Refugee or Terrorist?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Nothing adverse about our personal navigation through the rapids of immigration.

There is nothing adversarial either in saying that equal protection under the law principles should apply and that refugees should be clearly identified and vetted just like anyone else. There is no room for an "entirely different process" when we make a determination as to who should and should not be allowed to settle in our country.

The non-immigrant interview can often use the adversarial method. It's designed that way

They could change the law, but refugees would not normally qualify for normal immigration benefits anyway. Your not going to get a tourist visa from Syria. It's not set up to be an equal system. Never has been.

[Expat1 971]

The non-immigrant interview can often use the adversarial method. It's designed that way

They could change the law, but refugees would not normally qualify for normal immigration benefits

Yet they do receive immigration benefits. Who cares about an interview. Identity is established way before the interview.

If the vetting process is not applied then I won't judge the governors or states who do not want them either. Our federal government is charged with the security of our country, not discussing fantasy football in Congress. If they do not fulfill that duty, then I cannot and will not blame the states who shut them out. When I moved to a Muslim country, I got background checked to death. So it is not like I would apply some magical set of standards that I wouldn't expect myself to follow.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Expat1

[JohnR! 5,495]

These governors are grandstanding, nothing more and nothing less. What they are proposing to do is more on a par with something China or NK would do.

Yet they do receive immigration benefits. Who cares about an interview. Identity is established way before the interview.

If the vetting process is not applied then I won't judge the governors or states who do not want them either. Our federal government is charged with the security of our country, not discussing fantasy football in Congress. If they do not fulfill that duty, then I cannot and will not blame the states who shut them out. When I moved to a Muslim country, I got background checked to death. So it is not like I would apply some magical set of standards that I wouldn't expect myself to follow.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Wonder why the rich Middle East countries do not want to take in their own ''Muslim Brothers', maybe they see the writings on the wall that the West don't.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Yet they do receive immigration benefits. Who cares about an interview. Identity is established way before the interview.

If the vetting process is not applied then I won't judge the governors or states who do not want them either. Our federal government is charged with the security of our country, not discussing fantasy football in Congress. If they do not fulfill that duty, then I cannot and will not blame the states who shut them out. When I moved to a Muslim country, I got background checked to death. So it is not like I would apply some magical set of standards that I wouldn't expect myself to follow.

I'm saying if you change the law so that refugees had to meet normal non-immigrant criteria, none of them would qualify for immigration benefits. They don't get free passes on background or criminal activity. But they obviously don't have to show ability to support themselves financially or have strong ties to the home country and so forth.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Wonder why the rich Middle East countries do not want to take in their own ''Muslim Brothers', maybe they see the writings on the wall that the West don't.

Hasn't Turkey taken in 2 million or so? I saw that Iran has taken criticism for supporting the al-Assad regime but not taking in refugees. Other ME countries have though.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Try google.com, and wonder no more.

Wonder why the rich Middle East countries do not want to take in their own ''Muslim Brothers', maybe they see the writings on the wall that the West don't.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Hasn't Turkey taken in 2 million or so? I saw that Iran has taken criticism for supporting the al-Assad regime but not taking in refugees. Other ME countries have though.

I don't think Turkey is a rich Middle East Country.

Try google.com, and wonder no more.

I did. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34132308

[Dakine10 5,452]

I don't think Turkey is a rich Middle East Country.

Their GDP is higher than most countries in the region. Are you saying you don't consider them part of the middle east?

[Boiler 46,270]

Obama: Hey Assad, can you check your non-existent database to see if this guy is a terrorist?
Assad: Lol.....CLICK
Obama: You still there?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Besides, refugees are seeking refuge from persecution as well, so it's natural they'd seek asylum in the west.

Their GDP is higher than most countries in the region. Are you saying you don't consider them part of the middle east?

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Their GDP is higher than most countries in the region. Are you saying you don't consider them part of the middle east?

turkey is part of Middle East, I am not denying it.

But the question is still why the rich Middle East countries like Kuwait, Saudi, UAE not willing to take them in

[Boiler 46,270]

They could go to the bit of Turkey in Europe?

Not sure why that is important.

[GandD 5,966]

One comment removed for violating the following stipulation of TOS

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

Negative comments directed towards other members as opposed to their data/comments won't be allowed.

[Expat1 971]

I'm saying if you change the law so that refugees had to meet normal non-immigrant criteria, none of them would qualify for immigration benefits. They don't get free passes on background or criminal activity. But they obviously don't have to show ability to support themselves financially or have strong ties to the home country and so forth.

Didn't compare them to non-immigrants. Compared them to immigrants, like (as reminder) our own spouses. I believe their identity at a minimum should be established and they should pass at least the available background checks before they are allowed in.

NOTE: Immigrants don't have to show ties to their own countries. That's why it's called "immigration benefits". These aren't tourists. They are re-settling. So the comparisons to visitors weren't made by me and certainly don't apply.