Trump's 'Extreme Vetting' Is Legal

[jimnyc]

And I believe also common sense. Vet those coming from war torn places - Syria for example. If they cannot be vetted at all, then they don't come in through the doors. I said this from the beginning. It's not being "nice" or "American" to be stupid and let in potential terrorists. I "DO" agree though, it would be nice to set it up with congress and have everyone in agreement.

-----

Constitutional law scholar and Democrat Jonathan Turley on Wednesday said Donald Trump's proposed "extreme vetting" of Muslims entering the United States is perfectly legal and constitutional.

During an appearance on Fox News' "The Kelly File," Turley concluded Trump would be in the right to implement this sort of rule. Although it would be better to enact it with the help of Congress, he noted.

"A president's authority at the borders is really at its apex, it's at its greatest, highest level," Turley said. "And so, president Trump would be able, I think, to implement this type of change, preferably with Congress.

"Congress has given a great deal of authority, for example, in defining naturalization conditions and the president enforces those conditions. But there's no question that when you're talking about border entries, a president's given a lot of discretion. And also, people need to remember, we currently vet people coming into the country. So what he's suggesting is that she's going to take a closer look. That he'll be more demanding."

Turley said people can question whether Trump should undertake such a move, "but I don't think there's much question that he could do that."

Turley wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post about the subject on Tuesday, a day after Trump talked about his proposal.

"It's a debate worth having, and there are plenty of valid questions to be raised about his proposal," Turley wrote. "This is one occasion, however, when Trump may have the law on his side. As a general proposition, a litmus test for new immigrants isn't unconstitutional or even unprecedented. Indeed, Trump could cite an unlikely figure in support of the authority for such changes: President Obama."

Turley went on to cite Obama's executive actions on immigration as one reason why Trump would have precedence on his side if he wins the presidency in November and enacts his immigration proposal.

On Monday, Trump highlighted the risks to American security posed by the Islamic State (ISIS) and said, "our country has enough problems, we don't need more."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jonathan-turley-donald-trump-extreme-vetting/2016/08/17/id/744059/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And I believe also common sense. Vet those coming from war torn places - Syria for example. If they cannot be vetted at all, then they don't come in through the doors. I said this from the beginning. It's not being "nice" or "American" to be stupid and let in potential terrorists. I "DO" agree though, it would be nice to set it up with congress and have everyone in agreement.

-----

Constitutional law scholar and Democrat Jonathan Turley on Wednesday said Donald Trump's proposed "extreme vetting" of Muslims entering the United States is perfectly legal and constitutional.

During an appearance on Fox News' "The Kelly File," Turley concluded Trump would be in the right to implement this sort of rule. Although it would be better to enact it with the help of Congress, he noted.

"A president's authority at the borders is really at its apex, it's at its greatest, highest level," Turley said. "And so, president Trump would be able, I think, to implement this type of change, preferably with Congress.

"Congress has given a great deal of authority, for example, in defining naturalization conditions and the president enforces those conditions. But there's no question that when you're talking about border entries, a president's given a lot of discretion. And also, people need to remember, we currently vet people coming into the country. So what he's suggesting is that she's going to take a closer look. That he'll be more demanding."

Turley said people can question whether Trump should undertake such a move, "but I don't think there's much question that he could do that."

Turley wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post about the subject on Tuesday, a day after Trump talked about his proposal.

"It's a debate worth having, and there are plenty of valid questions to be raised about his proposal," Turley wrote. "This is one occasion, however, when Trump may have the law on his side. As a general proposition, a litmus test for new immigrants isn't unconstitutional or even unprecedented. Indeed, Trump could cite an unlikely figure in support of the authority for such changes: President Obama."

Turley went on to cite Obama's executive actions on immigration as one reason why Trump would have precedence on his side if he wins the presidency in November and enacts his immigration proposal.

On Monday, Trump highlighted the risks to American security posed by the Islamic State (ISIS) and said, "our country has enough problems, we don't need more."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jonathan-turley-donald-trump-extreme-vetting/2016/08/17/id/744059/

Dems, libs, media will still blast Trump regardless of what top Constitutonal expert explains its legal..
Truth does not matter, with these totally dishonorable sumbiatches/vermin. Fact-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Dems, libs, media will still blast Trump regardless of what top Constitutonal expert explains its legal..
Truth does not matter, with these totally dishonorable sumbiatches/vermin. Fact-Tyr

That's why I would 'prefer' if congress were to get on-board. Fact is, this IS protecting our country. Other places have been hit from this very scenario, and we would be naive if we didn't try to vet these folks as much as humanly possible, and protect our citizens as much as humanly possible. It's about time that OUR country and OUR interests come first.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's why I would 'prefer' if congress were to get on-board. Fact is, this IS protecting our country. Other places have been hit from this very scenario, and we would be naive if we didn't try to vet these folks as much as humanly possible, and protect our citizens as much as humanly possible. It's about time that OUR country and OUR interests come first.


It's about time that OUR country and OUR interests come first.
^^^That is called patriotism my friend and its been vilified for well over decade now, hard and heavy by the dem party, media, libs and other assorted scum.
Sure, people like us that aren't blinded by propaganda and a complete lack of understanding about survival (ours and this nation) see the importance--yet others see only their own selfish goals... Failing to see far enough to find that such will lead to fall of this nation and quite likely their early deaths.
Such abject blindness, stupidity and selfishness maddens me to no end..
Would be best if those morons did not survive but that would more than likely mean we perish along with them , as this ship keeps us all afloat..
Al this stupidity has been the harvest that the libs/leftists/media have engineered for at least 4 decades now by way of Public Education System, corruption and Unconstitutional Federal intervention to achieve that breakdown.
The blind masses following along and voting in these vermin are not as responsible as are the leaders that know what they are doing to this nation(treason) yet plan on never facing justice for their actions.
Those are the people that desperately need justice delivered unto their stinking sorry asses and 90% of that group are ffing dems.
Dem party is by far the greatest enemy of this nation that exists.. -Tyr

[Gunny]

^^^That is called patriotism my friend and its been vilified for well over decade now, hard and heavy by the dem party, media, libs and other assorted scum.
Sure, people like us that aren't blinded by propaganda and a complete lack of understanding about survival (ours and this nation) see the importance--yet others see only their own selfish goals... Failing to see far enough to find that such will lead to fall of this nation and quite likely their early deaths.
Such abject blindness, stupidity and selfishness maddens me to no end..
Would be best if those morons did not survive but that would more than likely mean we perish along with them , as this ship keeps us all afloat..
Al this stupidity has been the harvest that the libs/leftists/media have engineered for at least 4 decades now by way of Public Education System, corruption and Unconstitutional Federal intervention to achieve that breakdown.
The blind masses following along and voting in these vermin are not as responsible as are the leaders that know what they are doing to this nation(treason) yet plan on never facing justice for their actions.
Those are the people that desperately need justice delivered unto their stinking sorry asses and 90% of that group are ffing dems.
Dem party is by far the greatest enemy of this nation that exists.. -Tyr

They're Arabs. They cowards who want someone else to fight their battles while they spread like the plague all over Europe and the US. Sink their boats. I could care less who they worship. If they're so staunch in their belief in that Allah f*cker, then stand and fight.

I hate p*ssies.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They're Arabs. They cowards who want someone else to fight their battles while they spread like the plague all over Europe and the US. Sink their boats. I could care less who they worship. If they're so staunch in their belief in that Allah f*cker, then stand and fight.

I hate p*ssies.

Deceit and treachery are the devil's handmaidens my friend.
That is why the muslim bastards excel at it. They serve Lucifer.
Their pure hatred for all not Islamic and commitment to murdering innocent women and children first proves that truth.
Such vile creatures are by nature craven cowards..-Tyr

[revelarts]

Hard for me to get pass this part of Turly's quote.
"This is one occasion, however, when Trump may have the law on his side...."
But Ok lets skip the fact that a lot of the crap the Trump proposes is Illegal and/or unconstitutional.
I'll give Trump the benny of the doubt on this proposal.
But i'm still not sure what he means by "EXTREME" did he ever say exactly what he means?
Seems to me that, OK we have a screening process for people that want to become citizens and those that want to visit the U.S. with Visas of various sorts.
But before Trump was talking about keeping Illegals out with a wall and that's sorta changed.
next he was talking about keeping out ALL Muslims sorta kinda, but that's changed to... no one can say what.
NOW he saying "extreme vetting" so what is that?
Is he saying that we need to make sure the laws and actions already on the books are followed to the letter. I'm all for that!
I suspect that if they were followed and staffed properly that that would go a long way without much else.
Same with illegal immigration.

But I'm reminded here of the former U.S. State Dept. VISA head in Juddah Saudi Arabia, J. Michael Springmannaccount of the VISAs handed out willy nilly to muslims men to get into the US for military training. Springmann's bosses forcing him to approve VISAs he would not have otherwise during the late 80s under Reagan. He protested what he saw as a problem but basically was force to comply and then moved to another post. And the VISAs for Muslim men from all over the M.E. continued without his complaints and questions. Come to find out that15 of the 19 911 hijackers got ViSAs from the consulate in Jedda. He found out that the CIA was behind the pressure he got to GRANT the VISAs because they wanted to train terrorist for the war in Afghanistan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6YHij-aCU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSebMjd50u0
#405 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?3231-What-book-are-you-reading-now&p=769911#post769911)
https://www.amazon.com/Visas-Al-Qaeda-Handouts-Insiders/dp/0990926206/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471696799&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=visas+for+terrorist+springmann
He said there's NO WAY that those Muslim men he was pressured to approve could have gotten VISAs by any honest legal VISAs process.

[Kathianne]

I too don't understand the 'extreme vetting.' I would guess though that any laws passed by our Congress need to apply equally to all. Thus if there's some sort of 'test,' to be implemented, it would need to apply to all that would be seeking whichever visas would be covered?


The US has two problems regarding illegal aliens:

1. unlawful entry through the borders-mostly Southern border, but also through West coast for 'Asians.'

2. lawful entry, with visas. Unlawfully overstaying those visas

I'm with Rev that our laws really are likely good enough, the problem would be enforcement. Those breaking the law need the consequences greater to enforce compliance.

[jimnyc]

I too don't understand the 'extreme vetting.'

My opinion, would be hopefully using the laws on the books, a LOT more than used now, which seems to be next to nothing. Then when it comes to war torn countries, whether a brown person or white, vet them as if they were OBL himself. If they cannot be vetted - then they don't get in.

[revelarts]

And here's something else that comes to mind. maybe some of the vets here can clarify this or straiten me out here if i'm wrong.

Ok, we really haven't had very many muslim attacks here in the U.S. so most of this that Trump is talking about is preventative.
Walls, "extreme vetting", blocking "all" muslims from the U.S. until we "figure it out", even off the cuff suggestions of making list of U.S. Muslims and blanket spying on mosque in the U.S.. (torturing-killing terrorist family members) The the effectiveness, morality and legalities of all are questionable to varying degrees.

But we've had at least ONE Muslim inspired terror attack where the shooter was a member of the U.S. Military.
Now ...correct me if am wrong... can't the President Order EXTREME vetting and scrutiny/investigation of ALL U.S. muslims soldiers WITHOUT any legal repercussions? Can you single out groups simply because military have little rights to privacy per se while in uniform.
If there is a discrimination Issue couldn't the order just be made Blanket to "EXTREMELY VET" ALL current U.S. military?
To make sure they aren't very real potential terrorist?
If some military personnel are found to have clear terrorist or treasonist intent/beliefs can't the Military dismiss that person, put them on trial or something?
Seems at the very least they would pass the names on to the FBI etc and have MPs and DIA tracking their own that are clearly suspicious.

[Kathianne]

My opinion, would be hopefully using the laws on the books, a LOT more than used now, which seems to be next to nothing. Then when it comes to war torn countries, whether a brown person or white, vet them as if they were OBL himself. If they cannot be vetted - then they don't get in.

I may be wrong, but seems like our laws have to be carried out across the board, no 'targeting.' All who are applying for visas should undergo the same vetting. If there's reasons for making the whole process more cumbersome, then it should be done-but across the board.

[jimnyc]

I may be wrong, but seems like our laws have to be carried out across the board, no 'targeting.' All who are applying for visas should undergo the same vetting. If there's reasons for making the whole process more cumbersome, then it should be done-but across the board.

I think those coming from war torn countries need to be vetted even more, where yes, EVERYONE needs to be vetted properly. I think illegals coming across the border need to be handled properly, and follow our laws for those who are caught - but I think we should 'target' the Mexican border more so than we need to target the Canadian border. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to keep a little bit of a keener eye at those coming in from Syria than those coming from Italy, for example.

To me, not much different than cruising the lower east side of NYC near Tompkins Square Park or the Village. Yes, the laws need to be enforced equally to each and every person. But if a cop is driving down the road, and sees a 60 year old couple holding hands while walking up the road - and what appears to be a pair of gang bangers on the other side, wearing the colors of a local gang known for being in the drug or gun business - I think they SHOULD target those folks, and not the other couple.

[Kathianne]

The borders should face the same enforcement rules. Where there's problems, i.e., Southern border, more resources need to be applied. Same with the West Coast illegal entries from Asia-which gets very little coverage. For the most part these illegals are costly regarding economics and crime against individuals.

The problems with the visas seem in numbers anyways, to be more serious regarding terrorism. Couple that with little vetting for European visitor visas and the huge numbers of 'Asians' coming from there. That is why 'targeting war zones' won't necessarily have the effect that is readily hoped for. Terrorists are terrorists.

Not for one moment should the above be interpreted to mean I don't think there are serious problems with both illegal border crossing or with visas, there are. The issues are complex though, as the vast majority of those using a visa really are here for visiting, business, etc. They spend billions here while they are here legally.

Like trade, when suddenly a country decides that new rules or serious enforcement is going to apply to previously unenforced laws, there will be backlash. Ask the Brits how non-enforcement led to problems with the colonies. Not many Americans are looking for there winter vacation in Syria or Iran, but many do look to France, Italy, etc., countries that issue visas to many of their citizens, citizens that have ties to Syria and other war torn countries.

[jimnyc]

I've always said about policing, for example, that we should take and assess each situation on a one by one basis. Similar here but on a larger scale - they should 'attack' the problem where the problem exists. Of course we go after incoming folks from war torn countries, as it would appear that around the world, the terrorism/terrorists, appear to be coming from such countries. So maybe not attack "syrians", but certainly folks from countries in war. Personally, I have no issue with vetting every single incoming person, and that would even more ensure safety on our soil.

[Kathianne]

I've always said about policing, for example, that we should take and assess each situation on a one by one basis. Similar here but on a larger scale - they should 'attack' the problem where the problem exists. Of course we go after incoming folks from war torn countries, as it would appear that around the world, the terrorism/terrorists, appear to be coming from such countries. So maybe not attack "syrians", but certainly folks from countries in war. Personally, I have no issue with vetting every single incoming person, and that would even more ensure safety on our soil.

While thanks to Obama we already have tens of thousands of light/no vetted folks here from said 'war torn' countries; Europe has millions, many of which are likely terror bound. If they have 'official terror connections' they would have the means to apply and be granted the visas here from the host countries. That is a serious problem with selective/extreme enforcement.

[jimnyc]

While thanks to Obama we already have tens of thousands of light/no vetted folks here from said 'war torn' countries; Europe has millions, many of which are likely terror bound. If they have 'official terror connections' they would have the means to apply and be granted the visas here from the host countries. That is a serious problem with selective/extreme enforcement.

And Hillary wants a HUGE increase - something from like 10,000 - 65,000.

[Kathianne]

And Hillary wants a HUGE increase - something from like 10,000 - 65,000.

Indeed.

[NightTrain]

I think the huge problem we have with immigration is the non-enforcement of the existing laws already on the books. That isn't happening and ICE has confirmed it dozens of times. Catch and release illegals? Sanctuary cities? This is madness.

Trump is talking about the insane policy of taking thousands of unknowns from terrorist-riddled countries and scattering groups of them all over the USA. No one with an ounce of sense thinks that's a good idea on any level, unless you're one of the terrorists.

This is just common sense. How the hell can you vet anyone from Syria? That government is fighting for its life and there are no functioning social departments working. So how can anyone say that the piece of paper saying 'Mohammed Jihad Blowyourassup' is a worthy candidate for immigration? You can't. Therefore, that person would be rejected because there is NO WAY to do a background check on him, even if he promises that he's not a terrorist. Really, that's all the vetting you can do - ask them questions without doing any real investigative work because there is no one on the other side to confirm or deny his answers.

So, since you cannot vet anyone from Syria at this time, no one from Syria gets in. We can't vet you.

I'm very comfy with the whole idea.

[jimnyc]

So how can anyone say that the piece of paper saying 'Mohammed Jihad Blowyourassup' is a worthy candidate for immigration?

Not sure if I ever mentioned this on here before, but I'm sure I did.... A guy I know down the road - his name is Jihad!! Ok, I lie, it's actually "Jehad" - <--- probably thought if he changed a letter that we wouldn't notice? :lol:

[Elessar]

That's why I would 'prefer' if congress were to get on-board. Fact is, this IS protecting our country. Other places have been hit from this very scenario, and we would be naive if we didn't try to vet these folks as much as humanly possible, and protect our citizens as much as humanly possible. It's about time that OUR country and OUR interests come first.

I am a little late on this topic, I know.
Such in depth and serious vetting has happened in the past. During the mid 1980's
when shiploads of Chinese were headed to the West Coast, they were intercepted
and kept offshore just outside of Mexican waters. Teams of State Dept and Customs
went on board and interviewed the dozens, and in two cases, hundreds. The ones that
had valid reasons to escape were kept. The ones that did not were taken ashore by
the Mexicans, loaded onto aircraft, and flown back to China.

One smaller load of about 80 did land in Los Angeles harbor, but the landing point was right on
Federal Property, where USCG Support Center San Pedro, Terminal Island Federal Prison,
and Terminal Island Customs Holding Center are located. They did not get far at all and
were returned to China.

[Gunny]

I too don't understand the 'extreme vetting.' I would guess though that any laws passed by our Congress need to apply equally to all. Thus if there's some sort of 'test,' to be implemented, it would need to apply to all that would be seeking whichever visas would be covered?


The US has two problems regarding illegal aliens:

1. unlawful entry through the borders-mostly Southern border, but also through West coast for 'Asians.'

2. lawful entry, with visas. Unlawfully overstaying those visas

I'm with Rev that our laws really are likely good enough, the problem would be enforcement. Those breaking the law need the consequences greater to enforce compliance.

First, I've been a long-time proponent of not letting anyone in anymore. When we can take care of what we have, then maybe.

As far a "extreme vetting" goes, look at the crap we legal citizens go through. You need an ID for everything anymore. Better have a birth certificate to get that ID. And that's just with civilians. Try getting a TS security clearance. They talk to your elementary school teachers, wife, kids, childhood friends ...

So what makes these illegals, refugees or whatever you want to call them above the laws that suck the life out of the rest of us? Try walking down the street at 2AM without an ID in TX. You're going to jail. Here in NM, I have to have an ID to use my CC.

I DO agree with enforcing the laws we have. We don't need new laws. We need new people that concern themselves with their duties instead of their political futures.

[Elessar]

And here's something else that comes to mind. maybe some of the vets here can clarify this or straiten me out here if i'm wrong.

But we've had at least ONE Muslim inspired terror attack where the shooter was a member of the U.S. Military.
Now ...correct me if am wrong... can't the President Order EXTREME vetting and scrutiny/investigation of ALL U.S. muslims soldiers WITHOUT any legal repercussions? Can you single out groups simply because military have little rights to privacy per se while in uniform.
If there is a discrimination Issue couldn't the order just be made Blanket to "EXTREMELY VET" ALL current U.S. military?
To make sure they aren't very real potential terrorist?
If some military personnel are found to have clear terrorist or treasonist intent/beliefs can't the Military dismiss that person, put them on trial or something?
Seems at the very least they would pass the names on to the FBI etc and have MPs and DIA tracking their own that are clearly suspicious.

Snipped a little for brevity.

You pose a good question. The military branches really frown on discrimination due to ethnicity, religion, gender,
or political orientation.
That being said, however, if a member or group starts to expose extremist behavior, they should most
certainly observe and investigate. It has been done, but just not get the headlines. Each Branch has it's own
investigation arm, and can reach out to other agencies such as FBI, FCC, NSA, and DIA.

Yes, they can be taken to Courts Martial if enough evidence is built to proceed in that direction.

I certainly agree with all above in enforcing the laws we have now. Adding to them as a knee-jerk
will just muddy the waters too much more.

[Gunny]

Snipped a little for brevity.

You pose a good question. The military branches really frown on discrimination due to ethnicity, religion, gender,
or political orientation.
That being said, however, if a member or group starts to expose extremist behavior, they should most
certainly observe and investigate. It has been done, but just not get the headlines. Each Branch has it's own
investigation arm, and can reach out to other agencies such as FBI, FCC, NSA, and DIA.

Yes, they can be taken to Courts Martial if enough evidence is built to proceed in that direction.

I certainly agree with all above in enforcing the laws we have now. Adding to them as a knee-jerk
will just muddy the waters too much more.

Mine was by NIS (now NCIS). Know how you can spot an NIS agent? They belong on Dragnet. They ain't anywhere near as cool in RL as on TV. Off the rack, ill-fitting suits and a crappy little car. :laugh2:

It's like every-damned-one is in uniform on the base goofs. And there's only one road in the 21 Area at CamPen. We can see you coming. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Know how you can spot an NIS agent?

Depends, if one looks like Ziva, I'd spot her about 10 miles away!

[fj1200]

My opinion, would be hopefully using the laws on the books, a LOT more than used now, which seems to be next to nothing. Then when it comes to war torn countries, whether a brown person or white, vet them as if they were OBL himself. If they cannot be vetted - then they don't get in.


While thanks to Obama we already have tens of thousands of light/no vetted folks here from said 'war torn' countries; Europe has millions, many of which are likely terror bound. If they have 'official terror connections' they would have the means to apply and be granted the visas here from the host countries. That is a serious problem with selective/extreme enforcement.

How are we not vetting?

How the Refugee Vetting Process Works (http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/12/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works)

...

In addition, the refugee process requires a security advisory opinion to be completed by the FBI and the intelligence community on many refugee applicants who are considered higher risk. Similarly, interagency checks are constantly being done in connection with a wide range of U.S. agencies.In additional to these background checks, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducts a refugee interview. These interviews cover everything from refugee and immigration matters to security and country specific questions.
For example, Syrian refugee officers must undergo a one week training course on Syria-specific issues, including classified information. Additional scrutiny is already being applied to Syrians through the enhanced review for Syrian applicants process that puts additional security and intelligence resources at the disposal of adjudicators.
Only at this point can an application be approved. For those that are approved, health screenings and orientations begin. The State Department and Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services work with voluntary resettlement agencies to arrange for resettlement services and assistance.
After an average of 12-18 months, this process ends with entry into the U.S. According to the Department of Homeland Security, of the approximately 23,000 Syrian referrals made by the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees to the U.S., only about 2,000 have been accepted. The U.S. refugee system can be, should be, and is being picky at who we allow to enter the U.S. as a refugee.

[jimnyc]

Flashback: FBI – No Way To Vet Incoming Syrian Refugees

WASHINGTON — The FBI does not have a way to properly vet incoming Syrian refugees and the Federal Bureau of Investigation said so at a House Homeland Security committee hearing in February.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) told committee members that an intelligence gap exists about terrorists who joined the fight in the civil war happening in Syria and that more than 20,000 foreign fighters have joined the conflict.

“We don’t have it under control,” Mr. Michael Steinback, Assistant Director for the FBI told the committee. “Absolutely, we’re doing the best we can. If I were to say that we had it under control, then I would say I know of every single individual traveling. I don’t. And I don’t know every person there and I don’t know everyone coming back. So it’s not even close to being under control.”

Members also asked about the Obama administration’s proposal to accept thousands of Syrian refugees into the United States by the end of 2016 through an expedited refugee program.

Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the Homeland Security committee, asked if the agencies present concurred that “bringing in Syrian refugees pose a greater risk to Americans?”

“Yes, I’m concerned,” said Steinback. “We’ll have to go take a look at those lists and go through all of those intelligence holdings and be very careful to try and identify connections to foreign terrorist groups.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/11/flashback-fbi-no-way-to-vet-incoming-syrian-refugees-video/

[Kathianne]

Yep, what Jim posted is one of where one would assume 'vetting' would take place. Impossible to use the normal vetting on people who don't have, can't be expected to have all their papers if true refugees.

Similar problem, though unacknowledged are those from ally countries, that have allowed many undocumented aliens into their own country and have given some documents to allow them to travel on the new countries visas. That is really problematic, as if they are funded by groups, they are now given cover to enter here from 'friendly countries.'

[Elessar]

The big problem in this scenario is that once they touch U.S. soil,
they are ours.

Vetting has to be attempted overseas at a neutral site.

[fj1200]

Yep, what Jim posted is one of where one would assume 'vetting' would take place. Impossible to use the normal vetting on people who don't have, can't be expected to have all their papers if true refugees.

Similar problem, though unacknowledged are those from ally countries, that have allowed many undocumented aliens into their own country and have given some documents to allow them to travel on the new countries visas. That is really problematic, as if they are funded by groups, they are now given cover to enter here from 'friendly countries.'

But we are vetting refugees to the extent possible. And the vetting doesn't appear to just be looking at papers. The question of course is what does "extreme" add to the process?


The big problem in this scenario is that once they touch U.S. soil,
they are ours.

Vetting has to be attempted overseas at a neutral site.


After an average of 12-18 months, this process ends with entry into the U.S. According to the Department of Homeland Security, of the approximately 23,000 Syrian referrals made by the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees to the U.S., only about 2,000 have been accepted. The U.S. refugee system can be, should be, and is being picky at who we allow to enter the U.S. as a refugee.

:dunno:

[NightTrain]

But we are vetting refugees to the extent possible. And the vetting doesn't appear to just be looking at papers. The question of course is what does "extreme" add to the process?





:dunno:


We are not vetting. That's the problem.

When the originating countries get their shit together and can participate in legitimate vetting, then we'll talk.

[fj1200]

We are not vetting. That's the problem.

When the originating countries get their shit together and can participate in legitimate vetting, then we'll talk.

I posted a link that says we are vetting. Was the Heritage poster confused?

[NightTrain]

I posted a link that says we are vetting. Was the Heritage poster confused?


Tell me, FJ, how is it possible that any vetting is done for Syrian refugees?

I don't need a BS link; use your logic and answer the question.

[fj1200]

Tell me, FJ, how is it possible that any vetting is done for Syrian refugees?

I don't need a BS link; use your logic and answer the question.

You dispute that they have a vetting process? One thing the government has is massive databases with many government agencies and an outsized ability to make redundant bureaucracies that do a wonderful job in slowing down progress. In the case of keeping out potentially dangerous refugees that will actually work in our favor. If you would like some specific databases, processes, and interview topics; I posted a link. :)

[NightTrain]

You dispute that they have a vetting process? One thing the government has is massive databases with many government agencies and an outsized ability to make redundant bureaucracies that do a wonderful job in slowing down progress. In the case of keeping out potentially dangerous refugees that will actually work in our favor. If you would like some specific databases, processes, and interview topics; I posted a link. :)


So, you think that in the midst of a civil war with Russia doing their heavy lifting on the battlefield, in the midst of war torn cities getting bombed by both sides and half the country in the hands of rebels - that there is any kind of functioning social government departments on Syria's end?

Really?

[fj1200]

So, you think that in the midst of a civil war with Russia doing their heavy lifting on the battlefield, in the midst of war torn cities getting bombed by both sides and half the country in the hands of rebels - that there is any kind of functioning social government departments on Syria's end?

Really?

I didn't say it was perfect. I didn't say that there weren't holes. I didn't say that we couldn't do better. I said we were vetting to the extent possible.

[NightTrain]

I didn't say it was perfect. I didn't say that there weren't holes. I didn't say that we couldn't do better. I said we were vetting to the extent possible.


It's not vetting.

Just because Obama & Crew says they're vetted doesn't make it so.

Completing step 1 out of 100 doesn't complete the process. Taking the air cleaner off your carb didn't rebuild it.

[fj1200]

It's not vetting.

Just because Obama & Crew says they're vetted doesn't make it so.

Completing step 1 out of 100 doesn't complete the process. Taking the air cleaner off your carb didn't rebuild it.

OK then. :rolleyes:

[NightTrain]

OK then. :rolleyes:


Not cool, FJ.

I've always admitted promptly and publicly when I've been wrong and you were right.

You're wrong here, and you know it.

[Little-Acorn]

I didn't say it was perfect. I didn't say that there weren't holes. I didn't say that we couldn't do better. I said we were vetting to the extent possible.

TRANSLATION: We're not vetting.

[fj1200]

Not cool, FJ.

I've always admitted promptly and publicly when I've been wrong and you were right.

You're wrong here, and you know it.

How am I wrong? They're vetting. I have a friend that works at a resettlement agency around here and she explained some of the process that goes into admitting refugees that starts with the UN that makes recommendations to the US at which point the US does our process. At some point things come down to things that are true and things that are not true. We have a vetting process; I think I've shown it. Can it be improved? I can agree with that.

[fj1200]

TRANSLATION: We're not vetting.


OK then. :rolleyes:

:dunno:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's not vetting.

Just because Obama & Crew says they're vetted doesn't make it so.

Completing step 1 out of 100 doesn't complete the process. Taking the air cleaner off your carb didn't rebuild it.

Those that support the monster (obama), either believe the lies or else they pretend to believe those obvious lies , in order to defend that traitorous piece of shit..
In either case, those millions doing so are themselves turds floating in the same sewers IMHO.
Worthy of the same condemnation and utter contempt as the obama deserves....-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So, you think that in the midst of a civil war with Russia doing their heavy lifting on the battlefield, in the midst of war torn cities getting bombed by both sides and half the country in the hands of rebels - that there is any kind of functioning social government departments on Syria's end?

Really?

There has been no vetting to insure the safety of this nation in the process of bringing in those muslims.
Instead, more than likely , its just the opposite, obama and crew are making damn sure that hardcore muzzies are the ones allowed in.
We have ample proof that they have made sure that very, very few Christians from those areas are allowed in by way of this supposedly humanitarian effort.
Whereas that alone, points to what exactly type obama wants shipped in (hardcore, death loving, sharia desiring muzzies)!!!!!! -Tyr

[NightTrain]

How am I wrong? They're vetting. I have a friend that works at a resettlement agency around here and she explained some of the process that goes into admitting refugees that starts with the UN that makes recommendations to the US at which point the US does our process. At some point things come down to things that are true and things that are not true. We have a vetting process; I think I've shown it. Can it be improved? I can agree with that.


Being obtuse isn't helping you here.

IF there is NO FUNCTIONING AGENCY in Syria to work with our investigators to do background checks on the thousands of muslims clamoring to get in, then they ARE NOT VETTED.

Partially vetted? Yes.

Vetted? No.

[revelarts]

Seems it's time for a definition.

vetting (ˈvɛtɪŋ) nchiefly Brit the act of making a prior examination and critical appraisal of (a person, document, scheme, etc)



OK so they ARE in fact vetting, just not doing it as thoroughly as they should ... or as many would like or expect.... in some cases.

[NightTrain]

Seems it's time for a definition.

vetting (ˈvɛtɪŋ) n

chiefly Brit the act of making a prior examination and critical appraisal of (a person, document, scheme, etc)



OK so they ARE in fact vetting, just not doing it as thoroughly as they should ... or as many would like or expect.... in some cases.


I see.

So, Rev, you think that having no one in Syria do background investigation is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

A filled out questionaire by an unknown refugee is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

Mohammad promising that he's not a terrorist or otherwise a radical muslim is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

[Gunny]

I see.

So, Rev, you think that having no one in Syria do background investigation is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

A filled out questionaire by an unknown refugee is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

Mohammad promising that he's not a terrorist or otherwise a radical muslim is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

There is no vetting in the Middle East and no way to do it. You can be born, live and die over there and none ever even know you existed.

Other problem is in every country where the radicals have taken over the governments, they can crank out all the fake IDs they want to. Being vetted by ISIS, Iran, Yemen -- real promising. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Being obtuse isn't helping you here.

IF there is NO FUNCTIONING AGENCY in Syria to work with our investigators to do background checks on the thousands of muslims clamoring to get in, then they ARE NOT VETTED.

Partially vetted? Yes.

Vetted? No.

Who is being obtuse? They are being vetted. The question remains is how well they are being vetted?

[NightTrain]

Who is being obtuse? They are being vetted. The question remains is how well they are being vetted?


You are.

They are NOT being vetted.

The semantics grows tiresome. If & when you next pinch me, you can expect the same courtesy you've shown me. I can play your word games just as well as you can - I've chosen not to out of respect.

Ciao.

[NightTrain]

There is no vetting in the Middle East and no way to do it. You can be born, live and die over there and none ever even know you existed.

Other problem is in every country where the radicals have taken over the governments, they can crank out all the fake IDs they want to. Being vetted by ISIS, Iran, Yemen -- real promising. :rolleyes:


Right. If indeed there is even a facade of a functioning government.

[Gunny]

Right. If indeed there is even a facade of a functioning government.

I don't get just how stupid people can be. I lived in Miami when Castro opened his jail doors and the Cuban Refugee Crisis. They ruined Tamiami Park for us by turning it into a refugee camp. We used to go play football and have a few brews on Sundays there.

This is worse, IMO. We're just going to give a free pass to a bunch of people that even understand our ideals? And they don't care. They will tell you want to hear.

[revelarts]

I see.
So, Rev, you think that having no one in Syria do background investigation is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?
A filled out questionaire by an unknown refugee is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?
Mohammad promising that he's not a terrorist or otherwise a radical muslim is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

Is that what i said?

[NightTrain]

Is that what i said?

Yes.


OK so they ARE in fact vetting, just not doing it as thoroughly as they should ... or as many would like or expect.... in some cases.

It appears to me that as long as someone can scrawl an 'X' where the signature goes on an immigration form, you and FJ are completely on board with the applicant being vetted.

Let 'em in, boys! They're one of ours!

[Abbey Marie]

I see.

So, Rev, you think that having no one in Syria do background investigation is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

A filled out questionaire by an unknown refugee is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

Mohammad promising that he's not a terrorist or otherwise a radical muslim is a "Prior Examination and Critical Appraisal"?

Hey, as long as they use the word "vetting", who cares what they actually do, right?

[Gunny]

Yes.




[/B]It appears to me that as long as someone can scrawl an 'X' where the signature goes on an immigration form, you and FJ are completely on board with the applicant being vetted.

Let 'em in, boys! They're one of ours!

I ain't playing with no Arabs, bubba. I'm shooting first. Don't move into my neighborhood nor get anywhere near me. You even look like you might be thinking of being a threat and you're going to see if I still have Expert range skills.

I hate the filthy little bastards and I hate cowards. They're duplicitous as Hell. I'd turn my back on a snake first.

[NightTrain]

I ain't playing with no Arabs, bubba. I'm shooting first. Don't move into my neighborhood nor get anywhere near me. You even look like you might be thinking of being a threat and you're going to see if I still have Expert range skills.

I hate the filthy little bastards and I hate cowards. They're duplicitous as Hell. I'd turn my back on a snake first.


You'll be fine. They signed a piece of paper saying they're not terrorists.

And that's good enough, apparently.

[sundaydriver]

I just watched a newscast showing some of the government building in Aleppo, Syria. A local showing the news people around was lamenting the fact that all records had been destroyed and when things get better people will be unable to prove property ownership, let alone any other official information. This will make the vetting problem for Syrian refuges being based on their word only because sure as hell Assad ain't gonna vouch for them. "Ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies".

[fj1200]

You are.

They are NOT being vetted.

The semantics grows tiresome. If & when you next pinch me, you can expect the same courtesy you've shown me. I can play your word games just as well as you can - I've chosen not to out of respect.

Ciao.

:rolleyes: I have learned that the first person to mention semantics generally doesn't know what it means. I posted a link from a reputable conservative source to show that they do in fact engage in vetting refugees and you keep repeating that the vetting process really isn't a vetting process. You may not think that they're doing enough or you may not think they should do it at all but the fact is that there is a vetting process.


It appears to me that as long as someone can scrawl an 'X' where the signature goes on an immigration form, you and FJ are completely on board with the applicant being vetted.

Let 'em in, boys! They're one of ours!

Why don't you go ahead and point out where I said that.

[fj1200]

I just watched a newscast showing some of the government building in Aleppo, Syria. A local showing the news people around was lamenting the fact that all records had been destroyed and when things get better people will be unable to prove property ownership, let alone any other official information. This will make the vetting problem for Syrian refuges being based on their word only because sure as hell Assad ain't gonna vouch for them. "Ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies".

I would be surprised if we got much help from any home country government when it comes to refugees.

[fj1200]

Hey, as long as they use the word "vetting", who cares what they actually do, right?

We all care plus I assume State, DoD, FBI, DHS, etc. care about their jobs. :unsure:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Lying U.S. government and its allies that lie to defend its so-called vetting process.-TYR



Trudeau’s “Syrian” passport corroborates reports of fake documents used by “refugees”

Posted by: Jonathan D. Halevi June 9, 2016

CIJnews handed over to the Canadian authorities a Syrian passport with name of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau printed on it. The passport, believed to have been created from a genuine Syrian government issues blank, corroborates the reports and rumors on a counterfeiting industry of Syrian passports and serves as a highly valuable document for enhancing the vetting security process.



A Syrian national who fled his country to Europe has recently told CIJnews that acquiring an original Syrian passport is easy, as well as other official documents like driving license and university certificates. “It is all question of money,” he explained. “It is possible within a week to arrange a passport.”

He added that Turkey serves as a hub for radical Islamic groups for arranging the arrival of Western volunteers for the Islamic State (a.k.a IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh and Caliphate) and other militias operating in Syria.

The contact between the volunteers and their recruiters is done through family members, friends and Facebook and Twitter accounts which are known as affiliated with the Islamic State.

The source, who himself was an operative of a jihadist group in Syria, also said that the Islamic State instructed its operatives to resettle in Europe after undergoing semi-military training in the City of al-Raqqah, Syria. These operatives traveled to Europe via Turkey and Greece.

Another Syrian source told CIJnews that former Allawite officers of the Syrian army arrived in Canada as refugees. According to the source, Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon help them to acquire official documents with a new identity. CIJnews cannot independently verify this information.

Harald Doornbos, a journalist based in Syria and works for the Dutch Nieuwe Revu magazine, bought in September 2015 a fake Syrian passport with the picture of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands printed on it.

Doornbos said that anyone, including jihadists and Syrians who have committed crimes against humanity, can easily do the same and apply for refugee status in Europe with a forges identity.

Voor 't eerst bewijs dat je vals Syriepaspoort **** kopen: Voor $825 kocht ik in N-Syrie paspoort+ID voor Mark Rutte. pic.twitter.com/A1WxOrEWH1

— Harald Doornbos (@HaraldDoornbos) September 16, 2015

Syrian Intelligence databases seized by the rebel forces while ransacking military headquarters during the almost 5 year civil war, demonstrate the severity of the security risk.

One of these databases contains detailed information on around 130,000 Syrians, of whom thousands are described as “armed militants” and many others as operatives in rebel groups, including the radical Islamist organizations or involved in violent activities.

Other databases provide intelligence troves on thousands of Syrian operatives who were deemed by the regime as militiamen and terrorists. CIJnews obtained several of these databases.

The Syrian rebel groups also posted detailed lists of Assad regime’s officers, soldiers and operatives who allegedly committed, took part or abetted war crimes during the civil war. Names and pictures of alleged Syrian war criminals were posted on a Facebook group dubbed “Criminals, Not Refugees”. The pictures were taken in Syria and western countries were these alleged “criminals” found refuge.

Tom Quiggin, a member of the Terrorism and Security Experts of Canada Network (TSEC) and author of an explosive “The Counter Jihad Report”, told CIJnews that “Real Syrian passports and other official documents have been fraudulently obtainable since at least the early 1990s. The documents are usually real, but the information in them is whatever the purchaser requests. Part of this system w..............



MORE AT LINK...-TYR

[Kathianne]

Is this the link? I'm missing it if it's there:

http://en.cijnews.com/?p=39492

[Elessar]

It would appear that some have ignored what I already said in simple terms and
would prefer to drag out some complex items that do not answer the issue. Why
do you think the USCG and NATO vessels apprehended the Cubans (Mariel Boat Lift),
and those from Trinidad AT SEA and took them back? Once they are on U.S. 'soil',
be that land mass, pier, wharf, jetty, or island - WE OWN them.


I am a little late on this topic, I know.
Such in depth and serious vetting has happened in the past. During the mid 1980's
when shiploads of Chinese were headed to the West Coast, they were intercepted
and kept offshore just outside of Mexican waters. Teams of State Dept and Customs
went on board and interviewed the dozens, and in two cases, hundreds. The ones that
had valid reasons to escape were kept. The ones that did not were taken ashore by
the Mexicans, loaded onto aircraft, and flown back to China.

One smaller load of about 80 did land in Los Angeles harbor, but the landing point was right on
Federal Property, where USCG Support Center San Pedro, Terminal Island Federal Prison,
and Terminal Island Customs Holding Center are located. They did not get far at all and
were returned to China.


The big problem in this scenario is that once they touch U.S. soil,
they are ours.

Vetting has to be attempted overseas at a neutral site.

[Gunny]

It would appear that some have ignored what I already said in simple terms and
would prefer to drag out some complex items that do not answer the issue. Why
do you think the USCG and NATO vessels apprehended the Cubans (Mariel Boat Lift),
and those from Trinidad AT SEA and took them back? Once they are on U.S. 'soil',
be that land mass, pier, wharf, jetty, or island - WE OWN them.

Sorry I didn't address that point. I know it well, as I am sure most of us do. GTMO didn't appear for no reason. I know what you meant but you have to remember your audience and break it down from military terms into civilian ones that don't.

"We own them" means they are entitled to due process under Federal law once they step foot on American soil. They can still be deported. At what cost though? I say keep them out.

I kind of dropped from the thread because if a certain individual wants to take on Nightrain, he can have at it. NT don't need my help.

[Elessar]

Sorry I didn't address that point. I know it well, as I am sure most of us do. GTMO didn't appear for no reason. I know what you meant but you have to remember your audience and break it down from military terms into civilian ones that don't.

"We own them" means they are entitled to due process under Federal law once they step foot on American soil. They can still be deported. At what cost though? I say keep them out.

I kind of dropped from the thread because if a certain individual wants to take on Nightrain, he can have at it. NT don't need my help.

You are exactly correct! That is why the liberal notion of bringing the GTMO detainees into
the USA for trial is fought against hard. They are NOT US citizens and have no access to
the same rights as we do. They made their own beds to lay in. We should never join them
in those beds.

[Gunny]

You are exactly correct! That is why the liberal notion of bringing the GTMO detainees into
the USA for trial is fought against hard. They are NOT US citizens and have no access to
the same rights as we do. They made their own beds to lay in. We should never join them
in those beds.

Here's a plan. Thanks to Obama we got a lot of bedspace at GTMO. Seems like a good place for some vetting to me. I wouldn't let them make landfall on US soil.

[fj1200]

It would appear that some have ignored what I already said in simple terms and
would prefer to drag out some complex items that do not answer the issue. Why
do you think the USCG and NATO vessels apprehended the Cubans (Mariel Boat Lift),
and those from Trinidad AT SEA and took them back? Once they are on U.S. 'soil',
be that land mass, pier, wharf, jetty, or island - WE OWN them.

It seems you made a point where there is no issue; vetting is being done overseas according to links.

[fj1200]

Lying U.S. government and its allies that lie to defend its so-called vetting process.-TYR

How did this expose a lie? There's likely a difference between vetting and someone securing a passport illegally.

[Gunny]

It seems you made a point where there is no issue; vetting is being done overseas according to links.

And you are ignoring the fact there is no way to vett them overseas. You don't understand Arabs. A BIG problem with Americans. There are no records. You're born on one sand dune and die on the next. There is no record of your existence unless you are part of the government.

DO we wait for them to blow something up for that "A-HA!" moment?

[fj1200]

And you are ignoring the fact there is no way to vett them overseas. You don't understand Arabs. A BIG problem with Americans. There are no records. You're born on one sand dune and die on the next. There is no record of your existence unless you are part of the government.

DO we wait for them to blow something up for that "A-HA!" moment?

:thumb:

[Elessar]

It seems you made a point where there is no issue; vetting is being done overseas according to links.

It seems you are just being contrary for the sake of scrapping with someone. I know the process
due to it being part of my training in Maritime Law Enforcement. How much of that training do you have?

If you bothered to read what I said, it was stated the vetting had to be done OFF American soil.
You and others can link out all you want. I broke it down into simple terms.

[Elessar]

It would appear that some have ignored what I already said in simple terms and
would prefer to drag out some complex items that do not answer the issue. Why
do you think the USCG and NATO vessels apprehended the Cubans (Mariel Boat Lift),
and those from Trinidad AT SEA and took them back? Once they are on U.S. 'soil',
be that land mass, pier, wharf, jetty, or island - WE OWN them.

I admit to a big BOO-BOO here!
I meant Haitians, not Trinidad!

My apologies to ALL!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Is this the link? I'm missing it if it's there:

http://en.cijnews.com/?p=39492
Thanks Kat. Yes that is the link..
I got called away (by the big boss in this home!), came back and hit submit-- forgetting to add the link- sorry.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And you are ignoring the fact there is no way to vett them overseas. You don't understand Arabs. A BIG problem with Americans. There are no records. You're born on one sand dune and die on the next. There is no record of your existence unless you are part of the government.

DO we wait for them to blow something up for that "A-HA!" moment?

Yes, that is the ---- GAME.

LET EM IN AND WAIT TO GET HIT. AFTER ALL WE DESERVE IT ACCORDING TO LEFTISTS,LIBS/DEMS AND EVERY DAMN TRUE MUZZY ALIVE!
SAME WAY THE OBAMA HAS SET INSANE "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" TO GIVE FAVOR TO HIS BROTHERS THE MUSLIM TERRORISTS WAGING JIHAD..

WHY SO MANY AMERICANS ARE HELLBENT ON SWALLOWING THE PROPAGANDA ABOUT IT BEING "TRUE VETTING" IS BAFFLING TO ME..(willful blindness it seems or else abject ignorance to the nth degree))
Remember the dems/libs/socialists hate truth , hate true vetting on their guys, their allies
--- tis why none was done (allowed) on the obama before he was crowned to help them destroy this nation..-Tyr

[Gunny]

Yes, that is the ---- GAME.

LET EM IN AND WAIT TO GET HIT. AFTER ALL WE DESERVE IT ACCORDING TO LEFTISTS,LIBS/DEMS AND EVERY DAMN TRUE MUZZY ALIVE!
SAME WAY THE OBAMA HAS SET INSANE "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" TO GIVE FAVOR TO HIS BROTHERS THE MUSLIM TERRORISTS WAGING JIHAD..

WHY SO MANY AMERICANS ARE HELLBENT ON SWALLOWING THE PROPAGANDA ABOUT IT BEING "TRUE VETTING" IS BAFFLING TO ME..(willful blindness it seems or else abject ignorance to the nth degree))
Remember the dems/libs/socialists hate truth , hate true vetting on their guys, their allies
--- tis why none was done (allowed) on the obama before he was crowned to help them destroy this nation..-Tyr

Maybe they ought to vett Hitlery. That would be a scream.

[Drummond]

I think the huge problem we have with immigration is the non-enforcement of the existing laws already on the books. That isn't happening and ICE has confirmed it dozens of times. Catch and release illegals? Sanctuary cities? This is madness.

Trump is talking about the insane policy of taking thousands of unknowns from terrorist-riddled countries and scattering groups of them all over the USA. No one with an ounce of sense thinks that's a good idea on any level, unless you're one of the terrorists.

This is just common sense. How the hell can you vet anyone from Syria? That government is fighting for its life and there are no functioning social departments working. So how can anyone say that the piece of paper saying 'Mohammed Jihad Blowyourassup' is a worthy candidate for immigration? You can't. Therefore, that person would be rejected because there is NO WAY to do a background check on him, even if he promises that he's not a terrorist. Really, that's all the vetting you can do - ask them questions without doing any real investigative work because there is no one on the other side to confirm or deny his answers.

So, since you cannot vet anyone from Syria at this time, no one from Syria gets in. We can't vet you.

I'm very comfy with the whole idea.

This gets to the heart of the matter. Trying to vet masses of people 'fleeing' from wrecked, war-torn areas by contacting the very country which has those areas, is an impossibility. Nobody could possibly expect efficient bureaucracies to be in place, functioning, under such conditions.

Europe found itself swamped by 'refugees' finding any way they could to get into European territory. The stupid, mind-blowingly insane decision made was to absorb them, resettle them, KNOWING (.. yet somehow 'forgetting' to ever point the reality out !) that such numbers of people could never be properly checked on.

What we've seen in Europe shows us proof of such insanity ... terrorist attacks have suddenly increased, examples of contemptible behaviour by these new arrivals to the local populations, ditto. At absolute best, what's been revealed is that the 'settling refugees' have a contempt for their hosts and are amply capable of expressing it through destruction.

... and yet the liberal types here absolutely refuse to learn from any of it.

America is in a far better position to resist any arrivals happening. IT SHOULD DO SO. No comprehensive check possible, should equal NO ADMITTANCE ON TO AMERICAN SOIL. What could be more obvious ?

[NightTrain]

:rolleyes: I have learned that the first person to mention semantics generally doesn't know what it means. I posted a link from a reputable conservative source to show that they do in fact engage in vetting refugees and you keep repeating that the vetting process really isn't a vetting process. You may not think that they're doing enough or you may not think they should do it at all but the fact is that there is a vetting process.

I'm quite familiar with your tactic of engaging in semantics. It's your failsafe when you don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't care that this administration said they're vetted. They also said you can keep your doctor. And that your rates would go down. And that this would be the most transparent administration ever.

At some point, logic has to kick in and you have to say, this is another fucking lie. I've pointed out, along with others, that there is no possible way to vet these people, and yet you cling to some bizarre word game that all of us know is a sham that they're actually being vetted. The very most that we can do is investigate social media and interview thousands of them to see if we can catch the bad liars that haven't had any training to evade scrutiny. That's not vetting; that's more Obama bullshit.

Go back and observe the actual definition of vetting with the exchange Rev and I had. Reconcile that with your bullshit.

Everyone knows that the timetable to move as many of these refugees as possible has been greatly accelerated to conclude before this asshat leaves office - this is because he wants to ensure maximum muslim immigration no matter who next gets into office.


Why don't you go ahead and point out where I said that.

Hey, as long as they're vetted, they're cool to come in, right? Isn't that the intent of successful vetting? You've insisted they're being vetted a dozen times in this very thread. Go ahead and scroll back. I'll wait.



All caught up now? Good.

I've led you to the water. You're on your own from there.

If you're still naive enough to believe anything this administration says by now, then I can't help you.

You go right ahead and insist that they've been vetted. I'll continue to use my common sense instead of being spoonfed meaningless sound bites.

[Elessar]

... and yet the liberal types here absolutely refuse to learn from any of it.

America is in a far better position to resist any arrivals happening. IT SHOULD DO SO. No comprehensive check possible, should equal NO ADMITTANCE ON TO AMERICAN SOIL. What could be more obvious ?

Snipped for brevity.

I'll piss off a few here with this statement, but not ALL liberals are idiotic fools. Ignorant, perhaps.
It is the ones who protest, wave banners, block streets, sidewalks, and building access that are the
spoiled brat types. It is the ones that riot, create civil disturbance, and refuse to even speak as an
adult that are the big problem.

Liberal Punk or Punkett...you touch me or spit in my face - that is assault. I'll drop you like a hot
brick and you'll never know what hit you.

Maybe off-topic a bit, Mods or Admin..delete it as you see fit.

[Drummond]

Being obtuse isn't helping you here.

IF there is NO FUNCTIONING AGENCY in Syria to work with our investigators to do background checks on the thousands of muslims clamoring to get in, then they ARE NOT VETTED.

Partially vetted? Yes.

Vetted? No.

... besides ... it's not thousands, it's literally millions.

For arguments' sake, let's say that there was a bureaucratic agency of some type that DID function, covering the area(s) the 'refugees' came from. Chances are that it'd be compromised by all the shelling, fighting, going on in the area, but even if not, they'd have the task of processing all the various inquiries they received. These would not just come from America, but such an agency would've already been totally swamped by information requests coming out of Europe.

America might just have to wait its turn, until all the massive backlog of inquiries from mainland Europe were dealt with.

But in any case, this itself is fantasy. Too much damage has been done to Syria's infrastructure for it to be realistic to expect a flow of information from them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Snipped for brevity.

I'll piss off a few here with this statement, but not ALL liberals are idiotic fools. Ignorant, perhaps.
It is the ones who protest, wave banners, block streets, sidewalks, and building access that are the
spoiled brat types. It is the ones that riot, create civil disturbance, and refuse to even speak as an
adult that are the big problem.

Liberal Punk or Punkett...you touch me or spit in my face - that is assault. I'll drop you like a hot
brick and you'll never know what hit you.

Maybe off-topic a bit, Mods or Admin..delete it as you see fit.


I'll piss off a few here with this statement, but not ALL liberals are idiotic fools. Ignorant, perhaps.

I agree with that completely. Ignorant, brainwashed or preferably dancing along with the feel-good crowd -regardless, they are a great danger to this nation and seem to always attempt to aids its enemies be they foreign or domestic.
So in no way , does your summation piss me off my friend.

Europe, is ate up with libs that are handing it over to their invited in conquerors-the muslims..
Sad but true and nobody sees that better than the few conservative minded folks living over there.-Tyr

[fj1200]

It seems you are just being contrary for the sake of scrapping with someone. I know the process
due to it being part of my training in Maritime Law Enforcement. How much of that training do you have?

If you bothered to read what I said, it was stated the vetting had to be done OFF American soil.
You and others can link out all you want. I broke it down into simple terms.

Actually I merely posted a link from a reputable source and that apparently means I wish for a highway to be built direct from Syria to the US solely for the use of ISIS fighters under the guise of a refugee program. But I really do think you should quote yourself again if you need to feel validated for you contribution. :) Also please inform us of all your experience in the CG vetting refugees from violent war torn nations because I freely admit I do not have that experience.

And I did bother to read what you said which is how I knew that it wasn't really relevant to the scenario being discussed. But I'll be happy to admit my error if that is indeed the case. :)

[fj1200]

I'm quite familiar with your tactic of engaging in semantics. It's your failsafe when you don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't care that this administration said they're vetted. They also said you can keep your doctor. And that your rates would go down. And that this would be the most transparent administration ever.

At some point, logic has to kick in and you have to say, this is another fucking lie. I've pointed out, along with others, that there is no possible way to vet these people, and yet you cling to some bizarre word game that all of us know is a sham that they're actually being vetted. The very most that we can do is investigate social media and interview thousands of them to see if we can catch the bad liars that haven't had any training to evade scrutiny. That's not vetting; that's more Obama bullshit.

Go back and observe the actual definition of vetting with the exchange Rev and I had. Reconcile that with your bullshit.

Everyone knows that the timetable to move as many of these refugees as possible has been greatly accelerated to conclude before this asshat leaves office - this is because he wants to ensure maximum muslim immigration no matter who next gets into office.

I think it's great that you can make crap up in your head and have it be your new reality. I actually thought higher of you.


Hey, as long as they're vetted, they're cool to come in, right? Isn't that the intent of successful vetting? You've insisted they're being vetted a dozen times in this very thread. Go ahead and scroll back. I'll wait.

That was a brilliant failure in admitting that I didn't say what you allege I said. I said that they have a process and that they are doing so to the extent possible.


All caught up now? Good.

I've led you to the water. You're on your own from there.

If you're still naive enough to believe anything this administration says by now, then I can't help you.

You go right ahead and insist that they've been vetted. I'll continue to use my common sense instead of being spoonfed meaningless sound bites.

Enjoy those fingers in your ears.

[Gunny]

Actually I merely posted a link from a reputable source and that apparently means I wish for a highway to be built direct from Syria to the US solely for the use of ISIS fighters under the guise of a refugee program. But I really do think you should quote yourself again if you need to feel validated for you contribution. :) Also please inform us of all your experience in the CG vetting refugees from violent war torn nations because I freely admit I do not have that experience.

And I did bother to read what you said which is how I knew that it wasn't really relevant to the scenario being discussed. But I'll be happy to admit my error if that is indeed the case. :)


I've got 6 WestPacs under my belt and been around the little bastards since the early 80s. Not counting living in Turkey and Greece as a kid. Enough experience for you?

My point that did not address remains the same. You cannot vett these people. And rubber stamping a piece of paper is NOT vetting. It's passing the buck.

As far as elessar goes, he's a damned sea cop whose job is to enforce our coast. Hence the name Coast Guard. You bother to check out all those regs (laws) he posted? I didn't. I know what his job is. However, I know my regs, not his. I ain't going on his boat and telling him how to do his job and he's not going to come on my line and tell me how to deploy my jarheads.

SO how much military/law enforcement service is it that you have?

[NightTrain]

I think it's great that you can make crap up in your head and have it be your new reality. I actually thought higher of you.

I assure you that the sentiment is quite mutual.


That was a brilliant failure in admitting that I didn't say what you allege I said. I said that they have a process and that they are doing so to the extent possible.

Their "process" does not conclude at bona-fide vetted. What we have here is a reckless disregard for American safety right here on American soil in the interest of a lunatic's desire to transform America by importing as many immigrants as possible in the time he has left.

What we have are immigrants flying in by the tens of thousands and dumped across America despite the warnings and protests of experts and the States themselves, and we are all told that they were "vetted" when they are clearly not.

For the last time, just because Obama or his stooges claiming a "vetted" status to these people does not make it so. It is literally impossible to vet these people at this time. They are being rubber-stamped into the country with almost zero investigation into their backgrounds.


Enjoy those fingers in your ears.

I attempted to have a rational discussion with you. You steered the conversation to this point.

There is a large difference between admirable tenacity and galling pig-headed stubbornness. Look into it.

[fj1200]

I've got 6 WestPacs under my belt and been around the little bastards since the early 80s. Not counting living in Turkey and Greece as a kid. Enough experience for you?

My point that did not address remains the same. You cannot vett these people. And rubber stamping a piece of paper is NOT vetting. It's passing the buck.

As far as elessar goes, he's a damned sea cop whose job is to enforce our coast. Hence the name Coast Guard. You bother to check out all those regs (laws) he posted? I didn't. I know what his job is. However, I know my regs, not his. I ain't going on his boat and telling him how to do his job and he's not going to come on my line and tell me how to deploy my jarheads.

SO how much military/law enforcement service is it that you have?

You're not really following the flow here are you?


... because I freely admit I do not have that experience.

[fj1200]

I assure you that the sentiment is quite mutual.

That's great. At least I have a basis for my opinion.


Their "process" does not conclude at bona-fide vetted. What we have here is a reckless disregard for American safety right here on American soil in the interest of a lunatic's desire to transform America by importing as many immigrants as possible in the time he has left.

What we have are immigrants flying in by the tens of thousands and dumped across America despite the warnings and protests of experts and the States themselves, and we are all told that they were "vetted" when they are clearly not.

For the last time, just because Obama or his stooges claiming a "vetted" status to these people does not make it so. It is literally impossible to vet these people at this time. They are being rubber-stamped into the country with almost zero investigation into their backgrounds.

You can repeat yourself a thousand times without changing what I've said. They have a process; that you don't agree with it is your right. I just won't let slide you telling me what my position is.


I attempted to have a rational discussion with you. You steered the conversation to this point.

There is a large difference between admirable tenacity and galling pig-headed stubbornness. Look into it.

You did no such thing. You made this personal and started creating positions for me with no basis in truth. I'm staring at pig-headed stubbornness reading your recent posts.

[Gunny]

You're not really following the flow here are you?

Sure I am. It's about vetting Syrians. I don't invite rattlers n gators to come in my house and sleep with me. They kill you.

[Abbey Marie]

But we are vetting refugees to the extent possible. And the vetting doesn't appear to just be looking at papers. The question of course is what does "extreme" add to the process?


:dunno:

So, are you saying that "to the extent possible" is good enough for you?

[NightTrain]

That's great. At least I have a basis for my opinion.



You can repeat yourself a thousand times without changing what I've said. They have a process; that you don't agree with it is your right. I just won't let slide you telling me what my position is.



You did no such thing. You made this personal and started creating positions for me with no basis in truth. I'm staring at pig-headed stubbornness reading your recent posts.



How are we not vetting?


But we are vetting refugees to the extent possible.


I posted a link that says we are vetting.


You dispute that they have a vetting process?


I said we were vetting to the extent possible.


How am I wrong? They're vetting.


Who is being obtuse? They are being vetted


It seems you made a point where there is no issue; vetting is being done overseas according to links


I rest my case.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I rest my case.[/COLOR]

When a hound catches a rabbit, what on earth can the rabbit then do?

If those refugees are being vetted then I am Superman..

JUST SAYING THE WORD AND LYING ABOUT IT IS NOT ACTUALLY VETTING.
In those countries there are no reliable information systems that are not compromised by war, chaos and muslim deception.
Such being ignored by anybody claiming to be intelligent is in my opinion either ignorance to the max or deliberate deception on their part too.

obama seeks to flood this nation with muslim terrorists before he leaves office.
We see this in the mad rush to bring in tens of thousands as rapidly as possible .--Tyr

[Elessar]

Actually I merely posted a link from a reputable source and that apparently means I wish for a highway to be built direct from Syria to the US solely for the use of ISIS fighters under the guise of a refugee program. But I really do think you should quote yourself again if you need to feel validated for you contribution. :) Also please inform us of all your experience in the CG vetting refugees from violent war torn nations because I freely admit I do not have that experience.

And I did bother to read what you said which is how I knew that it wasn't really relevant to the scenario being discussed. But I'll be happy to admit my error if that is indeed the case. :)

Better go back and read again. I said nothing about war-torn nations. Try again. The Coast Guard does NOT do the vetting. That is left up to State Dept, Customs, INS. Coast Guard
only intercepts and holds off shore or returns them to their origin. In seizing a vessel from another nation, we have to get State Dept approval.
They do the behind the scenes diplomatic connections to make it work. If it is declared 'stateless' we take them, period.

14 USC 2 Is the USCG's Law Enforcement Authority: "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all
applicable Federal Laws on and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States...."

You're the one not following the flow, but love to make up stuff just to be a contrary prick.

[Gunny]

Better go back and read again. I said nothing about war-torn nations. Try again. The Coast Guard does NOT do the vetting. That is left up to State Dept, Customs, INS. Coast Guard
only intercepts and holds off shore or returns them to their origin. In seizing a vessel from another nation, we have to get State Dept approval.
They do the behind the scenes diplomatic connections to make it work. If it is declared 'stateless' we take them, period.

14 USC 2 Is the USCG's Law Enforcement Authority: "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all
applicable Federal Laws on and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States...."

You're the one not following the flow, but love to make up stuff just to be a contrary prick.

Ignorance is bliss. Marines don't vett people either. I recognize a threat. Then I come up with a solution. Some people can't differentiate between policy makers and enforcers.

We don't make policy. We carry it out.

[sundaydriver]

In 1963 my family sponsored an unvetted Cuban family that fled Castro. Different times today.

[Abbey Marie]

In 1963 my family sponsored an unvetted Cuban family that fled Castro. Different times today.

I assume they weren't part of a religion that likes to stone and behead people.

[sundaydriver]

I assume they weren't part of a religion that likes to stone and behead people.

As I wrote, different times. :slap:

[Abbey Marie]

As I wrote, different times. :slap:

As you didn't write, also different people. :slap:

[sundaydriver]

As you didn't write, also different people. :slap:

I grew up in an area with a good sized communities of Lebanese & Syrian immigrants from the 50's & 60's. Never a problem from "THOSE PEOPLE" either. I repeat, different times.

[Abbey Marie]

I grew up in an area with a good sized communities of Lebanese & Syrian immigrants from the 50's & 60's. Never a problem from "THOSE PEOPLE" either. I repeat, different times.

All may be true, but your post specified Cubans. I repeat, different people.

[fj1200]

Sure I am. It's about vetting Syrians. I don't invite rattlers n gators to come in my house and sleep with me. They kill you.

It certainly started there and quite rapidly devolved for some reason.


So, are you saying that "to the extent possible" is good enough for you?

Finally, a good question. That would require more info on exactly what the vetting process is and its track record. On the one hand it seems that all we need is a functioning, cooperative government in Syria to fill in any vetting holes but I don't think I'd trust Syria on any information that they would send us considering that we've been bombing them and all which would leave us where exactly where we are now. And barring any relevant expertise from anyone here then I guess we've got to go with links that we can find.


Has the system been successful so far? (http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/)
The security checks have a pretty good record. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has admitted some 750,000 refugees. None have been arrested on domestic terrorism charges, though two—a pair of Iraqis in Kentucky—were charged with terrorist activities connected to aiding al-Qaeda.

Based on what I've read we don't need a hair-on-fire response to allowing in some refugees.


I rest my case.[/COLOR]

I see a bunch of posts where I acknowledge fact and you've completely ignored where you posted a lie. :)


When a hound catches a rabbit, what on earth can the rabbit then do?

Well in your case you put them on ignore. ;)

[fj1200]

Better go back and read again. I said nothing about war-torn nations. Try again. The Coast Guard does NOT do the vetting. That is left up to State Dept, Customs, INS. Coast Guard
only intercepts and holds off shore or returns them to their origin. In seizing a vessel from another nation, we have to get State Dept approval.
They do the behind the scenes diplomatic connections to make it work. If it is declared 'stateless' we take them, period.

14 USC 2 Is the USCG's Law Enforcement Authority: "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all
applicable Federal Laws on and under the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States...."

You're the one not following the flow, but love to make up stuff just to be a contrary prick.

I know exactly where the flow is and you keep screaming about how you're adding so much but you haven't really added anything.

psst. I kinda figured the CG didn't do any vetting. ;)