Hillary Clinton Says Vetting Refugees Is Impossible

[jimnyc]

Hillary Clinton Says Vetting Refugees Is Impossible

Hillary Clinton regards vetting refugees as impossible, according to email released by WikiLeaks.

For his part, Donald Trump says his immigration plan does not ban Muslims, but instead requires “extreme vetting” for Muslims arriving from countries with documented problems of Islamic terrorism—consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Regarding policy, Americans will decide between the sharply contrasting visions of Trump and Clinton—one focusing explicitly on security and America’s interests, the other saying behind closed doors that she believes in “open borders” but does not say so publicly, and that national leaders can have a private position that is different from their public positions.

Apologists for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton say that Trump’s immigration plan is both bad policy and unconstitutional, and that one type of immigrant—Syrian refugees—should be admitted in far greater numbers.

But hacked emails released by Wikileaks show Clinton thinks vetting Syrian refugees is “impossible.” Michael Patrick Leahy reports that Clinton acknowledged this reality for refugees pouring into Jordan.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper already admitted that the U.S. cannot vet these refugees, so this may be an instance of Clinton telling the public a different position than you take in private.

Emails also show Clinton’s inner circle caught in an echo chamber when it comes to constitutional rights for aliens (legal or illegal, not just refugees). Mandy Grunwald writes of wanting to “whack” a Republican “for trying to change the Constitution to deny babies born here the right to American citizenship if their parents aren’t citizens? (basically get rid of the 14th Amendment).”

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/11/trump-pushes-extreme-vetting-hillary-says-vetting-impossible/

[fj1200]

It looked like she said Jordan couldn't vet those refugees.

[Drummond]

Hillary Clinton Says Vetting Refugees Is Impossible

Hillary Clinton regards vetting refugees as impossible, according to email released by WikiLeaks.

For his part, Donald Trump says his immigration plan does not ban Muslims, but instead requires “extreme vetting” for Muslims arriving from countries with documented problems of Islamic terrorism—consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Regarding policy, Americans will decide between the sharply contrasting visions of Trump and Clinton—one focusing explicitly on security and America’s interests, the other saying behind closed doors that she believes in “open borders” but does not say so publicly, and that national leaders can have a private position that is different from their public positions.

Apologists for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton say that Trump’s immigration plan is both bad policy and unconstitutional, and that one type of immigrant—Syrian refugees—should be admitted in far greater numbers.

But hacked emails released by Wikileaks show Clinton thinks vetting Syrian refugees is “impossible.” Michael Patrick Leahy reports that Clinton acknowledged this reality for refugees pouring into Jordan.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper already admitted that the U.S. cannot vet these refugees, so this may be an instance of Clinton telling the public a different position than you take in private.

Emails also show Clinton’s inner circle caught in an echo chamber when it comes to constitutional rights for aliens (legal or illegal, not just refugees). Mandy Grunwald writes of wanting to “whack” a Republican “for trying to change the Constitution to deny babies born here the right to American citizenship if their parents aren’t citizens? (basically get rid of the 14th Amendment).”

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/11/trump-pushes-extreme-vetting-hillary-says-vetting-impossible/

To state the blindingly obvious .. if Hillary accepts the impossibility of vetting, yet, she still is willing to take these 'refugees' in, then she is KNOWINGLY playing Russian Roulette with American security. Willingly so. Out of sheer choice.

This cannot help but mean that Hillary herself is taking the position of being a security threat to America. Avoidably - by choice.

Isn't that the action, and intent, of AN ENEMY ?

[NightTrain]

To state the blindingly obvious .. if Hillary accepts the impossibility of vetting, yet, she still is willing to take these 'refugees' in, then she is KNOWINGLY playing Russian Roulette with American security. Willingly so. Out of sheer choice.

This cannot help but mean that Hillary herself is taking the position of being a security threat to America. Avoidably - by choice.

Isn't that the action, and intent, of AN ENEMY ?


Yup.

As long as she gains loyal voters though, it's cool.

[Elessar]

They can be vetted, but should not step on USA soil for that process to be done.

I do not care where they are coming from. Vetting has to be done elsewhere before
they are allowed in. Otherwise, WE OWN THEM and the liberals know that.
I don't care if they have no records from their homeland. That is NOT our fault.

[jimnyc]

They can be vetted, .

And in reality, while they may say that their is a process for the vetting, and that it's thorough and what not, the truth is that there are a LOT that they simply don't get jack shit from simply because they cannot. And I don't care if it's not PC, if it hurts some feelings for those that may need a safe space, if some claim it's offensive - I don't give a fuck about those people. If you cannot be vetted, and coming from a shitty war torn Islamic country - then you shouldn't be allowed into the USA until such time that one can in fact be securely vetted. Some are offended because of Trump's stance on similar, or maybe because of how he said it, but he's also 100% spot on. Anyone wishing to do so without 100% assurance with the vetting is simply taking chances and playing russian roulette, and crossing fingers that no radicals or terrorists or cells make it across our borders.

[Kathianne]

It looked like she said Jordan couldn't vet those refugees.Well at the debate she said that 'when she's president' she'll vet each one. I don't have to like Trump to agree that something needs to be done before or if letting refugees in. There's no doubt that there would be radicals trying to blend in.

[aboutime]

What Hillary DIDN'T SAY, when she said vetting was impossible was:

"Not possible until AFTER THE ELECTION, when those Refugees that are here already, CAN VOTE FOR ME!"

[Elessar]

Well at the debate she said that 'when she's president' she'll vet each one. I don't have to like Trump to agree that something needs to be done before or if letting refugees in. There's no doubt that there would be radicals trying to blend in.


How can SHE vet each one? Again she is blowing smoke up her own ass.

The process has do be done off our soil, period.

[Kathianne]

How can SHE vet each one? Again she is blowing smoke up her own ass.

The process has do be done off our soil, period.

I meant it as sarcastic, obviously she can't. I don't do a ton of smilies, but perhaps I should more often.

[Elessar]

I meant it as sarcastic, obviously she can't. I don't do a ton of smilies, but perhaps I should more often.

I did not mean to sound harsh on you. Luv Ya!:beer:

[Drummond]

They can be vetted, but should not step on USA soil for that process to be done.

I do not care where they are coming from. Vetting has to be done elsewhere before
they are allowed in. Otherwise, WE OWN THEM and the liberals know that.
I don't care if they have no records from their homeland. That is NOT our fault.

I think it'll be impossible to have checks done on any more than a small minority of them. For one thing, you'd need the cooperation of the authorities from the country they're originating from. For another, it's war-torn, which must make conditions (obviously ?) way too chaotic.

No, Hillary IS playing with America's security, taking a wholly unwarranted risk with it which is completely avoidable.

[fj1200]

They can be vetted, but should not step on USA soil for that process to be done.

Do you have evidence that any refugees have been vetted on US soil?


Well at the debate she said that 'when she's president' she'll vet each one. I don't have to like Trump to agree that something needs to be done before or if letting refugees in. There's no doubt that there would be radicals trying to blend in.

I'm pretty sure each one is vetted. If you trust the process or don't or whether you think we should take any or none is where Congress needs to exercise their oversight role.


I think it'll be impossible to have checks done on any more than a small minority of them.

Huzzah! Only a small minority are taken in as refugees to the US.

[Elessar]

Do you have evidence that any refugees have been vetted on US soil?


Sure I know of it, but cannot show examples because the paperwork is FOUO.
It is an extremely drawn-out process that is done at an INS Detention Center.
My point in fact is that once they on are USA soil, we own them.

[jimnyc]

Always an idiot to come in and act like every single person has been vetted, no matter how many people in government state otherwise. They will argue, argue, argue and turn blue before admitting they were wrong and made an ass out of themselves. And then the lack of vetting continues. And then the slamming the fists on the table about how one is right will continue - never mind the facts of course. :) Show them the facts once and that's enough, if they are too fucking stupid to read and comprehend, then let them walk around like little clueless retards.

[Kathianne]

Always an idiot to come in and act like every single person has been vetted, no matter how many people in government state otherwise. They will argue, argue, argue and turn blue before admitting they were wrong and made an ass out of themselves. And then the lack of vetting continues. And then the slamming the fists on the table about how one is right will continue - never mind the facts of course. :) Show them the facts once and that's enough, if they are too fucking stupid to read and comprehend, then let them walk around like little clueless retards.

I think what he's alluding to is there would be 'a system of vetting, whatever it is,' and all would be subjected to it. Either we'd 'trust' the system or not. He's further saying that Congress should assert themselves into setting up the 'system of vetting.' I'm pretty sure that Obama, Clinton, or Trump would not really allow much imput.

[jimnyc]

I think what he's alluding to is there would be 'a system of vetting, whatever it is,' and all would be subjected to it. Either we'd 'trust' the system or not. He's further saying that Congress should assert themselves into setting up the 'system of vetting.' I'm pretty sure that Obama, Clinton, or Trump would really allow much imput.

Only someone seriously naive would trust the vetting process at this point. Either that, or someone who would like to champion it as opposed to admitting they were wrong. :)

[Kathianne]

Only someone seriously naive would trust the vetting process at this point. Either that, or someone who would like to champion it as opposed to admitting they were wrong. :)

and that is why I said, I don't have to like or vote for the guy, to agree with a point he makes.

[jimnyc]

and that is why I said, I don't have to like or vote for the guy, to agree with a point he makes.

Oh hell, I wasn't even referring to Trump! I was really just meaning in general, for our country, that the illegal immigration and refugee system is HORRIBLE. I think the "system" they have, for places like Syria, is outright crap. We know that, not from what we can do - but from what they can produce - which is likely next to nothing. And if they can't produce anything to vet someone wanting to get in here - then they shouldn't get in here.

[Kathianne]

Oh hell, I wasn't even referring to Trump! I was really just meaning in general, for our country, that the illegal immigration and refugee system is HORRIBLE. I think the "system" they have, for places like Syria, is outright crap. We know that, not from what we can do - but from what they can produce - which is likely next to nothing. And if they can't produce anything to vet someone wanting to get in here - then they shouldn't get in here.

No argument from me, just look at Europe.

[fj1200]

Sure I know of it, but cannot show examples because the paperwork is FOUO.
It is an extremely drawn-out process that is done at an INS Detention Center.
My point in fact is that once they on are USA soil, we own them.

Thank you. I've not seen any indication that we are considering vetting Syrian refugees on American soil.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

[aboutime]

Thank you. I've not seen any indication that we are considering vetting Syrian refugees on American soil.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states


NOR is there any indication that Obama, or Hillary intend to vet ANY Refugee's from ANY country.

fj. Tell us about the 800 Illegals, or more, who were to be deported....but Thanks to Obama, instantly became possible neighbors of YOURS, and GABBY as new Citizens.???

[Elessar]

Thank you. I've not seen any indication that we are considering vetting Syrian refugees on American soil.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

Of the 86 Chinese that landed on U.S. Government property (Federal Prison, USCG Base, INS Detention Center),
80 were put on a plane and sent back to China. That took months to finish up.

Of the 245+ that were stopped offshore by USCG Cutters and USN (with USCG LEDET on board) and Mexican Navy,
97% were put on planes by the Mexicans and sent back to China.

There is a process, but it cannot be allowed to happen on our soil.

[fj1200]

Of the 86 Chinese that landed on U.S. Government property (Federal Prison, USCG Base, INS Detention Center),
80 were put on a plane and sent back to China. That took months to finish up.

Of the 245+ that were stopped offshore by USCG Cutters and USN (with USCG LEDET on board) and Mexican Navy,
97% were put on planes by the Mexicans and sent back to China.

There is a process, but it cannot be allowed to happen on our soil.

Nobody disagrees. It seems we also agree that there's a process.

[Abbey Marie]

Of the 86 Chinese that landed on U.S. Government property (Federal Prison, USCG Base, INS Detention Center),
80 were put on a plane and sent back to China. That took months to finish up.

Of the 245+ that were stopped offshore by USCG Cutters and USN (with USCG LEDET on board) and Mexican Navy,
97% were put on planes by the Mexicans and sent back to China.

There is a process, but it cannot be allowed to happen on our soil.


Sounds expensive for us, too.

[Elessar]

Sounds expensive for us, too.

Very expensive indeed.

It is not as simple as Hillary makes it out to be. All of those people were
fed, bathed, re-clothed if needed. Then the cost of putting agents, interpreters,
and medical people in the mix.