The Immigration Report - 60% From Terror 7 Since Trump Order Halted

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
Sixty percent of the refugees admitted into the United States since a federal judge halted President Trump’s executive order designed to prevent “foreign terrorist entry into the United States” originate from five of the seven countries identified by the administration and its predecessor as most risky.

Of the total 2,576 refugees resettled in the U.S. from around the world since U.S. District Judge James Robart’s February 3 restraining order, 1,549 (60.1 percent) are from Syria (532), Iraq (472), Somalia (363), Iran (117), and Sudan (65). No refugees have arrived from the other two applicable countries, Yemen and Libya.

Of the 2,576 refugees to have arrived since Feb. 3, 1,424 (55.3 percent) are Muslims – 817 Sunnis, 132 Shi’ites, and 475 refugees self-identified simply as Muslims, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.

Of the refugees hailing from the specified countries of terrorist concern, Muslims accounted for the overwhelming majority of those admitted in all cases except for Iran.

Muslims comprised 99.6 percent of the admissions from Syria; 73.5 percent of those from Iraq; 99.7 percent of those from Somalia; and 93.8 percent of those from Sudan. Of the Iranian refugees admitted, by contrast, only 9.4 percent were Muslims, while just under 60 percent were Christians of various denominations.
 
Identifying most of the refugees from Syria as "Muslims" doesn't help.
That's about as useless as identifying the refugees from Vietnam as "Asian."

By demographics alone, of course a lot of the asylum cases are Muslim people oppressed and forced to flee their own country.

The issue is whether people can be screened out as criminal, terrorist or otherwise dangerous. That's more than just a matter of being Muslim.

As Impenitent pointed out earlier, there is a two-year process by which refugees are screened and held elsewhere while they apply to be approved to enter the US. The question is how do we screen immigrants, and how do we share responsibility voluntarily instead of forcing states to take immigrants. Can't we develop better methods of management?
 
Identifying most of the refugees from Syria as "Muslims" doesn't help.
That's about as useless as identifying the refugees from Vietnam as "Asian."

By demographics alone, of course a lot of the asylum cases are Muslim people oppressed and forced to flee their own country.

The issue is whether people can be screened out as criminal, terrorist or otherwise dangerous. That's more than just a matter of being Muslim.

As Impenitent pointed out earlier, there is a two-year process by which refugees are screened and held elsewhere while they apply to be approved to enter the US. The question is how do we screen immigrants, and how do we share responsibility voluntarily instead of forcing states to take immigrants. Can't we develop better methods of management?

The United States has identified terrorists as Muslim ideological extremists based on those groups who have specifically identified themselves as such in claiming responsibility. Our nation has never determined or sought out a specific group based on their OWN "assumptions", these terrorist organizations boldly proclaim their religious views and their cause. I would equate this to our nation's engagement in a war against Germans or the Japanese empire, who intentionally came in and attacked us on our own soil or U.S. identified vessels during World War II. We identify those Germans overseas based on their characteristics, as we did the Japanese, we did not go seeking out the French, Arabs, or Africans in the rain forest for those responsible for attacking our ocean liners with U-boats or our naval ships at Pearl Harbor.

The question is- Are these terrorist threats, who identified themselves by their extreme faith and cause, located AMONG those refugees seeking entry in our country? Do those seven governments have any sympathy or alliance towards their terrorist cause, or are they a well established government to aid in identifying the difference between a terrorist extremist and a refugee seeking aid? Terrorists have been known to also seek women to support their cause in recruitment. So what clear method can you provide that can accurately separate the extremist from the civilian? Even those involved in the process from the previous administration, have come foward and said they could not guarantee who they are taking in and allowing entry. Our current Federal immigration laws also specifically states it's the president who has the ultimate authority regarding refugees while Congress holds authority over our immigration policy.
 
Identifying most of the refugees from Syria as "Muslims" doesn't help.
That's about as useless as identifying the refugees from Vietnam as "Asian."

By demographics alone, of course a lot of the asylum cases are Muslim people oppressed and forced to flee their own country.

The issue is whether people can be screened out as criminal, terrorist or otherwise dangerous. That's more than just a matter of being Muslim.

As Impenitent pointed out earlier, there is a two-year process by which refugees are screened and held elsewhere while they apply to be approved to enter the US. The question is how do we screen immigrants, and how do we share responsibility voluntarily instead of forcing states to take immigrants. Can't we develop better methods of management?

That is false ... or misleading, at a minimum. Yes, the process takes two years, but no, they are not "held elsewhere: while they apply. You are intimating that the vetting process takes two years - it doesn't. In fact, most of that time, a file is laying on somebody's desk. I once saw an estimate of the ACTUAL time spent vetting a person, and it closer to three WEEKS of actual effort.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top