Republicans, Refugees and the Hysterical Politics of Fear

[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

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

Doc where did you get your PHD in autism? Muslim immigrants, the same as refugees. Once again can't hide from facts. These were immigrants who came here and planned attacks...You think these guys would leave in a year or two to return to their mud huts turned crater? No, nevermind, I'm sure that's exactly what you believe. Carry on...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

I'm not afraid of taking those risks, because taking those particular risks have no chance of harming anyone but me. You can't seem to make the delineation between a minor risk (walking out of your house) and a major risk (admitting Syrian refugees from a war torn country who may or may not have ISIS terrorists embedded among them).

What you are doing is engaging in ad hominem instead of addressing my actual point.

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

See my previous statement. No offense, Doc, but this is getting ridiculous. It doesn't matter if the risk is slim for me, the risk could be greater for someone else. That's why I will not stand for endangering the welfare of fellow Americans on some misguided sense of compassion. Find a better way to vet these refugees or don't let them in at all. Period.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It took only 20 men to kill 3000 people on 9/11, 9 to kill 132 people in Paris. Like I said, it doesn't take a lot of people to perpetrate such an atrocity.

 

[westwall]

Well republicans certainly rushed to the thread to prove that Coyote was right about the hysteria. This is ebola all over again.

Right...and what was the Ebola epidemic's horrendous toll in America? One?

Technically zero because he contracted it in Africa and waited till it was too late to be saved before he left. He was a very special kind of stupid. Sad that he died but he did himself in...

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this...........................why aren't the ones coming here set up in refugee camps..............GUARDED refugee camps..................
Contained...................Go back home when Syria is stabilized..........We have no reason to just turn them loose when we don't know who might be the enemy........They stay alive, and we don't have them running around the country.

What if the conflict in Syria lasts as long as Iraq or Afghanistan? How many of your tax dollars are you willing to pay to keep the Big Scawy Refugees behind razor wire? Your side's already in favor of privatized prison systems, so I guess that answers that.

The rest of us would like to see people become productive members of society. Kind of like we do with aliens. People with jobs who pay taxes and whose kids grow up to integrate into our aging-out population so we don't end up withering like Japan.

But you just run out and stock up on ammo and hide in your bunker with your blankie.

We don't know who the fuck they really are..................The Vetting process is a joke and we could get some just like the one's that attacked in Paris..........That isn't worth the damned risk..............Given time in these camps we might be able to figure which ones are worthy of what you just said...........and in these camps they would have food and water and wouldn't be getting killed like they were in Syria............

Your willing to sacrifice Americans by turning them loose..........I'm not.............So then you play the Psycho Babble view that if we don't turn them loose I'm hiding under the bed..................Your sides Fear Mongering Campaign to back your Idiot in the Oval Office is pathetic........................and taking the chance for allowing more ISIS in is AGAINST COMMON SENSE................High officials in the FBI, and Counter Intel world are saying they can't be properly vetted.........Obama lets them out and they kill.........then he has American blood on his hands..........as will you for supporting it.

 

[mudwhistle]

The liberal media is starting to freak out...

The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Mocking it is the worst thing we could do

Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster.

It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security

As predicted by me Obama who has been horrible for the Democratic party will go right on destroying them from within through the 2016 elections

Obama only thinks about his welfare. He doesn't care about his own party. His doesn't care about his own country. He just cares about what makes him happy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Riddle me this...........................why aren't the ones coming here set up in refugee camps..............GUARDED refugee camps..................
Contained...................Go back home when Syria is stabilized..........We have no reason to just turn them loose when we don't know who might be the enemy........They stay alive, and we don't have them running around the country.

What if the conflict in Syria lasts as long as Iraq or Afghanistan? How many of your tax dollars are you willing to pay to keep the Big Scawy Refugees behind razor wire? Your side's already in favor of privatized prison systems, so I guess that answers that.

The rest of us would like to see people become productive members of society. Kind of like we do with aliens. People with jobs who pay taxes and whose kids grow up to integrate into our aging-out population so we don't end up withering like Japan.

But you just run out and stock up on ammo and hide in your bunker with your blankie.

We don't know who the fuck they really are..................The Vetting process is a joke and we could get some just like the one's that attacked in Paris..........That isn't worth the damned risk..............Given time in these camps we might be able to figure which ones are worthy of what you just said...........and in these camps they would have food and water and wouldn't be getting killed like they were in Syria............

Your willing to sacrifice Americans by turning them loose..........I'm not.............So then you play the Psycho Babble view that if we don't turn them loose I'm hiding under the bed..................Your sides Fear Mongering Campaign to back your Idiot in the Oval Office is pathetic........................and taking the chance for allowing more ISIS in is AGAINST COMMON SENSE................High officials in the FBI, and Counter Intel world are saying they can't be properly vetted.........Obama lets them out and they kill.........then he has American blood on his hands..........as will you for supporting it.

The point everyone seems to be missing is that every Muslim is a potential terrorist or a supporter of terrorism.

This is why more than half of a stadium of Turkish soccer fans booed a moment of silence for the Paris victims.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Riddle me this...........................why aren't the ones coming here set up in refugee camps..............GUARDED refugee camps..................
Contained...................Go back home when Syria is stabilized..........We have no reason to just turn them loose when we don't know who might be the enemy........They stay alive, and we don't have them running around the country.

What if the conflict in Syria lasts as long as Iraq or Afghanistan? How many of your tax dollars are you willing to pay to keep the Big Scawy Refugees behind razor wire? Your side's already in favor of privatized prison systems, so I guess that answers that.

The rest of us would like to see people become productive members of society. Kind of like we do with aliens. People with jobs who pay taxes and whose kids grow up to integrate into our aging-out population so we don't end up withering like Japan.

But you just run out and stock up on ammo and hide in your bunker with your blankie.

We don't know who the fuck they really are..................The Vetting process is a joke and we could get some just like the one's that attacked in Paris..........That isn't worth the damned risk..............Given time in these camps we might be able to figure which ones are worthy of what you just said...........and in these camps they would have food and water and wouldn't be getting killed like they were in Syria............

Your willing to sacrifice Americans by turning them loose..........I'm not.............So then you play the Psycho Babble view that if we don't turn them loose I'm hiding under the bed..................Your sides Fear Mongering Campaign to back your Idiot in the Oval Office is pathetic........................and taking the chance for allowing more ISIS in is AGAINST COMMON SENSE................High officials in the FBI, and Counter Intel world are saying they can't be properly vetted.........Obama lets them out and they kill.........then he has American blood on his hands..........as will you for supporting it.

That....is not.........how...........you're supposed..............to use.........periods.

 

[mudwhistle]

Riddle me this...........................why aren't the ones coming here set up in refugee camps..............GUARDED refugee camps..................
Contained...................Go back home when Syria is stabilized..........We have no reason to just turn them loose when we don't know who might be the enemy........They stay alive, and we don't have them running around the country.

What if the conflict in Syria lasts as long as Iraq or Afghanistan? How many of your tax dollars are you willing to pay to keep the Big Scawy Refugees behind razor wire? Your side's already in favor of privatized prison systems, so I guess that answers that.

The rest of us would like to see people become productive members of society. Kind of like we do with aliens. People with jobs who pay taxes and whose kids grow up to integrate into our aging-out population so we don't end up withering like Japan.

But you just run out and stock up on ammo and hide in your bunker with your blankie.

We don't know who the fuck they really are..................The Vetting process is a joke and we could get some just like the one's that attacked in Paris..........That isn't worth the damned risk..............Given time in these camps we might be able to figure which ones are worthy of what you just said...........and in these camps they would have food and water and wouldn't be getting killed like they were in Syria............

Your willing to sacrifice Americans by turning them loose..........I'm not.............So then you play the Psycho Babble view that if we don't turn them loose I'm hiding under the bed..................Your sides Fear Mongering Campaign to back your Idiot in the Oval Office is pathetic........................and taking the chance for allowing more ISIS in is AGAINST COMMON SENSE................High officials in the FBI, and Counter Intel world are saying they can't be properly vetted.........Obama lets them out and they kill.........then he has American blood on his hands..........as will you for supporting it.

That....is not.........how...........you're supposed..............to use.........periods.

You would know.....about having periods.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Riddle me this...........................why aren't the ones coming here set up in refugee camps..............GUARDED refugee camps..................
Contained...................Go back home when Syria is stabilized..........We have no reason to just turn them loose when we don't know who might be the enemy........They stay alive, and we don't have them running around the country.

What if the conflict in Syria lasts as long as Iraq or Afghanistan? How many of your tax dollars are you willing to pay to keep the Big Scawy Refugees behind razor wire? Your side's already in favor of privatized prison systems, so I guess that answers that.

The rest of us would like to see people become productive members of society. Kind of like we do with aliens. People with jobs who pay taxes and whose kids grow up to integrate into our aging-out population so we don't end up withering like Japan.

But you just run out and stock up on ammo and hide in your bunker with your blankie.

We don't know who the fuck they really are..................The Vetting process is a joke and we could get some just like the one's that attacked in Paris..........That isn't worth the damned risk..............Given time in these camps we might be able to figure which ones are worthy of what you just said...........and in these camps they would have food and water and wouldn't be getting killed like they were in Syria............

Your willing to sacrifice Americans by turning them loose..........I'm not.............So then you play the Psycho Babble view that if we don't turn them loose I'm hiding under the bed..................Your sides Fear Mongering Campaign to back your Idiot in the Oval Office is pathetic........................and taking the chance for allowing more ISIS in is AGAINST COMMON SENSE................High officials in the FBI, and Counter Intel world are saying they can't be properly vetted.........Obama lets them out and they kill.........then he has American blood on his hands..........as will you for supporting it.

That....is not.........how...........you're supposed..............to use.........periods.

You would know.....about having periods.

Oh...good one............retard.

 

[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....

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.

So you decide to begin your history in 2013. I decide to begin when the recovering alcoholic finally listened to that little voice (DICK) in his head that kept telling him to invade the wrong frigin country. Daesh began then! W, the most incompetent, recovering alcoholic, president that we ever had in the country unleashed the monsters.

Now, Donald and the other clowns in the car are screaming....GIVE US ANOTHER CHANCE!

They are just itching to get some more young US service men and women killed. "BOMB THEM!", "10,000 TROOPS ON THE GROUND!" DESTROY "EVERY PIPE" IN THE OIL FIELDS.

Yeah, these clowns really sound they are ready for the oval office.....

 

[Stephanie]

When we are attacked by one or two that has been let in our country, then we can come back and make a thread that makes fun of how Democrats have the blood on their hand of all those killed from it. but they won't care, like Obama he see's us as just collateral damage

 

[JimH52]

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

Not this time.

Cause kormac is afraid of the Boogie Man....

 

[JimH52]

When we are attacked by one or two that has been let in our country, then we can come back and make a thread that makes fun of how Democrats have the blood on their hand of all those killed from it. but they won't care, like Obama he see's us as just collateral damage

Finally crawled out of your hole, did you?

 

[Stephanie]

come on there IS no reasons to fear. those Democrats climbing on their soapbox tell us so.
SNIP:
PURE EVIL=> ISIS Gutted Wounded Victims at French Concert Hall As They Lay Dying on Floor

Jim Hoft Nov 18th, 2015 6:00 am

Two British women who survived the Paris concert hall massacre, Christine Tudhope and Mariesha Payne hid in the cellar while the terrorists went on their bloody rampage on the floor above them.


The two women hid in the cellar of the Bataclan as the Islamists shouting “Allahu Akbar” slaughtered 100 innocents on the floor above them.



Now this…
The evil Islamist killers tortured their victims at the Bataclan. They slit their stomachs and watched them die.
The Mirror reported:


ALL of it here:
PURE EVIL=> ISIS Gutted Wounded Victims at French Concert Hall As They Lay Dying on Floor - The Gateway Pundit

 

[mudwhistle]

Riddle me this...........................why aren't the ones coming here set up in refugee camps..............GUARDED refugee camps..................
Contained...................Go back home when Syria is stabilized..........We have no reason to just turn them loose when we don't know who might be the enemy........They stay alive, and we don't have them running around the country.

What if the conflict in Syria lasts as long as Iraq or Afghanistan? How many of your tax dollars are you willing to pay to keep the Big Scawy Refugees behind razor wire? Your side's already in favor of privatized prison systems, so I guess that answers that.

The rest of us would like to see people become productive members of society. Kind of like we do with aliens. People with jobs who pay taxes and whose kids grow up to integrate into our aging-out population so we don't end up withering like Japan.

But you just run out and stock up on ammo and hide in your bunker with your blankie.

We don't know who the fuck they really are..................The Vetting process is a joke and we could get some just like the one's that attacked in Paris..........That isn't worth the damned risk..............Given time in these camps we might be able to figure which ones are worthy of what you just said...........and in these camps they would have food and water and wouldn't be getting killed like they were in Syria............

Your willing to sacrifice Americans by turning them loose..........I'm not.............So then you play the Psycho Babble view that if we don't turn them loose I'm hiding under the bed..................Your sides Fear Mongering Campaign to back your Idiot in the Oval Office is pathetic........................and taking the chance for allowing more ISIS in is AGAINST COMMON SENSE................High officials in the FBI, and Counter Intel world are saying they can't be properly vetted.........Obama lets them out and they kill.........then he has American blood on his hands..........as will you for supporting it.

That....is not.........how...........you're supposed..............to use.........periods.

You would know.....about having periods.

Oh...good one............retard.

Who's the retard?

The one with a valid point or the one who has nothing, and instead resorts to attacking grammar and punctuation?

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

Try reading a little more carefully Doc. The Boston Bombers were refugees....among others on the list.



The Boston Bombers, who killed three and injured more than 250, were invited in as refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyuone who trusts the U.N. or Obama to vet the refugees properly is a fool. Numerous experts have stated in categorical terms that they can't be vetted.

Trusting Obama is true insanity, and trusting a bunch of "refugees" who are males of military age is even more insane.

Yup called it

Nobody knows what process Obama used. They don't want to tell us. That alone is sufficient cause to say no to this idiocy.

I wish you would say no to your own idiocy.

Tell us what the vetting process is then, moron.

First this:

UNHCR - Resettlement

Then this:

Mobile Site Preview

and

http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/Refugee resettlement - step by step USCRI.pdf

If that's too much for you to read, then continue wetting yourself and hiding under your bed like you did during last year's ebola "crisis."

The FBI director has already testified that they have no data on these refugees, so running their names through their database accomplishes exactly nothing.

FAIL!

http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/Refugee resettlement - step by step USCRI.pdf​

STEP 4
Security Clearance Process:
With information collected by the RSC, a number of security checks are conducted. The State Department runs the names of all refugees referred to the United States for resettlement through a standard CLASS (Consular Lookout and Support System) name check. In addition, enhanced interagency security checks were phased in beginning in 2008 and applied to all refugee applicants by 2010.

—STEP 5
Security Clearance Process:
Certain refugees undergo an additional security review called a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO). These cases require a positive SAO clearance from a number of U.S.law enforcement and intelligence agencies in order to continue the resettlement process. When required, this step runs concurrently with Step 4​

 

[Coyote]

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?

I'm not afraid of taking those risks, because taking those particular risks have no chance of harming anyone but me. You can't seem to make the delineation between a minor risk (walking out of your house) and a major risk (admitting Syrian refugees from a war torn country who may or may not have ISIS terrorists embedded among them).

Statistically speaking - walking out of your house is a much more major risk than admitting a Syrian refugee.

Just walking out of your house you have a risk of from: falling, being hit by a car, exposure to excessive natural heat, cataclysmic storm, contact with sharp objects, hrnets, wasps and bees, being bitten by a dog and struck by lightening not to mention intentional self harm. You're 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.

The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are 20 million to 1.

In the above list, the largest odds are being struck by lightening - 1 in 126,158.

Many many times more likely than being killed in a terrorist attack.

Why this irrational fear when the refugee process is one of the best vetted ways of bringing in people to the US?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Try reading a little more carefully Doc. The Boston Bombers were refugees....among others on the list.



The Boston Bombers, who killed three and injured more than 250, were invited in as refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship.

The Boston Bombers were not refugees.

Their father entered the US on a tourist visa, and then applied for assylum - the process is completely different than the refugee. The two brothers were small children at the time.

What's the difference between U.S. immigrant refugees and asylees?

UPDATE: Following the Boston Marathon bombing, the Washington Post and others reported that the bombers were refugees. Other reports, however, have indicated that the Tsarnaev brothers were not refugees — they arrived in the United States as young children of an asylee. As a State Department official told Bloomberg, their father came to the United States on a tourist visa and applied for asylum.

Most people aren’t familiar with the distinct, separate definitions of refugees and asylees (or asylum-seekers), but both groups in the U.S. tend to get a disproportionate amount of attention in the news for a variety of reasons. For example, the infamous 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were both immigrant refugees from Chechnya, which prompted some U.S. politicians to try to pass laws to lower the number of refugees allowed in the country. (See update above.) In September 2013, 25 DREAMers tried to re-enter the U.S. border from Mexico in order to ask for asylum in an attempt to bring attention to immigration issues as well as to obtain a legitimate legal status...


Characteristics of refugees
The U.S. government has much tighter restrictions on who can be labeled a refugee, but there are many more refugees than asylees granted legal status per year. Each year, the President determines how many refugees will be allowed to enter the U.S. In fiscal year 2013, 69,930 refugees were authorized to enter the U.S., just 70 people shy of the 70,000 maximum. Iraq, Burma, and Bhutan sent the largest groups of refugees to the U.S. (Update: In fiscal year 2014, 69,986 refugees entered the United States. Numbers for 2015 are not yet available.)

In order to be a refugee under U.S. immigration law,

• You must fit the requirements regarding persecution (listed above)
• You must secure refugee status while you are still outside the United States. You cannot seek refugee status once you are inside.
• Your case is of special humanitarian concern to the United States.
• You can be labeled admissible for legal entry into the United States.

Characteristics of asylees
For the last decade, the United States has been accepting between 20,000 and 30,000 asylum applicants per year. Popular countries of U.S. asylum seekers include China, Venezuela, and Ethiopia, Egypt, and Haiti.

To seek asylum in the U.S. under current laws,

• You fit the requirements of living under threat of persecution as a refugee (listed above).
• You are already present in the United States or are seeking admission at a port of entry.

One important difference is that asylees do not have to have legal immigration status to apply for protection. This is one of the reasons why it has become a popular method with DREAMers and undocumented immigrants who don’t have any other alternatives to seek legal status.

There are two ways to apply for asylum in the U.S.: affirmatively (voluntarily or preemptively) or defensively. Defensive applicants are those who ask for asylum in response for being detained or apprehended by immigration enforcement. In 2013, slightly more than half of asylees gained refuge through affirmative applications.

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."​

Sorry, but Obama's plan makes no sense. Looking at it from the left's point of view, say it's a matter of helping as many innocent people as possible. What we are doing is allowing the U.N. to cherry pick a small percent of people to help. The U.N. cannot be trusted and have an agenda of their own that we are now aiding. The refugees are being relocated all over the globe at great cost. Keeping them in one main location would be much more cost effective (we are borrowing money to help them) and it would mean helping a lot more. We could help 12 for what we are spending to help one if we went about this a different way.

If 12 people were drowning, is it better to send a nice little boat that can only hold one person or throw 12 life vests out and save them all? Bringing them here might be a lot nicer, but helping them there would mean safety, a roof over their head and food. The left has chosen to leave the majority out in the cold and help a select few. IF your plan is to help, this falls flat.

And why it is necessary to ensure that they are equally spread among the states? Much easier to monitor them in one main location, but the left wants them everywhere. ISIS would definitely go along with what Obama has planned because it is better for them. Can't say it's good for the majority of innocent refugees, who are supposed to be the reason this is being done.

There are questionable decisions being made by the Obama administration and he has a habit of favoring Muslim countries, particularly radical ones. I simply don't trust him.

A poll shows that 13% of the refugees who were chosen for relocation view ISIS in a positive way. That means at least 1.300 ISIS sympathizers or members being equally spread among the states. After seeing what 8 were able to do in Paris, there is every reason for concern. Since there is no way to vet them, it's a hell of a chance if you're interested in helping the American people stay safe.

It's great to be helpful to those innocent people who need it, but we can't trade the security of our country to make it happen. We all lose this way. There are much smarter and cost effective ways to do this that wouldn't allow ISIS to continue to use this situation to their advantage.

Just to look at that poll in question - I went to the source and looked at it. 4% were "positive", 9% "positive to some extent"...but

"When asked to explain the reasons for the backing which ISIL enjoyed amongst its supporters, only 13% of respondents cited the group’s adherence to Islamic principles. A much larger group (55%) explains support for ISIL by citing a host of other reasons: either due to its military achievements; its preparedness to challenge the West; its opposition to Iran and the Syrian and Iraqi regimes; or its purported support for the Sunni Muslim community in the Levant."

All of which mean that "positive view" needs to be examined in relation to the reasons for it. 1.3 people is incredibly small, and it also assumes that the vetting process doesn't examine potential for ISIS support.