Obama urges leaders to open hearts to refugees

[Wells]

To your first point, I don't know. But if you'll forgive me for turning that around, I know exactly how many terrorist attacks attributed to Syrian refugees it would take before it (the screening process) was called a failure. And I know that's not a legitimate answer, I'm just trying to point out the danger of pointing to the results as evidence of the process being correct.

What better metric for evaluating efficacy is there? Tens of thousands of refugees in general and several thousand from Syria in particular.

To your second point, I see that Brennan was probably referring to European Nations. But, if he was referring to the United States refugee program, I would point out that "uselessly vague," could also be open to interpretations to the opposite extreme. I could argue that Brennan meant that we caught "50 brothers with 50 nukes." But that would just be argumentative.

Sure it could be the worst possible interpretation as well. That's precisely why the statement has no value.

[NED funded]

It could.. the one i remember off hand having heard about is this one (though obviously in a different media)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...fugee-shelters

Except we are talking about different systems. Germany accepted the refugees that came from conflicted areas to Europe; they were already in Europe before any vetting and screening was done, in our case we screen them outside the US and then decide who enters or not.

[Xarkan]

To your first point, I don't know.

The answer to the question is simple: You cannot prove a thing like this not defective / perfect. You can only prove it defective (by finding a defect) but even then if you remove the defect there may be others or new ones.

The thing is that the outside observer will see the failure and only the failure and not the successes and so assume the process a complete failure.

- - - Updated - - -

Except we are talking about different systems. Germany accepted the refugees that came from conflicted areas to Europe; they were already in Europe before any vetting and screening was done, in our case we screen them outside the US and then decide who enters or not.

I would argue that that case is a success story for the anti terrorism intelligence but *Shrugs* The point is that if you accept that the risk is there that people seek entry for the wrong reasons you can (mostly, see France, November 13ish (i think)) deal with it. If you assume noone does you cannot.

Edit: Actually my political goals are promoted by agreeing. The EU should have vetted in Greece and Italy and that would only have been possible if the Dublin thing was dropped and the EU instead redistributed refugees. The failure is the Dublin principle. Or something

[Merkava]

What better metric for evaluating efficacy is there? Tens of thousands of refugees in general and several thousand from Syria in particular.


Sure it could be the worst possible interpretation as well. That's precisely why the statement has no value.

In reverse order, I would quibble, and declare it as "indeterminate" value.

There's a lot of difference between the average refugee and the Syrian refugee. You've said so yourself. I don't know how else to parse my position, other than to say that sometimes you get favorable results regardless of the fact that you've applied incorrect principles. And the inverse happens as well. The merits of the process are evaluated by subjecting the process to scrutiny, and not just pointing to the results.

[Wells]

In reverse order, I would quibble, and declare it as "indeterminate" value.

There's a lot of difference between the average refugee and the Syrian refugee. You've said so yourself. I don't know how else to parse my position, other than to say that sometimes you get favorable results regardless of the fact that you've applied incorrect principles. And the inverse happens as well. The merits of the process are evaluated by subjecting the process to scrutiny, and not just pointing to the results.

The results are, in part, how you judge the merits of such scrutiny. I mean you're not trying to argue here that the results of the screening aren't a relevant indicator as to its efficacy are you?

[Merkava]

The answer to the question is simple: You cannot prove a thing like this not defective / perfect. You can only prove it defective (by finding a defect) but even then if you remove the defect there may be others or new ones.

The thing is that the outside observer will see the failure and only the failure and not the successes and so assume the process a complete failure.

I agree with that, more or less. People are going to view it through the lens of their particular political position. And there's no way to qualify it. Some people are going to judge it an abject failure the first time a Syrian refugee rearends them in line at the bank, regardless of how many families are living here peacefully. And some would still defend it, even if in years to come, we have tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslims with political views similar to ones that opinion polls tell us that British Muslims have.

- - - Updated - - -

The results are, in part, how you judge the merits of such scrutiny. I mean you're not trying to argue here that the results of the screening aren't a relevant indicator as to its efficacy are you?

I'm arguing that they're not as relevant as some would make them out to be.

[Wells]

Ahh, "some".

[Deleted]

The irony is that is was (mostly) the US that destabilized the middle east.

How about you take in those millions of refugees?

[May90]

the less the better
we dont need them

We don't need you either. What are you still doing here? Shooo!

[truckboattruck]

We don't need you either. What are you still doing here? Shooo!

this is not your safe space

[May90]

this is not your safe space

No, it's not mine. Not yours either. Seek safe space from refugees on Tumblr, 4chan and Stormfront!

[Annoying]

The irony is that is was (mostly) the US that destabilized the middle east.

How about you take in those millions of refugees?

That would be the British and French after WW1 that mostly destabilized the ME.
The Sykes-Picot agreement that placed national borders in straight lines ended up putting a whole host of people in the same country with other people that they weren't terribly fond of.

see:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553

First, it was secret without any Arabic knowledge, and it negated the main promise that Britain had made to the Arabs in the 1910s - that if they rebelled against the Ottomans, the fall of that empire would bring them independence.

When that independence did not materialise after World War One, and as these colonial powers, in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, continued to exert immense influence over the Arab world, the thrust of Arab politics - in North Africa and in the eastern Mediterranean - gradually but decisively shifted from building liberal constitutional governance systems (as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq had witnessed in the early decades of the 20th Century) to assertive nationalism whose main objective was getting rid of the colonialists and the ruling systems that worked with them.

This was a key factor behind the rise of the militarist regimes that had come to dominate many Arab countries from the 1950s until the 2011 Arab uprisings.

[...]

The second problem lay in the tendency to draw straight lines. [...] That meant the newly created borders did not correspond to the actual sectarian, tribal, or ethnic distinctions on the ground.

[Zoranon]

No, it's not mine. Not yours either. Seek safe space from refugees on Tumblr, 4chan and Stormfront!

Ah yes, anyone who says something you dont like is a nazi...

[May90]

Ah yes, anyone who says something you dont like is a nazi...

Dat reading comprehension.

[Taneras]

They take what? 2 out of 3? Give or take. The rest of the world can probably share the burde of the rest. It is a big world.

The countries that share a border with Syria take over half, because they don't have the resources to stop them from coming in.

Go look at a map, look how far France, Germany, and the UK are from Syria. Now look how far India is. It's about the same distance. Outside of the 2 or 3 Islamic countries sharing a border, who else is taking people in? How many have Egypt taken in? Saudi Arabia? Iran? There are plenty of countries that are closer and are a better for for these people than the Western Nations they're fleeing to and have probably taken in a number that's less than 1 or 2%.

Of course they are likely mostly not rapists or murderers in their home country (at least prior to the civil war) so having kept tabs would be irrelevant. [edit] the they here is not the refugees but rather those few amongst them that later rape or murder.

So as long as less than 50% of a population aren't murderers or rapists its ok to just take everyone in? I guess I place a higher priority than you on the safety of the American public. Statistics have shown that these refugees commit crime at a rate several orders of magnitude higher than the native populations they're surrounded by.

Moreover, it'll likely get worse. BLM likes to claim that segregated slums and ghettos are what's causing black Americans to commit the rates of crime that they currently commit.

Well, not imagine its not just a race barrier, but a religious barrier, a cultural barrier, a language barrier, a moral barrier, etc. Surely what we see now, over time, will only get worse in Europe. A few European countries have already defecated in their own bed with how they've handled this, I don't want America doing the same.

- - - Updated - - -

Dat reading comprehension.

You mentioned Stormfront, if you're going to play dumb its best not to over play your hand. You know what you said.

[Nirya]

No thanks. We do not want them nor do we need them.

[May90]

You mentioned Stormfront, if you're going to play dumb its best not to over play your hand. You know what you said.

Using Stormfront in a joke = I think that everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi?
Keep posting, guys! I need amusement!

[Hell-Nicø]

Yeah WORLD, why don't you get the fucking refugee, WE americans created with our wars.

What ? Do we take refugees ?


HAHA fuck no, we don't have too since their is a fucking OCEAN between them and us, they can't reach us with their dirty little paws.

[Paranoid Android]

Go back and read that long list I put up.

Every single person on that list had been know to the FBI in some capacity.

The screening process is broken.

This cannot be disputed.

Wow! @Wells and I make the statement that is a fact. All of those people you listed were naturalized citizens and 2 were born in the U.S. There is a difference between screening refugees and looking privately at U.S. citizens.

We can both agree we can always do a better job at finding potential terrorists. You on the other hand want to go with a scorched earth policy against a group that you cannot even differentiate between refugees and U.S. citizens.

[Mafic]

Moreover, it'll likely get worse. BLM likes to claim that segregated slums and ghettos are what's causing black Americans to commit the rates of crime that they currently commit.

Well, not imagine its not just a race barrier, but a religious barrier, a cultural barrier, a language barrier, a moral barrier, etc. Surely what we see now, over time, will only get worse in Europe. A few European countries have already defecated in their own bed with how they've handled this, I don't want America doing the same.
.

This is already happening in the slums of France.