necklace) going to read the Bible?
I gather from the video that she already did, and found the teachings of Jesus more peaceful than Mohammed’s.
So what?
/@
So he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and promotes Koran to the unsuspecting public.
🙄
Would you bet the future of your children on this thought?
Why wouldn’t I?
/@
To me this seems like a rather peculiar question. My children were born and grew up in a country that has “assimilable” Muslims. It would seem I bet their lives on the idea back in the mid-eighties. So far the bet has paid off pretty well.
Muslims are unassimilable is an open question?
That is a remarkably foolish view, in my view. I don’t even understand what it could mean except as an expression of raw xenophobia.
Exactly. Refugees who go through the official process are subjected to multiple interviews as part of that process. One of the things ascertained is their ability and willingness to assimilate. They choose the US (and NZ, Canada, Australia etc.) because they like the values.
They bring up their children with those values. The education system those children are part of is full of those values. Christian fundamentalists are always complaining about the brainwashing of their children with liberal values at school.
Wahabbist Muslims simply wouldn’t make it through the process, and the extremely long process means they wouldn’t be able to hide their extremism. Many more fail to quality for refugee status than succeed.
I work with dozens of Muslims every day. Fully assimilated Muslims, if that’s what one would want to call them.
You are correct GB: That comment is xenophobia (and low expectations).
Let’s formulate a foolish hypothesis that Mideast Muslims are unassimilable. What data would count as supporting the hypothesis? Because the recent history of Europe, Turkey and Lebanon seems pretty convincing to me, but others lay all the blame on victims of terror for not having been kind enough to the terrorists and so having made them terrorists. It seems to me that some are as unwilling to admit the evident impact of fundamentalist Muslims on non-Muslim societies as others are unwilling to admit that man evolved from a non-human primate, and no amount of evidence will help in either case.
How about this question:
Has multiculturalism failed?
You can find a poll asking people about their opinion on the matter in the middle of this article about an Ex-Muslim assaulted by Muslims for leaving Islam, and luckily saved by his Polish neighbors. Do vote and see what the results of the poll are…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12005859/Bradford-father-living-in-fear-after-converting-from-Islam-to-Christianity.html
How awful that this man is terrorized. I will use this when people tell me Islam is a peaceful religion — not toward apostates it isn’t!
Well, if you were worried about your credibility, you do not have to now.
Why do I care about assimilation? I care about whether some person commits violent acts, not whether they eat hot dogs, watch football on Sundays, or listen to rock music.
Bring on the falafel food trucks. Go ahead and produce your own unique music and sell it in stores. Boost attendance at soccer games. Bring new themes to art and architecture and theater. None of that scares me – it enriches my life.
And frankly, insular immigrant communities have much more reason to be scared of us than we do of them. Because the US is kind of like the Borg – we take other people’s uniqueness and add it to our own, whether they like it or not.* Your traditional meal soon becomes Pizza Hut, your traditional holidays become our St. Patty’s day parades, and your cultural insularity soon gets Fiddler on the Roofed.
*Nor are we unique in this; the UK is pretty good at it too.
They apparently like it after they have come to your country. Nobody has dragged them by force.
You bet. Muslim immigration is a big problem. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.
Just like the rest of the population then …
/@
Meh, politics as usual. This is like the 32+ bills to repeal Obamacare; a bill sent up to the White House for inevitable veto in order to gain constituent approval.
Their selection of signers is also strange and indicates this is more about political theater than any serious request that the government evaluate risk. First, AFAIK the Department of State has the lead in evaluating whether asylum seekers are legit or not, and they aren’t even mentioned. Second, DHS and the FBI get their info on foreigner terrorist involvement from the intelligence community, while DHS also gets its criminal record info on residents from the FBI. So this is like demanding someone get confirmation on a story from NBC *and* MSNBC; it shows an ignorance that the two are really drawing from the same source. Why would Congress request three essentially redundant signatures? Well because the more signatures you require the more time it takes and the less likely you are to get them for bureaucratic reasons, so the demand for all three here is a pretty good indication this is a ‘poison pill’ type of bill, intended to stop asylum-granting altogether rather than improve the vetting process.
Not “as usual”. The vote is veto-proof in the House. 47 Democrats voted with the Republicans. I think the Senate will block this, but this is more than politics as usual.
I’d add that “politics as usual” typically really sucks in our current era. Politics as usual is perfectly capable of leading to very bad things. Politics as usual gave us all the crap from the Bush Jr era, including an Executive that has accrued a dangerous amount of power at the expense of the other branches, particularly the judiciary. Not to mention torture and the degradation of everyone’s civil liberties.
Politics as usual is, these days, nothing to be complacent about.
IANAP, but just because it passed with a veto-proof majority doesn’t necessarily mean that the veto will be overridden. This is the time to put pressure on the nominally liberal politicians who sided with it initially and let them know that this is a BIG issue, and that they should not override the inevitable veto.
Ditto to let the Senate know, before their version of this bill even passes (unless I missed it already).
“I don’t want to be part of a country that rejects threatened Syrians as it rejected threatened Jews 75 years ago.”
-Come on. Assad’s Syria is not Nazi Germany, and nobody’s going back to Assad’s Syria. Or the IS. The refugees are already safe in non-war-torn countries. They’re not threatened by anything.
“Steve Jobs’s biological father, for instance, was a Syrian immigrant.”
-This is the same sort of reasoning opponents of contraception use.
You make so many false assumptions here, it is not possible to communicate. Assad’s Syria is not Nazi Germany. No and it is not Assad’s Syria either. All the refugees are safe, How is this know…do they check in with you?
Where does the contraception come from and what planet are you on?
All the refugees that are able to get to the US are safe.
As for the rest, think a little.
Yes, the half dozen who got here are safe. How many here do you think hate Muslims. And how many of them pack guns, nearly all of them. So good luck with that safe in America.
Prof CC, have you ever considered running for office? You always seem to have such clear, calm vision about things that frighten and confuse me. You would be a good leader in a crisis. I know there are probably a hundred reasons why it wouldn’t fly, but think about how cool it would be: Senator CC, Congressman CC.
Don’t be silly. Atheists can’t run for office!
How many refugees does Israel plan to take in? The IS, Syrian Gov’t, and AQ are literally right on its border. There should be plenty Syrians, both Sunni and religious minorities, willing to settle the near-empty Golan heights.
Doesn’t Israel have the same obligation to the Syrians on its border America had to the German Jews of the 1930s? It’s much easier for Syrians to reach than America is.
Your reasoning and comparison is false. Saying the American’s had to the German Jews, makes no comparison with Syrians and Israel. Now if you had said Why didn’t the Americans take in Nazi refugees, that would have been the same.
I wonder why we didn’t do that??
Randy, I’m literally not able to understand what you’re saying. Speak a real language, please.
Jerry, I don’t think your analogy to Jews quite holds. Jews weren’t people animated by their holly books to murder infidels. With the Jews, there was no similar risk involved really. Even if one in every 1000 muslims freely allowed into our borders turned out to be an undercover terrorist, the result would be disastrous. The stakes are real high.
Also, these aren’t western Muslims acculturated to western modern social mores; these are Muslims of the most conservative type whose values -even while they may not be terrorists- fly in the face of the freedoms that we enjoy here in America.
The plight of these refugees is lamentable, there’s no denying that. And we should do everything we can to help them, but we shouldn’t let out empathy and good intentions get in the way of reason. I would like to admit all homeless people into my house and let them stay and feed them forever, but alas, this isn’t possible without incurring a risk to myself and my family. The problem with Syrian refugees isn’t any different.
And how do we know that?
Do we have to pretend that we don’t know that?
I guess not. We’re pretending that we do.
No, you have to explain how you know that. How do you know that?
I have met quite a number of Syrians.
Easy: we don’t. (As you, GBJames, obviously already figured out.)
The most conservative type of Muslims aren’t even pretending to look to escape; they’re welcoming the Caliphate with open arms. It’s only those who don’t want a Caliphate who’re fleeing.
The refugees are the ones who so desperately don’t want anything to do with DAESH that they’ve literally given up their entire lives to escape. There is no stronger statement that they could possibly make that they are against DAESH and, if we would have them, would be with us.
That even that isn’t enough to demonstrate to us that we’re made for each other…how heartlessly insensitively cruel could we possibly be?
b&
Assad’s bombings have caused far more refugees than IS’s lightning-strike campaigns. So refugees are not necessarily making any anti-IS statement. And, again, you’re not thinking about the second generation.
It is sad how people can so easily compartmentalize and elevate one threat while completely ignoring others.
http://pictoraltheology.blogspot.com/2015/11/definitely-not-local-news.html
Cthulu is spot on! We allow just about anyone to buy an AK without a background check or any other form of vetting, but an 18 month process to vet a Syrian family? Nope, not good enough.
Such cowardly individuals these republicans. First they make sure they are armed to the teeth and then they cry and run because a few refugees come in. If I were a refugee, this might just be the last refuge to be looking for.
– What is the basis for the comparison to Nazi Germany and the Jews?
– What is the profile of people that you are going to get when you sample from countries in the Middle East? You routinely post results of surveys from these countries.
– How have previous refugees from countries in the Middle East fared economically in the United States? How many are on welfare?
– Why haven’t you mentioned what the FBI and the DHS have to say about the situation?
– Syrian passports can be easily obtained on the black market for a price. German authorities have admitted that it is impossible for them to authenticate documents. How are you going to vet them?
– Why is resettlement in the West the only option? What are the other options? What about safe zones in the Middle East? How about putting pressure on rich countries in the Middle East to accept refugees.
– If you and your readers are so concerned about Syrian refugees, why aren’t you sponsoring refugees out of your own pocket. Surely each of you can volunteer to take one person. Why aren’t you pressuring your representatives to bring refugees into your own neighborhoods?
————–
I am a recent immigrant, myself; I came from one of the brown countries that the progressives like so much. I am sure progressives have a set of labels for me. That is all they ever seem to have while taking part in ‘Humanitarian Olympics’ trying to outdo one another in pity.
How about stop playing 20 questions and say what you want to say with something to back it up. This is not a quiz show where the contestant gets to ask the questions. It’s opinions not questions.
The 9-11 hijackers came here with easy to obtain visas (if you have the money), the attackers on Paris were Belgium and French citizens and could have comes here with just a passport. Once here, drive to the local gun shop and viola. Terrorists aren’t interested in an 18 month vetting process, they’ll get here the easiest and quickest way. If we really wanted to mitigate a terrorist attack in the US, we would have to revoke the millions of visas we allow each year and should stop the tens of millions of European citizens who travel here annually. It won’t (and shouldn’t) ever happen. Americans need to wake up to the fact that no one is ever 100% safe…safety is an illusion. Hell, even if 100 refugees were from DAESH and managed to get through, an American is still far more likely to die in a car accident than a random attack somewhere. This fear of refugees is so transparently political, it makes me sick; it really shows how stupid fear has made us. This act also falls right into the hands of DAESH’s strategy- spreading fear and paranoia and forgetting what we stand for. Why do we continually allow the terrorists to write the narrative of our future?
Again, you’re not thinking about the second generation. Most IS supporters in Europe were born there, and, thus, could not be vetted.
Really? You’re afraid of people who are infants, children or who aren’t even born yet? Wow, that’s some pretty deep cynicism. You must have a really low estimation of Muslim refugees. Out of the millions of 2nd generation Muslims in Europe and America, what do you think the percentage of people who one-day-will-be terrorists are? How many zeros to the right of the decimal do you think? Your obvious answer is: “enough of an infinitesimal percentage to act like inhumane, frightened children”. Sorry about your paranoia; I have a lot more optimism in humanity than that, and I surely don’t want American politicians acting out of irrational paranoia like you do.
Aw, come on. It’s not “irrational paranoia” when such attacks actually happen.
I can’t remember the source, but some comedian once said “The only reason I’m paranoid is because everyone is out to get me.”.
But how would that have even slowed down McVeigh?
The real answer is that life is not without risk, and, even more importantly, nothing worth doing is without risk. It’s wise to mitigate against risks, yes, of course, but, once you reach the point of diminishing returns, you’re a fool to continue to worry about risk.
b&
Wow, I’m amazed to see so many experts from the Department of State and CIA come here to Jerry’s web page and tell us about how the current vetting process is inadequate. Clearly that must be who whey are, because they cite numbers like 1 out of 1,000 let in being terrorists, tell us how the applicants are successfully faking Syrian visas, and that these applicants are animated to murder infidels.
Perhaps these gurus of the vetting process would be so good as to describe in detail what’s being done now, why its inadequate, and how we could improve it.
There is a need for some caution. This is a culture which has played havoc in Europe, and by ISIS own claim contains numerous agents. The news coming out of France supports this.
For a more level headed review of this
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/europe-muslims-paris-terrorism/416964/
One quote: ” It was often said during the Iraq War that we had to fight the terrorists over there lest we fight them over here. For Europe, the terrorists are already “over here”: They are among the children and grandchildren of the immigrants of the 1980s and 1990s, now endowed with the rights and liberties of citizens.?
The analogy with European Jews is not accurate, because culturally European Jews, as well as Mexicans, for that matter are FAR closer to our values than medieval Muslims.
LOL so your argument against letting in asylum seekers is that you think the next attack will be by natural born citizens, and these folks will eventually give birth to naturally born citizens?
Yes, but living in Europe and still dreaming to see Paris one day, I don’t get your LOL.
The LOL is because Jay’s argument argues against his position, not for it. His position is as ludicrous as “Hmm…McVeigh…better not let in any more Irish.”
Despicable; but I have to give my two states a shout out! Hurray for Washington (loved Insley’s statement) and Minnesota!
I live in Minnesota, spent about 20 years in Washington and we will eventually retire there.
Indeed! I’m proud to live in Washington; my representative voted to help the refugees. I wrote her earlier today and said “Thanks!”
You US-citizens have the Republicans, we Germans have the CSU (Christian Social Union in Bavaria). They are from the same brood.
I’m reminded that I need to research the history of the U.S. Chinese exclusion law(s), which I became aware of several years ago.
My late aunt, in evaluating the likelihood of some given something happening, was prone to utter “a Chinaman’s chance,” which I in my youthful naivete (sp.? Spellcheck [?] doesn’t recognize it)perceived to be her indulging in a bit of alliteration.
There seems to be a lot of back and forth about whether they’re safe or not. Let’s assume they’re not safe and over the next decade in various attacks they kill 1000 people. That would represent a 0.6% increase in our country’s murder rate and a 0.008% in preventable deaths. Not very dangerous.
If we’re going to worry that 1 of X refugees will be ISIL and wind up killing someone in the US, there should be a yardstick to measure that against.
May I suggest that the reference is the number of handguns sold in (say) the last 5yrs* vs. the number of murders by handgun last year.
*Since some will be committed using guns sold in previous years, of course. But a lot of these things are cheap and fail before long, so 5yrs seems a reasonable window.
Meanwhile, the six main Gulf countries have reportedly taken in zero refugees
.
As touched upon elsewhere, it could have something to do with the fact that the Syrian refugees would not want to live in any of these kingdoms.
A Kuwaiti official has already given a reason why they don’t accept any Syrian refugees (see the link above).
A tough one, no doubt. I raised the question of Muslim assimilabiLIty earlier (#12). While there have been a spoonful of anecdotal comments on this matter, there has been perhaps a total absence of hard evidence offered in this regard, either about the situation in Europe or in the U.S. This is more than a little bit queer.
I regret talking, and having talked, in a manner that assumes my audience includes no Muslims, as if it is we against them. But bricks and stones will break no bones.
Sorry. Meant words (like mine) will not break bones.
“That would represent a 0.6% increase in our country’s murder rate and a 0.008% in preventable deaths. Not very dangerous.”
I volunteer your family to get blown up.
What a rude person you are. In your other comments you defend the U.S. Chinese exclusion laws, so you’re a bigot, but the horrible comment above means that you’ll never post here again. Goodbye.
I would volunteer to take the same chance as everyone else. I’m okay with a 0.6% increase in my chance of being murdered and a 0.008% increase in my chance of avoidable death.
We make such decisions all the time – choosing whether to drive our families in a car, whether to sit and watch TV or go out and exercise together, and what foods to eat, and these likely have a much bigger effect on our personal chances of dying early than letting in Syrian refugees.
We also make such decisions at a societal level, for instance when we balance health & safety laws against potential for business profit.
I’m not saying “It’s not very dangerous so we have to let Syrians in.” I’m saying “Here are rough estimates of the risk, so we can make an informed decision as a society.”
Reblogged this on Fairy JerBear's Queer/Trans News, Views & More From The City Different – Santa Fe, NM and commented:
This post from last week pretty much covers my feelings about the anti-refugee hysteria that has seen some shameful reactions from many in this country.