Paris attacks (6 Viewers)

[Hust]

Come on, man. Either stick to your opinion or admit you were wrong. You are all over the place right now. I know you're a great guy and I know you mean well, but.. I am starting to get really pissed off here. Maybe I just shouldn't respond for a while. Let things cool off.

My point hasn't changed.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Nzoric]

lol alright Seven.


Let me make this as easy to comprehend for you as I possiblly can:


States are right to voice their concerns about who the federal government is asking them to house within their own individual borders and them saying NO to try and elevate the concern that we need to know more about who is coming in is, IMO, their right to an extent that Congress allows it. We already know Obama won't allow it and the only way to get around it is if Congress passing legislation. Every single State that has said No I can pretty much guarantee knows they will still have to do it anyways unless Congress says otherwise.

What would you propose as a fitting level of examination to alleviate your concern? Preferably not something that takes months to do, because - you know - some of these people are fleeing the very weapons the US is peddling in Syria.

 

[Fake Melo]

Yes, they were. But for the last time, I'm not saying that NO ONE should be allowed in. Hate to keep repeating myself but you are falling into their trap of putting words in the mouth of someone you don't agree with.

The US has a bigger advantage on controlling refugees than Europe though. They can get here by land, thousands at times.

 

[Seven]

My point hasn't changed.

It very obviously has. And this is not the first time you do this either.

 

[Nzoric]

The US has a bigger advantage on controlling refugees than Europe though. They can get here by land, thousands at times.

Which is why his point is moot to being with. The only conclusion is that he doesn't want them to come in regardless of background checks, motives and status. It's just easier to present it like this than being obvious about the level of assholery in his reasoning

 

[Seven]

What would you propose as a fitting level of examination to alleviate your concern? Preferably not something that takes months to do, because - you know - some of these people are fleeing the very weapons the US is peddling in Syria.

I love that media have made this a concern when the states are barely taking in syrian refugees and these terrorist attacks have not been comitted by any of these refugees anyway.

 

[Nzoric]

I love that media have made this a concern when the states are barely taking in syrian refugees and these terrorist attacks have not been comitted by any of these refugees anyway.

See my post above

 

[Enron]

lol alright Seven.


Let me make this as easy to comprehend for you as I possiblly can:


States are right to voice their concerns about who the federal government is asking them to house within their own individual borders and them saying NO to try and elevate the concern that we need to know more about who is coming in is, IMO, their right to an extent that Congress allows it. We already know Obama won't allow it and the only way to get around it is if Congress passing legislation. Every single State that has said No I can pretty much guarantee knows they will still have to do it anyways unless Congress says otherwise.

Or we could do the same thing we do with Central Americans and refuse to call them refugees. Then they're just immigrants and we don't have to let them in.

 

[Post Ironic]

What would you propose as a fitting level of examination to alleviate your concern? Preferably not something that takes months to do, because - you know - some of these people are fleeing the very weapons the US is peddling in Syria.

This. The other thing is that the number of terrorists slipping across borders with refugees is infinitesimally small. It's not like they have had past troubles crossing borders anyways... In actuality, with the heightened anxiety over these possibilities, it's probably harder for a terrorist to get into the United States now, then it would have been a couple years ago, even if they were to begin streamlining the refugee asylum process.

 

[Enron]

I love that media have made this a concern when the states are barely taking in syrian refugees and these terrorist attacks have not been comitted by any of these refugees anyway.

Yeah, the media is back to its old tricks. We're seeing the same type of rhetoric as right before we invaded Afganistan and Iraq.

 

[Nzoric]

Yeah, the media is back to its old tricks. We're seeing the same type of rhetoric as right before we invaded Afganistan and Iraq.

Imagine this coming full circle. American boots on the ground fighting side by side with the Syrian army to strike down insurgents

 

[Hust]

What would you propose as a fitting level of examination to alleviate your concern? Preferably not something that takes months to do, because - you know - some of these people are fleeing the very weapons the US is peddling in Syria.

Good question. It takes a year or so, typically if I'm not mistaken for the vetting process to run its course. Syrian refugees go through the toughest I believe of anyone else trying to get here which probably adds to that time.

The issue IMO what the states are worried about is the acceleration of the process which could lead to a lapse in judgement or missing something during the vetting process.

The point I've been trying to make are the states concerns about why so many, why so quickly, and why force it or overload the systems we have running the process. Stopping it until everything is defined more clearly is their issue. When I say define I mean making sure each refugee has been properly vetted.

I don't care who comes, I really don't. All I'm saying is I agree with concern the states have.

 

[Enron]

Good question. It takes a year or so, typically if I'm not mistaken for the vetting process to run its course. Syrian refugees go through the toughest I believe of anyone else trying to get here which probably adds to that time.

The issue IMO what the states are worried about is the acceleration of the process which could lead to a lapse in judgement or missing something during the vetting process.

The point I've been trying to make are the states concerns about why so many, why so quickly, and why force it or overload the systems we have running the process. Stopping it until everything is defined more clearly is their issue. When I say define I mean making sure each refugee has been properly vetted.

I don't care who comes, I really don't. All I'm saying is I agree with concern the states have.

Now that's the Hustini I know!

 

[Hust]

Which is why his point is moot to being with. The only conclusion is that he doesn't want them to come in regardless of background checks, motives and status. It's just easier to present it like this than being obvious about the level of assholery in his reasoning

Stop saying I don't want them in.

 

[Enron]

Imagine this coming full circle. American boots on the ground fighting side by side with the Syrian army to strike down insurgents

I will be so annoyed.

 

[Hust]

Now that's the Hustini I know!

what?

 

[Seven]

Good question. It takes a year or so, typically if I'm not mistaken for the vetting process to run its course. Syrian refugees go through the toughest I believe of anyone else trying to get here which probably adds to that time.

The issue IMO what the states are worried about is the acceleration of the process which could lead to a lapse in judgement or missing something during the vetting process.

The point I've been trying to make are the states concerns about why so many, why so quickly, and why force it or overload the systems we have running the process. Stopping it until everything is defined more clearly is their issue. When I say define I mean making sure each refugee has been properly vetted.

I don't care who comes, I really don't. All I'm saying is I agree with concern the states have.

Which is why you are happy that states are finally saying no to refugees. Stop lying, dude.

 

[Enron]

what?

Your argument was reasonable and coherent. Congrats.

 

[Hust]

Which is why you are happy that states are finally saying no to refugees. Stop lying, dude.

lol you don't agree with my opinion as usual which is fine.

I don't lie.

 

[Nzoric]

States saying no. Finally.

Good question. It takes a year or so, typically if I'm not mistaken for the vetting process to run its course. Syrian refugees go through the toughest I believe of anyone else trying to get here which probably adds to that time.

The issue IMO what the states are worried about is the acceleration of the process which could lead to a lapse in judgement or missing something during the vetting process.

The point I've been trying to make are the states concerns about why so many, why so quickly, and why force it or overload the systems we have running the process. Stopping it until everything is defined more clearly is their issue. When I say define I mean making sure each refugee has been properly vetted.

I don't care who comes, I really don't. All I'm saying is I agree with concern the states have.

Can you see why I said you were backpedalling?

A year is too long and you know it. It can't possibly take a year to interview a refugee over three rounds, see if their story changes and check for any dates given against the vast intelligence database the US have in their possession. After this step is finalized, they need to be brought over to the states. From there they can live in refugee centers while their asylum is being processed and additional information about their 'motives' is collected.