Originally Posted by ethanm
You do realize that this is the case with basically every decision a politician makes? Are you really this naive about how the world works? Or are you too old to remember life's complexities...
This is a measurable, material risk that is completely avoidable and the government has an obligation to avoid such a risk.
I give you a lot of credit for admitting you think a certain number of deaths from terrorism are acceptable as long as the number of refugees we take is exponentially greater than that death toll. I suspect that's how many politicians on the left think, though they'd never admit it because it would end their careers (it used to called treason).
I'm sure you think you are taking the moral high ground because you're potentially saving more lives than you're sacrificing (a big assumption on its own), but putting people's lives in danger without their consent while lying to them about it is not morally defensible.
Originally Posted by zalb916
So, you have shifted the goal posts. It was originally "we have no legal obligation." Now, it's "okay, maybe we have some legal obligation, but that legal obligation doesn't specify the exact number of people." Actually, that's generous. You shifted even further by adding "despite material security risks." No. This just isn't how it works.
First, you are correct. We do have some ability to pick and choose. Nobody has suggested or argued otherwise. In fact, several people have mentioned that we pick and choose, explaining numerous times that the bar for refugee status is extremely high. This is our picking and choosing. Much of this is codified. It's not just the whim of some government dudes. Second, if you are looking for the defined obligation to take X number of people, you should look to Section 207 of the INA, which provides the mechanisms for determining that number. There is tons of info out there about how that number is reached. Here is some of it:http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/docsforcongress/247770.htm
I also would suggest reading the Congressional Record, if you would like more information about how we determine X number. This number is set every year by Congress and the president.Changing policy to reduce the number of refugees admitted and to increase the stringency of screening process are totally reasonable suggestions to address the concerns you are raising.
I haven't said your concerns are invalid. I've said you don't understand the proper way to address your concerns. These policy discussions can't exist when people in the conversation don't understand some of the basic legal frameworks under which U.S. refugee policy is operating. At some point, it's not productive to continue the conversation, if you are not interested in understanding that framework.
Are you implying that we are forced to take refugees from Somalia? I don't believe you are, so you're essentially agreeing with me. My original position was that we have no legal obligation to protect someone in Somalia at the expense of putting our own citizens lives at risk.
Discussing an obligation to take some
refugees from somewhere
is another topic altogether. I am not opposed to all refugees. But anyway, thank you for the link and I'll definitely take a look at it.
The father of NYC bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami called the FBI to report his own son. The FBI couldn't find anything suspicious. I am not at all confident that our government can detect a potential terrorist coming out of Somalia or Afghanistan or Syria, which is why part of that selection process should be a moratorium on taking people from certain areas of the world, at a minimum.
Originally Posted by Find Finn
Most muslims claim ISIS isn't islamist, which is part of an underlaying issue. The first step to solving the problem is adminting there is a problem.
Scared no. Wholeheartedly worried about the way our society is moving and the socioeconomic and societal issues, yes.
A few years ago a lot of people only locked their doors, when they went to sleep. Now we are seeing the first signs of gated communities with guards and panic rooms. This has happened within a 10 year period. I wouldn't be surprised if we are going to see a change in the weapons laws within 10 years and armed guards are going to be allowed.
I know a bunch of people in their 20-30s who believe the welfare state is going to be dead, when they retire. Other people have chosen not to have kids due to their worries about the way the society is moving.
The biggest threat to privacy rights and our ability to avoid a true police state will be our immigration policy toward certain areas of the world. I prefer we not sacrifice privacy on the altar of political correctness. Watch what will happen to France, for example, with regard to armed military on street corners and a massive shift in the police state.
Originally Posted by the shah
I'm really curious how afraid some posters really are, or if they're just couching true intent in such language. Seems like a very stressful way to lead a life.
I'm not personally "afraid" in my everyday life, but I feel sorry for people who live in areas that will disproportionately feel the brunt of an increase in Islamic terrorism, and suffer a loss of privacy and increase in police/military presence because of it.
I'm more frustrated than anything, because what we know what we are headed toward and it's completely avoidable.