ADVERTISEMENT

Cruz to introduce bill to bar Syrian refugees

SECURITY SCREENING OF REFUGEES ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES: A DETAILED, RIGOROUS PROCESS
2231 Crystal Drive, Suite 350 • Arlington,VA 22202 • Tel: (703)310.1130 • Fax: (703)769.4241
www.refugees.org
Resettlement is considered a durable solution for refugees who cannot return to their countries of origin or integrate into the current country that is hosting them. Resettlement to a country like the U.S. presents a life-saving alternative for a very small number of refugees around the world (less than one half of one percent). Refugees seeking resettlement in the United States must pass through a number of steps aimed at ensuring that they will not pose a security risk to the United States.
—STEP 1 Refugee Status:
In most cases the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) determines that the individual qualifies as a refugee under international law.
A
refugee
is someone who has fled from his or her home country and cannot return because he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particu-lar social group
.
—STEP 2 Referral to the United States:
A refugee that meets one of the criteria for resettlement in the United States is referred to the U.S. government by UNHCR, a U.S. Embassy, or a trained Non-Gov-ernmental Organization.
—STEP 3 Resettlement Support Center:
A Resettlement Support Center (RSC), contracted by the U.S. Department of State, compiles the refugee’s personal data and background information for the se-curity clearance process and to present to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for an in-person interview.
—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 Se-curity 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.
U.S. COMMITTEE FOR REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS
*Note that under limited circumstances, refugee applicants may be interviewed in their home country rather than in a country of asylum.
1-8e1085216c.jpg
1-8e1085216c.jpg


STEP 6 Security Clearance Process:
Refugees who meet the minimum age requirement have their finger-prints and photograph taken by a trained U.S. government employee, usually on the same day as their DHS interview. The fingerprints are then checked against various U.S. government databases and information on any matches is reviewed by DHS.
—STEP 7 In-person Interview:
All refugee applicants are interviewed by an officer from
DHS’s U.S. Citizen-ship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
. A trained officer will travel to the country of asylum* to conduct a detailed, face-to- face interview with each refugee applicant being considered for resettle-ment. Based on the information in the refugee’s case file and on the interview, the DHS officer will determine if the individual qualifies as a refugee and is admissible under U.S. law.
STEP 8DHS Approval:
If the USCIS officer finds that the individual qualifies as a refugee and meets other U.S. admission criteria, the officer will conditionally approve the refugee’s application for resettlement and submit it to the U.S. Department of State for final processing. Conditional approvals become final once the results of all security checks (Steps 4, 5, and 6) have been received and cleared.
—STEP 9 Medical Screening:
All refugee applicants approved for resettlement in the U.S. are required to undergo medical screening conducted by the International Organization for Migration or a physician designated by the U.S. Embassy.
STEP 10Matching Refugees with a Sponsor Agency:
Every refugee is assigned to a Voluntary Agency in the U.S., such as the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI). USCRI will place refu-gees with a local partner agency or office that will assist refugees upon their arrival in the U.S.

STEP 11Cultural Orientation:
In addition, refugees approved for resettlement are offered cultural orienta- tion while waiting for final processing, to prepare them for their journey to and initial resettlement in the United States.
—STEP 12Security Clearance Process:
Prior to departure to the U.S., a second interagency check is con-ducted for most refugees to check for any new information. Refugees must clear this check in order to depart to the U.S.
STEP 13 Admission to the United States:
Upon arrival at one of five U.S. airports designated as ports of entry for refugee admissions, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer will review the refugee documentation and conduct additional security checks to ensure that the arriving refugee is the same person who was screened and approved for admission to the United States.
2-c8685563d7.jpg

de.png


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...orial-how-make-refugees-our-enemies/75919316/
Also, supposedly most of the Serbs coming to the US have spent months if not years in Jordan before landing on the good old U.S. of A. I haven't been able to confirm this but if true this should be another layer of security.
 
Interesting. So even though you freely admit that there is no data that shows that they are, you still reserve the right to claim it as fact that these refugees are indeed terrorists.

I'm not sure you understand what a fact is.

And I'll always reserve the right to act like a middle schooler when you guys openly admit that you're simply making shit up.

Holy shit, dude. You can't be this dense. Nobody is saying for certain that all these refugees are militants. We're saying that there is a high probability that some of these refugees are militants. The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't our problem and it isn't economically feasible to take these people in. So, why put more pressure on the poor and middle class in order to bring in some people who might be Arab militants.
 
Please. By all means explain to me precisely what ideals that this country was built on that I'm against? Something tells me all you've got is something about the 2nd amendment and how it guarantees the right to guns no matter what, even though the 2nd doesn't actually say this.

No income tax
No central banks
The 2nd amendment
The 4th amendment
The 9th amendment
The 10th amendment

We can start there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
Holy shit, dude. You can't be this dense. Nobody is saying for certain that all these refugees are militants. We're saying that there is a high probability that some of these refugees are militants. The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't our problem and it isn't economically feasible to take these people in. So, why put more pressure on the poor and middle class in order to bring in some people who might be Arab militants.

That means you are a racist and a non christian, according the the wingnuts on here.. It makes me wonder why the left is SO motivated to get as many muslims here. I know why their dear leader wants them here, but I'm surprised to see so many practically DEMAND that we take them.
 
What would you say to the victims in America of an attack(s) perpetrated by ISIS combatants that made their way into this country along with the innocent Syrian refugees?
I always think that questions like that are fair ones. And I confess, hard ones.

But here's the thing.... What did we tell the victims of 9/11? Or what will we tell the victims of the next terror attack (and surely there will be more attacks) perpetrated by those who come here by other methods?

These attacks - whether perpetrated by false refugees or other terrorists - are predictable consequences of our foreign policy in the Middle East.

So, again, what did you tell the victims of 9/11, and what will you tell the victims of the next attacks?

Did you, for example, say "I'm so sorry that I supported policies that produced these results, and I'll never support them again or any politician that advocates such policies"? Because if that's not what you said, what's your point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
I always think that questions like that are fair ones. And I confess, hard ones.

But here's the thing.... What did we tell the victims of 9/11? Or what will we tell the victims of the next terror attack (and surely there will be more attacks) perpetrated by those who come here by other methods?

These attacks - whether perpetrated by false refugees or other terrorists - are predictable consequences of our foreign policy in the Middle East.

So, again, what did you tell the victims of 9/11, and what will you tell the victims of the next attacks?

Did you, for example, say "I'm so sorry that I supported policies that produced these results, and I'll never support them again or any politician that advocates such policies"? Because if that's not what you said, what's your point?
Whatareyouon+has+nailed+the+subject+_f0883fae5c6d052f470ef7316668447e.jpg
 
No income tax
No central banks
The 2nd amendment
The 4th amendment
The 9th amendment
The 10th amendment

We can start there.
Well I already got you on the 2nd amendment. Knew you were going there. And no income taxes? Perhaps you've never heard of the 16th. As for the rest, when have I ever said that I support illegal search and seizures? When it comes to the 9th, I suspect that you don't really know what it means. When have I ever said that only what is written in the Constitution is legal? And although it may seem that my support of a variety of social programs spearheaded by the federal government is unconstitutional, you seem to have forgotten about a little passage known as the Taxing and Spending Clause which explicitly gives Congress the power to tax to "provide for the general welfare of the United States."
 
Well I already got you on the 2nd amendment. Knew you were going there. And no income taxes? Perhaps you've never heard of the 16th. As for the rest, when have I ever said that I support illegal search and seizures? When it comes to the 9th, I suspect that you don't really know what it means. When have I ever said that only what is written in the Constitution is legal? And although it may seem that my support of a variety of social programs spearheaded by the federal government is unconstitutional, you seem to have forgotten about a little passage known as the Taxing and Spending Clause which explicitly gives Congress the power to tax to "provide for the general welfare of the United States."

Which one do you want to start with?
 
Holy shit, dude. You can't be this dense. Nobody is saying for certain that all these refugees are militants. We're saying that there is a high probability that some of these refugees are militants. The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't our problem and it isn't economically feasible to take these people in. So, why put more pressure on the poor and middle class in order to bring in some people who might be Arab militants.
A high probability based on absolutely no evidence. Never thought I'd see the day when we returned to the Salem witch trials.
 
That's going to make this discussion a huge mess. I'll pick one if you want, but I just wanted to give you the option first.
Jesus, you're lame. I give you every opportunity to bust my balls and you punt.

But I'll play along. We'll start with the first. Where on God's green Earth did you get the idea that it's unconstitutional to tax income?
 
Jesus, you're lame. I give you every opportunity to bust my balls and you punt.

But I'll play along. We'll start with the first. Where on God's green Earth did you get the idea that it's unconstitutional to tax income?

I didn't say it was unconstitutional. I'm saying that this country was built on the ideal that a tax on income was wrong. The Constitution originally gave the ability to tax via excise and non protective tariffs only. That's what we're talking about. Your claim that you're all about the ideals that this country was FOUNDED on, not what is Constitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
I didn't say it was unconstitutional. I'm saying that this country was built on the ideal that a tax on income was wrong. The Constitution originally gave the ability to tax via excise and non protective tariffs only. That's what we're talking about. Your claim that you're all about the ideals that this country was FOUNDED on, not what is Constitutional.
Nice playing. You flunked your civics test for the day. Just be glad there's a Democrat in office. Otherwise you probably wouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
So you are willing to take the risk. You truly believe that 0% of the Syrians allowed in our country will end up trying to kill Americans on our own soil? You TRULY believe that? Again...I have yet to see ONE GOOD REASON why we should allow these people into our country other than it makes some on the far left feel good about themselves. Allowing these people into our country will put American lives at risk. This is a horrible idea. The world is a different place than it was when the founding fathers were trying to establish the ideal America.

And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love,
Yes they'll know we are Christians by our love!!
 
Are you coming back, dude, or should I just go play some Civ 5?
They LOVE that 16th Amendment! And the Federal Reserve Act? Spend what you don't have and tax the citizen to death. The one thing they can own- their labor- they tax it! That is totally against the founding principles of this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
I understand the sentiment of wanting to adhere to "founding principles" in almost any situation. However, I'm not sure how much immigration was being factored-in to the founding ideology.

Now, the immigration that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries were much different circumstances. If these people had Ebola or the Plague, would you be as eager to have them show up here? How many peoples' lives are you prepared to lose by doing this? This is not an individual decision. You're not taking a stranger into your home here. This is a much more dangerous dynamic. You know that the risk is present. You're allowing people who have a potential grudge to come and live here. If things don't go well for them, or maybe they're already resolved to inflict revenge for something they experienced... are you willing to say "Yes, I accept the risk and I am okay with losing some American lives to prove some tender notion that would be ideal if our foreign policy were the exact opposite of what it has been for a century?" It's virtuous to be an open door and a haven for the indigent and poor. That's awesome. It would be great if we had such a country. Our actions haven't reflected that. It would be nice to find a way to make amends for what has occurred, but I'm not convinced this is the right way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
Denying that we have any responsibility - for creating the conditions that have produced this humanitarian crisis - either makes you a sociopath or disqualifies you as a serious thinker. Or both.

Don't feel bad, that puts you right down there with most of the GOP candidates.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if ANY of the GOP candidates have displayed a moral compass on this?
The Middle East has been effed up for hundreds of years. We don't owe the people of Syria crap. So I want to keep AMERICANS safe, and that makes me a sociopath? Or not a serious thinker? Don't be a jackass. I disagree with you. And once again, nobody can give a positive on why we should allow them in. You know why? Because there isn't one. And just so you know, I haven't voted R for POTUS since 1988. I vote left usually, but I am very much in agreement with the Republicans on this one.

Your opinion on this one will lead our country to some bad times. Christ, we can't even help the people in our own borders. We have problems here to solve. You want to bring thousands of more headaches. And eventually a few tragedies.
 
Last edited:
Obviously we can't know for certain. But we couldn't know for certain that the Jews we let in during WWII weren't secret Nazis or that the Europeans we let in during the red scare weren't secret Communists. But you know what? We let them in anyway. And do you know why? Because those are some of the ideals that this country was built on and we display proudly in the harbor of New York as what being American is all about.

The fact is that there is no proof that these refugees are secret ISIS plants. And absent any reasonable evidence that suggests that they might try to kill us, we have to do the adult thing and consider them to be ordinary people instead of murderers.

If the United States reaches a point where we consider people to be murderers and terrorists simply because of the color of their skin or the religion they worship, then we will have indeed lost our way.
And again. You are willing to risk the lives of American citizens for these people. I am not. I have zero desire to help these people have access to the USA. I am concerned with what goes on in our own borders first.
 
Thank you. These attacks against Muslims are getting ridiculous, especially since they are totally devoid any proof. If people want to call these people terrorists then prove that they are. Otherwise shut up and step out of the way while real Americans try helping them.
Oh "real Americans"? You sound like a Republican.
 
So Ted Cruz is doing exactly what ISIS wants him to do. I think Ted Cruz is an Islamic terrorist!
Exactly. Terrorism is not so much about the "act" as it is "the reaction" to the act. The modern GOP is all about reacting as expected to acts of terrorism. "Throw the baby out with the bath water" might replace "Drill baby! Drill!" as the new mantra of the right of the GOP.
 
Exactly. Terrorism is not so much about the "act" as it is "the reaction" to the act. The modern GOP is all about reacting as expected to acts of terrorism. "Throw the baby out with the bath water" might replace "Drill baby! Drill!" as the new mantra of the right of the GOP.

And the left is all about "not much to see hear". We'll just try to contain them, and see where that leads us. And then call a massacre a setback. Yea, the left is doing the right thing. :rolleyes:
 
No income tax
No central banks
The 2nd amendment
The 4th amendment
The 9th amendment
The 10th amendment

We can start there.
Wingnut logic.

Just start with your top item: No income tax.

True, the constitution did not mention an income tax. Does that mean the nation was founded on no income tax? We have an amendment authorizing the income tax, but it really wasn't necessary. The only reason we have that amendment was to settle the argument between those who said Congress could just pass a law and those who disagreed.

The constitution does not mention corporations, or an air force, or a space program, or national park or women voting, or ....

Being silent on something is not the same as being in opposition to it.

Ditto for central banks. The constitution does not set one up, but it doesn't say you can't have one, either.

As for the remaining list, I'll give you credit for listing 9A. Most cons act like it isn't a part of the constitution and skip to 10A - which they wield as permission for the states to deny other rights - such as freedom from religion, the right to vote, the right to an abortion, the right to marry and so on.

It's your side here on HROT that used to routinely ask "where does it say that in the constitution" when talking about rights. I would point to 9A. And they'd be back in a day or a week asking the same clueless question again.

And don't get me started on 4A. The guys you regularly support and defend gave us the PATRIOT Act, warrentless wiretaps, Gitmo and indefinite detention, torture and rendition, and more. Sure some guys on my side were complicit, and Obama has continued down that path, but this is what your side does.
 
You guys? I'm not a republican, dude. I hated "W" as much as I hate Obama. In fact, I hate every president in this century, with the exception of JFK.

As for taxes, it explicitly states what taxes are okay, and a tax on income was not listed. So, if you're talking about the founding of this country, then you can't be talking about the Income Tax.

And as for the central banks, the Constitution tells you that it should only be coined by the federal government and should be based on silver or gold. If money has to be coined by the federal government then that means it can't be coined by a group of private bankers. That's why they needed to amend the Constitution in 1913 to allow both a central bank and a tax on income.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT