Republicans, Refugees and the Hysterical Politics of Fear

[Avatar4321]

The refugees cannot be vetted. There is no data base in the middle east that could vet them.

90% of the refugees are men, young men. Draft them into the military. Train them. Send them into Syria to be ground troops in the fight against terrorism.

We don't exactly have a good track record training middle eastern men to fight. They have a habit of using what we taught them against us

 

[JimH52]

The GOP has found their Boogie Man for 2016. Just like they used the Ebola scare, they will use the Syrian Refugee scare!

I am not sure why they are afraid, since it sounds like most on this board have a carry permit, or are usually packing. The GOP never loses a chance to use a fabricated Boogie Man to make political headway. Face it, that and gerrymandering are about all they have left....It will take two year to vet most of these refugees to the satisfaction of the authorities. So they will beat their doom and gloom drums for at least that long. How proud they must be!

Ha!

"There's no need to be scared, these refugees wouldn't harm a fly! You're just being mean and insensitive!"

Let's be more analytical. ISIS, as it is known today, came about in 2013. The Syrian Civil War began in earnest in 2011. It has been a whole four years since then; or enough for two waves of Syrian refugees to apply for and complete the process for becoming a refugee in the US. You're going to sit there and tell all of us that there is no distinct possibility that any of those refugees, or the ones to come, will engage in an act of terrorism on our soil?

How proud you must be, to bathe in such colossal ignorance.

There you go again....rewriting history. Everyone knows that Daesh began after the recovering alcoholic invaded the wrong country and disbanded their army. Many of the strategic and intelligence leaders of Daesh are officers from the Bathe party that the recovering alcoholic turned his back on. They are now gaining their revenge. But the recovering alcoholic is now sitting on his front porch in Texass, shining his pointy little cowboy boots, saying "THAT BOY SHO DON'T SEEM LIKE HE LIKE WAR..."

Over 100 former Saddam Hussein-era officers make up ISIS leadership

IS top command dominated by ex-officers in Saddam's army

Saddam's former army is the secret to ISIS success - Business Insider

Read a little history before you make such unfounded fabrications....

 

[TemplarKormac]

The GOP has found their Boogie Man for 2016. Just like they used the Ebola scare, they will use the Syrian Refugee scare!

I am not sure why they are afraid, since it sounds like most on this board have a carry permit, or are usually packing. The GOP never loses a chance to use a fabricated Boogie Man to make political headway. Face it, that and gerrymandering are about all they have left....It will take two year to vet most of these refugees to the satisfaction of the authorities. So they will beat their doom and gloom drums for at least that long. How proud they must be!

Ha!

"There's no need to be scared, these refugees wouldn't harm a fly! You're just being mean and insensitive!"

Let's be more analytical. ISIS, as it is known today, came about in 2013. The Syrian Civil War began in earnest in 2011. It has been a whole four years since then; or enough for two waves of Syrian refugees to apply for and complete the process for becoming a refugee in the US. You're going to sit there and tell all of us that there is no distinct possibility that any of those refugees, or the ones to come, will engage in an act of terrorism on our soil?

How proud you must be, to bathe in such colossal ignorance.

There you go again....rewriting history. Everyone knows that Daesh began after the recovering alcoholic invaded the wrong country and disbanded their army. Many of the strategic and intelligence leaders of Daesh are officers from the Bathe party that the recovering alcoholic turned his back on. They are now gaining their revenge. But the recovering alcoholic is now sitting on his front porch in Texass, shining his pointy little cowboy boots, saying "THAT BOY SHO DON'T SEEM LIKE HE LIKE WAR..."

Over 100 former Saddam Hussein-era officers make up ISIS leadership

IS top command dominated by ex-officers in Saddam's army

Saddam's former army is the secret to ISIS success - Business Insider

Read a little history before you make such unfounded fabrications....

You moron. On April 8, 2013, it claimed it's first territory in the Levant. In January last year, it began making large territorial gains in Iraq and Syria. Later that year, Al Qaeda disavowed itself of ISIS.

That's the moment they became the force we now know today.

Al-Qaeda disavows ISIS militants in Syria - BBC News

Syria Iraq: The Islamic State militant group - BBC News

I can't help you're a liberal, or the stupidity that comes with it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unlike refugees of the past, the ones from Syria are militant Muslims. Syria has a long history of terrorism directed against Israel and the West and a demonstratable hatred of the non-Muslim world. Yet we're expected to forget about that and welcome them inside our borders because their own government tried to kill them? Have you asked yourself why they're refugees from their own government? Maybe because they were a violent threat?

The US refused access to European Jews, most particularly East European from Axis states because they were considered "undesirables" and a conduit for infiltrators. The argument against Syrian refugees is much the same.

Their own government is Assad. Assad is not exactly a model ruler but the latest in the line of ruthless dictators with horrendous human rights abuse record, intolerance of any political dissidents. Maybe that is why his people rose up and why he is indiscriminantly slaughtering them and turning them into refugees. The other "government" at play is ISIS from which refugees are also fleeing.

Difference being exclusion of Jewish refugees was born out of bigotry and hypotheticals. There really are terrorists among Syrians.

No...not really.

Was there bigotry? You bet. Just like with the Syrians.

Could there have been infiltrators amongst them? Yes, there could have and probably were a few. There were brave journalists who smuggled themselves into Nazi Germany. What makes you think the reverse wouldn't happen? There didn't exist the instant media and electronic communications then that we have now. But I'm sure the fear then was just as real as the fear now and just as "valid".

Bigotry is irrational hatred of people or groups. Hating Syrian refugees almost certainly including infiltrators isn't irrational, just prudent. Don't think anyone credible hates all the Syrians just because they're Syrian, know I don't, and I wish we could welcome them with open arms. But there are confirmed ISIS terrorists among them. Only way to ensure they don't get in is exclude them all. Sucks, but that's wartime reality.

I disagree. Hate of them isn't logical. Being cautious of them is.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Can you assure me that none of your neighbors are child-molesting serial rapists? Can you guarantee it?

Do you live in abject fear of them, too?

How childish.

Here's another example. You have a bowl of 100 M&M's, and just one piece is poisoned. Will you sit there with a straight face and tell me "the rest of them aren't poisoned, so it's okay to eat them, trust me"?

This is your approach to the refugees. It's highly illogical. It only takes one to cause death. So, if you're intent on eating those M&M's, why don't you screen them all for the poison instead of taking such a blind risk?

You can repeat as many rightwing internet memes as you like, they're all faulty analogies, because they all require you to know for a fact that there's "one poisoned m&m", when in reality that information doesn't exist.

A better analogy would be something along the lines of "A guy on the radio told me that one package of ground beef somewhere in the country is poisoned, so therefore we should make a law forcing everyone to be a vegetarian, just in case it's true"

Guess what? It's almost certain that in some supermarket out there, they're selling bad beef.

That doesn't mean I'm going to become a vegetarian just in case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can repeat as many rightwing internet memes as you like, they're all faulty analogies, because they all require you to know for a fact that there's "one poisoned m&m", when in reality that information doesn't exist.

Seriously? Given that I already explained the scenario, and that you've already been apprised of the risk, you now know there is one in a hundred M&M's that could be poisonous. But you're going to sit there and tell me you'd rather take the risk? How foolish.

And "rightwing memes?" Is that it? Is that all you're going to say to dismiss my argument?

A better analogy would be something along the lines of "A guy on the radio told me that one package of ground beef somewhere in the country is poisoned, so therefore we should make a law forcing everyone to be a vegetarian, just in case it's true"

You're being asinine. Like I said, in these analogies, all it takes is one package of beef or one piece of candy to kill someone. That's all it takes.

These are people, Doc, who posses varying ideologies and opinions of the US, some of them negative. You can't sit there and say for certain all of them have a positive view of the US. They aren't M&M's, nor packages of beef. And it can be reasonable to assume there are some among them that have an ulterior motive, and a desire to go out and kill Americans. As we can see with ISIS, they can even use women and children as weapons.

You can't assure me that there aren't terrorists hiding in their midst. You won't even admit to the distinct possibility of such a thing being true.

You have no way of knowing that you are or aren't the unlucky guy who bought a poisonous package of beef at the deli. But when presented with the risk, and the ability to choose which circumstance you'll follow, you can take precaution instead of taking the risk.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You can repeat as many rightwing internet memes as you like, they're all faulty analogies, because they all require you to know for a fact that there's "one poisoned m&m", when in reality that information doesn't exist.

Seriously? Given that I already explained the scenario, and that you've already been apprised of the risk, you now know there is one in a hundred M&M's that could be poisonous. But you're going to sit there and tell me you'd rather take the risk? How foolish.

And "rightwing memes?" Is that it? Is that all you're going to say to dismiss my argument?

I think you might want to re-read what I posted, because you seem to be responding to something else entirely.

And yeah - it's a right wing internet meme.

A better analogy would be something along the lines of "A guy on the radio told me that one package of ground beef somewhere in the country is poisoned, so therefore we should make a law forcing everyone to be a vegetarian, just in case it's true"

You're being asinine. Like I said, in these analogies, all it takes is one package of beef or one piece of candy to kill someone. That's all it takes.

These are people, Doc, who posses varying ideologies and opinions of the US, some of them negative. You can't sit there and say for certain all of them have a positive view of the US. They aren't M&M's, nor packages of beef. And it can be reasonable to assume there are some among them that have an ulterior motive, and a desire to go out and kill Americans. As we can see with ISIS, they can even use women and children as weapons.

You can't assure me that there aren't terrorists hiding in their midst. You won't even admit to the distinct possibility of such a thing being true.

You have no way of knowing that you are or aren't the unlucky guy who bought a poisonous package of beef at the deli. But when presented with the risk, and the ability to choose which circumstance you'll follow, you can take precaution instead of taking the risk.

As I've already gone over repeatedly, this argument is asinine. Everything has risks, and sometimes risks are worth the rewards.

Stepping out your front door is a risk - you could get shot by a drug dealer, hit by a car, struck by lightening, or even fed a poisoned M&M. Would you choose to take the "precaution" of never leaving your house and becoming a shut-in?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Everything has risks, and sometimes risks are worth the rewards.

Not this time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stepping out your front door is a risk - you could get shot by a drug dealer, hit by a car, struck by lightening, or even fed a poisoned M&M. Would you choose to take the "precaution" of never leaving your house and becoming a shut-in?

You know damn well that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think you might want to re-read what I posted, because you seem to be responding to something else entirely.

And yeah - it's a right wing internet meme.

Well, isn't that a coincidence. Even so, it's still a valid point. One you refuse to acknowledge.

 

[Hancock]

You can repeat as many rightwing internet memes as you like, they're all faulty analogies, because they all require you to know for a fact that there's "one poisoned m&m", when in reality that information doesn't exist.

Seriously? Given that I already explained the scenario, and that you've already been apprised of the risk, you now know there is one in a hundred M&M's that could be poisonous. But you're going to sit there and tell me you'd rather take the risk? How foolish.

And "rightwing memes?" Is that it? Is that all you're going to say to dismiss my argument?

I think you might want to re-read what I posted, because you seem to be responding to something else entirely.

And yeah - it's a right wing internet meme.

A better analogy would be something along the lines of "A guy on the radio told me that one package of ground beef somewhere in the country is poisoned, so therefore we should make a law forcing everyone to be a vegetarian, just in case it's true"

You're being asinine. Like I said, in these analogies, all it takes is one package of beef or one piece of candy to kill someone. That's all it takes.

These are people, Doc, who posses varying ideologies and opinions of the US, some of them negative. You can't sit there and say for certain all of them have a positive view of the US. They aren't M&M's, nor packages of beef. And it can be reasonable to assume there are some among them that have an ulterior motive, and a desire to go out and kill Americans. As we can see with ISIS, they can even use women and children as weapons.

You can't assure me that there aren't terrorists hiding in their midst. You won't even admit to the distinct possibility of such a thing being true.

You have no way of knowing that you are or aren't the unlucky guy who bought a poisonous package of beef at the deli. But when presented with the risk, and the ability to choose which circumstance you'll follow, you can take precaution instead of taking the risk.

As I've already gone over repeatedly, this argument is asinine. Everything has risks, and sometimes risks are worth the rewards.

Stepping out your front door is a risk - you could get shot by a drug dealer, hit by a car, struck by lightening, or even fed a poisoned M&M. Would you choose to take the "precaution" of never leaving your house and becoming a shut-in?

26 terror plots in US tied to immigrants, Sen. Jeff Sessions says: 'Screening is very poor'

Here are 26 reasons they should go somewhere else. It's not a question of if the m&m's are poisoned, it's how many!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can repeat as many rightwing internet memes as you like, they're all faulty analogies, because they all require you to know for a fact that there's "one poisoned m&m", when in reality that information doesn't exist.

Seriously? Given that I already explained the scenario, and that you've already been apprised of the risk, you now know there is one in a hundred M&M's that could be poisonous. But you're going to sit there and tell me you'd rather take the risk? How foolish.

And "rightwing memes?" Is that it? Is that all you're going to say to dismiss my argument?

I think you might want to re-read what I posted, because you seem to be responding to something else entirely.

And yeah - it's a right wing internet meme.

A better analogy would be something along the lines of "A guy on the radio told me that one package of ground beef somewhere in the country is poisoned, so therefore we should make a law forcing everyone to be a vegetarian, just in case it's true"

You're being asinine. Like I said, in these analogies, all it takes is one package of beef or one piece of candy to kill someone. That's all it takes.

These are people, Doc, who posses varying ideologies and opinions of the US, some of them negative. You can't sit there and say for certain all of them have a positive view of the US. They aren't M&M's, nor packages of beef. And it can be reasonable to assume there are some among them that have an ulterior motive, and a desire to go out and kill Americans. As we can see with ISIS, they can even use women and children as weapons.

You can't assure me that there aren't terrorists hiding in their midst. You won't even admit to the distinct possibility of such a thing being true.

You have no way of knowing that you are or aren't the unlucky guy who bought a poisonous package of beef at the deli. But when presented with the risk, and the ability to choose which circumstance you'll follow, you can take precaution instead of taking the risk.

As I've already gone over repeatedly, this argument is asinine. Everything has risks, and sometimes risks are worth the rewards.

Stepping out your front door is a risk - you could get shot by a drug dealer, hit by a car, struck by lightening, or even fed a poisoned M&M. Would you choose to take the "precaution" of never leaving your house and becoming a shut-in?

26 terror plots in US tied to immigrants, Sen. Jeff Sessions says: 'Screening is very poor'

Here are 26 reasons they should go somewhere else. It's not a question of if the m&m's are poisoned, it's how many!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I rest my case. Thank you, Hancock. I'll send you some Skittles in an M&M's bag.

 

[Hancock]

You can repeat as many rightwing internet memes as you like, they're all faulty analogies, because they all require you to know for a fact that there's "one poisoned m&m", when in reality that information doesn't exist.

Seriously? Given that I already explained the scenario, and that you've already been apprised of the risk, you now know there is one in a hundred M&M's that could be poisonous. But you're going to sit there and tell me you'd rather take the risk? How foolish.

And "rightwing memes?" Is that it? Is that all you're going to say to dismiss my argument?

I think you might want to re-read what I posted, because you seem to be responding to something else entirely.

And yeah - it's a right wing internet meme.

A better analogy would be something along the lines of "A guy on the radio told me that one package of ground beef somewhere in the country is poisoned, so therefore we should make a law forcing everyone to be a vegetarian, just in case it's true"

You're being asinine. Like I said, in these analogies, all it takes is one package of beef or one piece of candy to kill someone. That's all it takes.

These are people, Doc, who posses varying ideologies and opinions of the US, some of them negative. You can't sit there and say for certain all of them have a positive view of the US. They aren't M&M's, nor packages of beef. And it can be reasonable to assume there are some among them that have an ulterior motive, and a desire to go out and kill Americans. As we can see with ISIS, they can even use women and children as weapons.

You can't assure me that there aren't terrorists hiding in their midst. You won't even admit to the distinct possibility of such a thing being true.

You have no way of knowing that you are or aren't the unlucky guy who bought a poisonous package of beef at the deli. But when presented with the risk, and the ability to choose which circumstance you'll follow, you can take precaution instead of taking the risk.

As I've already gone over repeatedly, this argument is asinine. Everything has risks, and sometimes risks are worth the rewards.

Stepping out your front door is a risk - you could get shot by a drug dealer, hit by a car, struck by lightening, or even fed a poisoned M&M. Would you choose to take the "precaution" of never leaving your house and becoming a shut-in?

26 terror plots in US tied to immigrants, Sen. Jeff Sessions says: 'Screening is very poor'

Here are 26 reasons they should go somewhere else. It's not a question of if the m&m's are poisoned, it's how many!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I rest my case. Thank you, Hancock. I'll send you some Skittles in an M&M's bag.

Just leave the funny looking ones for theDoc...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You can repeat as many rightwing internet memes as you like, they're all faulty analogies, because they all require you to know for a fact that there's "one poisoned m&m", when in reality that information doesn't exist.

Seriously? Given that I already explained the scenario, and that you've already been apprised of the risk, you now know there is one in a hundred M&M's that could be poisonous. But you're going to sit there and tell me you'd rather take the risk? How foolish.

And "rightwing memes?" Is that it? Is that all you're going to say to dismiss my argument?

I think you might want to re-read what I posted, because you seem to be responding to something else entirely.

And yeah - it's a right wing internet meme.

A better analogy would be something along the lines of "A guy on the radio told me that one package of ground beef somewhere in the country is poisoned, so therefore we should make a law forcing everyone to be a vegetarian, just in case it's true"

You're being asinine. Like I said, in these analogies, all it takes is one package of beef or one piece of candy to kill someone. That's all it takes.

These are people, Doc, who posses varying ideologies and opinions of the US, some of them negative. You can't sit there and say for certain all of them have a positive view of the US. They aren't M&M's, nor packages of beef. And it can be reasonable to assume there are some among them that have an ulterior motive, and a desire to go out and kill Americans. As we can see with ISIS, they can even use women and children as weapons.

You can't assure me that there aren't terrorists hiding in their midst. You won't even admit to the distinct possibility of such a thing being true.

You have no way of knowing that you are or aren't the unlucky guy who bought a poisonous package of beef at the deli. But when presented with the risk, and the ability to choose which circumstance you'll follow, you can take precaution instead of taking the risk.

As I've already gone over repeatedly, this argument is asinine. Everything has risks, and sometimes risks are worth the rewards.

Stepping out your front door is a risk - you could get shot by a drug dealer, hit by a car, struck by lightening, or even fed a poisoned M&M. Would you choose to take the "precaution" of never leaving your house and becoming a shut-in?

26 terror plots in US tied to immigrants, Sen. Jeff Sessions says: 'Screening is very poor'

Here are 26 reasons they should go somewhere else. It's not a question of if the m&m's are poisoned, it's how many!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

More than half of those people on your list were American citizens. None of them were refugees.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Stepping out your front door is a risk - you could get shot by a drug dealer, hit by a car, struck by lightening, or even fed a poisoned M&M. Would you choose to take the "precaution" of never leaving your house and becoming a shut-in?

You know damn well that's not what I'm talking about.

Why not?

If you're so risk-adverse that the slightest possibility of something bad happening causes you to freak the fuck out, how can you even leave your house?

All of those "risks" I listed are a lot more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you might want to re-read what I posted, because you seem to be responding to something else entirely.

And yeah - it's a right wing internet meme.

Well, isn't that a coincidence. Even so, it's still a valid point. One you refuse to acknowledge.

It's not a "valid point", it's a staggeringly over-simplified and lame attempt at a "gotcha".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Everything has risks, and sometimes risks are worth the rewards.

Not this time.

That's your opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Doc, your whole scenario is like playing Russian Roulette (oops) with two 45's, one 45 has one bullet in the magazine and the other with no bullets at all. You have no way of knowing which gun has the bullet, or whether that bullet is chambered or still in the magazine.

The moral of the story? Don't play Russian Roulette. It's a stupid game to play, and right now, you want to play it. You are refusing to acknowledge the very real risk that one or at least a hundred of them could be terrorists lying in wait.

Here's another moral of this story: Don't play with fire.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Everything has risks, and sometimes risks are worth the rewards.

Not this time.

That's your opinion.

Right. So whatever you can't debate or acknowledge, you simply refer to it as "that's your opinion." That's extremely frustrating you know.

 

[Rustic]

It's funny how The Right castigates The Left for being all about "fweewings" when utterly shameful crap like this is going on. Fear is a "feeling" too and like many feelings not always rational.

Republicans' anti-refugee rhetoric is shameful and despicable — and probably good politics

As I write this, 26 Republican governors (and one Democrat) have said publicly that they oppose bringing Syrian refugees to their states, with most saying they'd refuse to accept them; by the time you read this, the other five Republican governors may have made similar statements. Meanwhile, every major GOP presidential candidate has come out against bringing Syrian refugees here, and Ted Cruz has introduced a bill to bar any Syrian refugees from settling in the United States.

This hurricane of xenophobia and cynical opportunism makes for a truly odious display. But sadly, it's also good politics for Republicans, at least in the short term.​

Yes...politics is certainly playing a big part. Let's analyze the reality.

Before we go any farther, we should acknowledge a simple fact: If you're concerned about stopping ISIS from committing an act of terrorism in the United States, the 10,000 Syrian refugees who will be admitted after a rigorous vetting process is one of the last things you should be worried about. It's possible (though far from necessary) for a member of ISIS to get to Europe by posing as a refugee, since large numbers of Syrians are somewhat chaotically making their way to places like Greece, and once they're on European soil they can move freely between countries. But the process of getting to the United States as a refugee is completely different.​

Rightwing Histrionic#1 -- we don't know who they are!!!! they could be anyone!!! they aren't vetted well!!!!!

The vetting process is far more extensive for a refugee coming in than it is for, say, someone with a tourist visa. It can take upwards of 2 years before they are admitted.

4 Things To Know About The Vetting Process For Syrian Refugees

Refugees are screened by several different agencies
Their first point of a refugee's contact is with the U.N. High Commission for Refugees. The UNHCR refers people to countries based on whether they have any family members there and where resettlement makes the most sense, say U.S. officials. If that's the U.S., then refugees are vetted by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security. Fingerprints are taken, biographical information is collected. They are then each individually interviewed by U.S. officials trained to verify that they're bona fide refugees.

Refugees from Syria are then subject to additional screening that looks at where they came from and what caused them to flee their home, stories that are checked out. All of this occurs before a refugee is allowed to set foot in the country.

It's a lengthy process

As you might imagine, all of the vetting, from interviews to fingerprinting, takes a while. On average, officials say it's 18 to 24 months before a refugee is approved for admission to the U.S...​

Histrionic #2: why should we be paying for them when we got xyz homeless people and people in poverty? (this one was a shocker to hear because it's the first time I've heard any concern from the Republicans for the welfare of homeless people and their actions in cutting programs demonizing the poor as parasites indicate quite the opposite).

Physical resettlement
There are nine different nonprofit groups, six of them faith-based, that help refugees settle in the U.S. Volunteers with the groups help refugees find homes, furniture, school supplies and jobs.​

Oops...looks like you don't have to pay for it unless you want to, people volunteer because they feel it's the right thing to do - another faux objection.

Histrionic #3: omg omg a refugee disappeared in Louisiana...no one knows where he is!!!!!!! We've got to stop taking Syrian refugees!!!!!

Reality check: umh...no...he was never missing.

Catholic Charities: One Syrian immigrant briefly settled in Baton Rouge before moving; he never went missing
Baton Rouge received one Syrian refugee over the summer, a man Catholic Charities helped for a few days before he left to meet family in another state.


Catholic Charities said Tuesday the man is the only Syrian refugee they have helped recently, and Louisiana State Police confirmed he had left Baton Rouge for Washington, D.C.


But the news of that one man set off a flood of phone calls Tuesday to the organization, especially from misinformation that made some people believe the man had gone missing, Catholic Charities Executive Director David Aguillard said.


One caller even made several threats while on the phone with Catholic Charities, especially against Syrian refugees. State Police said they are investigating the threats and take them seriously.​

Now IS there a need for concern? Some, but far less than the hysteria demands.

Objections of governors and members of Congress

Some officials, including FBI Director James Comey, worry there are what Comey has called "gaps" in the vetting process. Experts say U.S. intelligence in Syria isn't very good, because the U.S. lacks much of a presence on the ground. So there's no way to compile a thorough watch list of possible terrorists from Syria against which refugees can be checked. Administration officials are briefing governors and members of Congress about the process, but lawmakers may try to pass legislation calling on the administration to suspend its refugee resettlement efforts.​

The groups most responsible for helping refugees - whether they are Burmese, Somali, or Syrian are often our religious institutions and other non-profit charities. Kudos to them, for they are struggling to keep our nation's moral compass pointed in the right direction. When all those Central American children were flooding the border, they had the courage to take them in and help them while the wingnuts picketed their bus and yelled slurs.

Christian groups break with GOP over Syrian refugees
Faith-based groups, who play a key role in resettling refugees to the United States, say they are dismayed by the wave of anti-refugee fervor set off by the Paris terrorist attacks and are urging supporters to contact elected officials on behalf of victims of the Syrian civil war.

Evangelical Christians, as well as Christians more broadly, are a core group in the Republican electoral base and are among the most passionate advocates for aiding refugees.

A push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees "does not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which are evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ... doesn’t reflect who refugees are."​

Who gives a shit about Syrian refugees, why don't we just let them crawl all over Europe. Why do we feel the need to let them deadbeats come over here and do whatever?? Terrorists or not this country can't afford any more welfare queens...