No, they we're asylees who applied for asylum after getting here and did not go through the refugee process. As I have seen noted, they were only two of approximately 1.8 million folks who entered this country on refugee or asylum status since 1995.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
French getting another round of "inshallah"
- Thread starter picklesuit
- Start date
No, they we're asylees who applied for asylum after getting here and did not go through the refugee process. As I have seen noted, they were only two of approximately 1.8 million folks who entered this country on refugee or asylum status since 1995.
WRONG! A refugee has to wait outside the country until their claim is processed, you are thinking of an asylum seeker who would have to get here first then apply for asylum status. Because of the inherent difficulty of actually getting here from Syrians, they need a visa to come here and they couldn't even board a plane without one, they are very few asylum seekers from there.
Since the President is quickly emptying Gitmo and it currently has capacity, send the refugees there to cool their heels until the vetting is done.
Refugees have been housed there before, and not the terrorist type.
Last edited:
What makes you think that stuff hasn't been targeted already?
I don't think that. I specifically said I'm no expert on their finances. In the almost year old economist article linked on the previous page, it was claimed that the majority of ISIS's income was from oil, and that it had been "significantly" reduced after strikes in Syria.
What I said was that if ISIS is making money from oil, it should be easy to destroy their means of production, storage, and transportation. Have we done that? If so, how else do they make their money? Extortion can't be helped, but other means can be targeted.
Are they still making significant money from that? I don't know but I wouldn't presume, certainly the general public wouldn't know and neither do we here. And the public certainly doesn't know the full details of what we are targeting. From what little I know 'taxes', theft, donations and other illicit means are some of their sources of funds. Other than that, I don't know.
From what I have seen in the news (so expect a wide range of data on this), ISIL has its own economy and estimated net worth around $2B - from the sacking of banks, oil, extortion, antiquities sales, and even industry. There are reports they even sell power and oil back to Asad. They make about $1-3M a day in selling oil - that is also smuggled out via the border nations.
I am aware at the difference between refugee and asylum status. I was mistaken about refugees actually being admitted during the vetting process. I must have been swayed by the President's instance that the USA take 10K Syrian refugees within this fiscal year, just 11 months. That should be unobtainable given the vigorous vetting process takes 18-24 months outside the country.
I think there are plenty in the pipeline already so it might be possible. Another layer that I didn't mention is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) actually screens refugees initially then 'farms' them out to the countries they think are an appropriate destination and apparently they don't tend to send men of 'combat age' here but instead older, younger and families.
The current refugee crisis is less than 18 months old. Sure, some may be in the pipeline who fled early, but clearly not in the numbers to account for 10K. The US has admitted something like 1500 in the last couple years. I happen to think the number thrown around by the administration was arrived at with little consideration for the ordinary timeline for refugee vetting. That or they intend to cut corners to make the number happen.
I am familiar with the role UNHCR plays in this process. As a UN agency, I expect nothing but the regular inefficacy, graft, and corruption.
Calling a spade a spade focuses people on the proper solution. Calling a spade a rake, and refusing to talk about what's wrong with shovels in general just promotes misconceptions and further divides people who should be coming together against something purely evil. But I guess it's not evil, after all, POTUS said this had nothing to do with Islam, and they are the JV team, so you must be right.
Then why is every picture I see of said refugees in the USA comprised entirely of military aged males?
Even those who call it a 'spade' can't agree on a solution so I still don't see how calling it something inflammatory is going to help anything.
What pics? How about facts instead?
If my car mechanic refers to a leaking head gasket as a "slight loss of coolant", it doesn't exactly help me know what has to be done, what it will cost, and what parts are needed. While he is not technically wrong, it doesn't adequately describe the magnitude of the problem, and its immediacy. But if not being "inflammatory" is more important to my mechanic, I will be shocked when I see the bill, and will shortly have a new mechanic.
It's a moot point anyway, since this particular brand of evil uses women and children to wage war as well (reference recent facts in Paris). However, since being "PC" and not offending potential immigrants is evidently of paramount concern, I don't expect any of this discussion to matter. I just find it aggravating that there hasn't even been a discussion of slowing down the influx or reviewing the vetting process, despite over half the governors in the nation calling for it.
It's a moot point anyway, since this particular brand of evil uses women and children to wage war as well (reference recent facts in Paris). However, since being "PC" and not offending potential immigrants is evidently of paramount concern, I don't expect any of this discussion to matter. I just find it aggravating that there hasn't even been a discussion of slowing down the influx or reviewing the vetting process, despite over half the governors in the nation calling for it.
BPeterson93
Soon to be Naval Aviator
I'm not necessarily sure it has to do with being PC about what we call the refugees. But more so the fact that if we do not accept the refugees or make it such an insurmountable difficulty to take refuge here, it allows IS to win the battle on their terms. Causing nations across the world to fear Muslim peoples and sow distrust in them; that's the goal of IS.
Furthermore, if the US refuses to accept the refugees (like many governors are seeking to do) it can push men and families to their last avenue which could be supporting IS in return for some false promise of protection, etc.
I'm all for the vetting process that we have currently. There really isn't anything wrong with it since we haven't had an issue with domestic terrorism from refugees since 9/11.
The proposed legislation in the Senate is a bill that will make the inner mechanisms of the process public and lengthen it further. It doesn't really do anything to help the process become more effective by doing either of those things.
The truth is inflammatory?