taken from the moonz thread, in the 5 years immediately after the start of the Syrian civil war, Obama let in 1,883 Syrians.
That's FIVE YEARS....that's about 1/day.
taken from the moonz thread, in the 5 years immediately after the start of the Syrian civil war, Obama let in 1,883 Syrians.
While obviously not exhaustive, here's a little look into the vetting process.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...-what-we-went-through/?utm_term=.26bb995f1647
And, based on my conversations with refugees, it is a lot of grilling about your background and over the course of 2 years and many, many interviews, you have to be consistent or it is a flag. They ask about where you grew up and people you knew there - sometimes trying to trip you up, for example, "you really grew up in _____________, you must know [fake person], right?" or "[Person you may or may not know] said that you were in second grade together (which that person didn't say), can you confirm that?" A lot of questions are round about ways of trying to understand if they had connections with any groups of concern.
I know with the bio-metric data that is collected, they are fingerprinted at least 3 times and have a retina scan.
If you believe the mouth piece of the administration, they were all detained because of the executive order. And all released after just a few hours of additional questioning. And the Trump administration claims they were properly vetted.
taken from the moonz thread, in the 5 years immediately after the start of the Syrian civil war, Obama let in 1,883 Syrians. Can fit that in pretty comfortably in the 50,000 cap.
There is no "Christian" priority. The EO has two relevant provisions, both of which state that those of a "minority" religion who are "facing religious persecution" are given priority.
Which indicates confusion or overzealous enforcement stemming from the EO that was cleared up. Hardly a big deal. "Vetting" consists of running your name to see if you're a bad guy. That was done when they handed their passport to the inspector.
What a weird line of reasoning you continue to hold on to.
The facts are that a couple hours of questioning was all that the Trump admin needed to reassure themselves that these detainees were properly vetted. So knowing that, regardless of what they asked, why was the EO and 4 month ban necessary?
You really do not get politics do you. His entire premise is that the vetting was not sufficient. So if your means of holding him to account is to count refugees, then he's going to just say that vetting sucked my vetting is better and it justifies letting in fewer refugees.
Put it this way, do you care at all about the substantive criteria used to admit or not admit refugees? If not, prepare to be told whatever he wants to say.
Isn't the question really what characteristics you want to admit vs. not-admit.
For instance would you admit someone who:
- Said it was o.k. to have sex with children
- Said it was o.k. to marry off underage girls
- Said it was o.k. for husbands to beat their wives
- Said it was o.k. to commit violence against people because of their sexual orientation
- Said it was o.k. to assault or hurt innocent people because of something the United States government did
- Said they supported ISIS
- Were ever convicted of a violent crime
I have no idea how we draw these lines, btw. I'm just asking on what basis we choose to admit or not admit refugees. Are we concerned with questions like the above or not? Do we in any way seek to assure the values of the refugee conform to our own legal standards (you'll note all of the questions above go to the potential that someone would condone breaking serious laws)? Do we go further and look for them to confirm just more general values (which we do not do with our own citizens). And, frankly, there are instances where our own citizens will voice a willingness to condone lawlessness (and we obviously don't detain them until they commit a crime). In short, where do you think the line should be drawn?
Trump LITERALLY agreed that he was going to prioritize Christians in the refugee program:
BRODY: "Persecuted Christians, we've talked about this, the refugees overseas. The refugee program, or the refugee changes you're looking to make. As it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?"
TRUMP: "Yes."
BRODY: "You do?"
TRUMP: "They've been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."
My point being district, where was the Outrage the previous 5 years?
First, the language is not limited to Christians. Although it certainly excludes Muslims, Muslims aren't being persecuted because of their religion in these countries. Second, the priority is not just for religious minorities. Instead, the minority must be persecuted on the basis of their religion.
It's a great talking point to call it a Christian priority, just like it is a great talking point to call it a Mooslim ban, but, as usual, the truth is more complex than a talking point.
Yes, but I don't know what meaningful distinction there is to be made between "legal immigrant" and "legal refugee" if you are already drawing lines on some (or whichever) characteristics. Which was why I was curious about the distinction between refugees causing trouble and immigrants causing trouble if both theoretically went through respective vetting processes. If the argument is we should vet more thoroughly than Europe, the answer is we do. If the argument is "if a nonzero number of refugees are arrested, charged, or convicted of criminal offenses and therefore we should let no refugees in" then why is this any different than the argument: "if a nonzero number of immigrants are arrested, charged, or convicted of criminal offenses and therefore we should let no immigrants in?"
There was no ban during the last 5 years.
Yes. And their situation is arguably even more dire because of where they live and who they are. He's also prioritizing other religious minorities who face the same issues. You can debate the merits. But I'm not shocked by his stance. I watched an interview with the leader of a Muslim group yesterday saying these people should be prioritized because many of them would be slaughtered if they return to their homes because they are not Muslim.
How they are vetted is a fair question to ask though. I have no idea.
First, the language is not limited to Christians. Although it certainly excludes Muslims, it would be strange to say that Muslims are being persecuted because of their religion in these countries. Second, the priority is not just for religious minorities. Instead, the minority must be persecuted on the basis of their religion.
It's a great talking point to call it a Christian priority, just like it is a great talking point to call it a Mooslim ban, but, as usual, the truth is more complex than a talking point.
sure seems like it, we only got in 300 a year while Germany was taking in tens if not hundreds of thousands? (I have no idea the number)
First, the language is not limited to Christians. Although it certainly excludes Muslims, it would be strange to say that Muslims are being persecuted because of their religion in these countries. Second, the priority is not just for religious minorities. Instead, the minority must be persecuted on the basis of their religion.
It's a great talking point to call it a Christian priority, just like it is a great talking point to call it a Mooslim ban, but, as usual, the truth is more complex than a talking point.