624 users online (85 members and 539 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 90 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1336
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardenista View Post
    How are they fully vetted when their govts do not keep databases on their citizens?
    You bring up a great point and was something I questioned when researching the vetting process, too.

    https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio...609/transcript

    Ira Glass

    Bob, the interviewer that I talked to at USCIS, says that that's a naive picture of our security databases and the role they play in screening and the kind of information in them. And he said, in fact, Syrians, though they come from a failed state, are among the best-documented refugees. They almost always have documentation with them, he said. Like these things called family books, which are government-issued documentation of entire families

    Edited to add: If statistics show is that our risk of being killed by a refugee in a terrorist act is 1 in 3.64 billion, what more do we need to know about the vetting process at least as far as security goes?



    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Momma2cam View Post
    You bring up a great point and was something I questioned when researching the vetting process, too.

    https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio...609/transcript

    Ira Glass

    Bob, the interviewer that I talked to at USCIS, says that that's a naive picture of our security databases and the role they play in screening and the kind of information in them. And he said, in fact, Syrians, though they come from a failed state, are among the best-documented refugees. They almost always have documentation with them, he said. Like these things called family books, which are government-issued documentation of entire families

    Edited to add: If statistics show is that our risk of being killed by a refugee in a terrorist act is 1 in 3.64 billion, what more do we need to know about the vetting process at least as far as security goes?



    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

    Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d06a3c64bcdd

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardenista View Post
    FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

    Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d06a3c64bcdd
    There will always be individuals that slip through the cracks of any screening process, no matter how extreme.

    Are you suggesting we completely stop accepting refugees? If we can not verify them well enough, according to your concern of their government documentation, do we just say no more refugees?

    I can respect, yet disagree, with the view that we just shouldn't allow anyone else in. I can't understand the idea that we have to vet them more extremely and the reason for that being their country of origin doesn't have good records of them. Extreme vetting won't change that. I don't think we are going to get any more extreme than a dismal 1 in 3.64 billion chance of being killed by a terrorist. We have a better chance at winning the lottery, twice.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Momma2cam View Post
    There will always be individuals that slip through the cracks of any screening process, no matter how extreme.

    Are you suggesting we completely stop accepting refugees? If we can not verify them well enough, according to your concern of their government documentation, do we just say no more refugees?

    I can respect, yet disagree, with the view that we just shouldn't allow anyone else in. I can't understand the idea that we have to vet them more extremely and the reason for that being their country of origin doesn't have good records of them. Extreme vetting won't change that. I don't think we are going to get any more extreme than a dismal 1 in 3.64 billion chance of being killed by a terrorist. We have a better chance at winning the lottery, twice.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    I'm good with letting them in but requiring them to stay with liberal politicians, pundits or celebrities.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    9,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Momma2cam View Post
    You are confusing refugees with illegal immigrants. Not at all the same and is, again, what makes this topic challenging. We have to first be on the same page and understand the difference between illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and refugees.

    Extreme vetting of refugees already occurs. In fact, it takes years (sometimes 20+) to be randomly selected by lottery to participate in the UN resettlement program. First, a potential refugee must complete an application and prove that they have left their home for fear of persecution and/or war. Then they wait. And wait. For years. Then, they are assigned one of the 37 possible countries, which may or may not be the US. Then, there is an approximate 2 year stringent vetting process before they are finally approved. Terrorists don't attempt the refugee vetting process (who wants to wait 20 years to maybe get selected for the US?) and if they do, they aren't going to make it through.


    "The chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year."

    http://www.politifact.com/california...erica-refugee/


    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    I'm not trying to confuse anyone. That's why I made a distinction between illegal immigrants and refugee's in my post.

    The point I was trying to make is that there is no way to tell if a person who crosses the border illegally into the United States is a criminal or a terrorist because they haven't been vetted.

    Refugee's should be vetted before they come to America. If they can't then they shouldn't be allowed in.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    I'm not trying to confuse anyone. That's why I made a distinction between illegal immigrants and refugee's in my post.

    The point I was trying to make is that there is no way to tell if a person who crosses the border illegally into the United States is a criminal or a terrorist because they haven't been vetted.

    Refugee's should be vetted before they come to America. If they can't then they shouldn't be allowed in.
    That is what has been happening. If there is any question about refugees' backgrounds or not being able to verify things, they are not let in.

    The individuals that cross the border illegally of course can't be vetted. What are your ideas for border security? Extreme vetting has no impact on that.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Momma2cam View Post
    That is what has been happening. If there is any question about refugees' backgrounds or not being able to verify things, they are not let in.

    The individuals that cross the border illegally of course can't be vetted. What are your ideas for border security? Extreme vetting has no impact on that.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    Yes they are. I gave you the link that shows they can't be vetted.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    where the big sharks come to play
    Posts
    5,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardenista View Post
    Yes they are. I gave you the link that shows they can't be vetted.
    Right and then the next important question is what's the assimilation program?
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    "Look, if any of us wanted to mind our own business, we wouldn't be here" (carbuff 8/11/13)

    This post reflects my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy it anywhere else outside of the WebSleuth forum

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Momma2cam View Post
    There will always be individuals that slip through the cracks of any screening process, no matter how extreme.

    Are you suggesting we completely stop accepting refugees? If we can not verify them well enough, according to your concern of their government documentation, do we just say no more refugees?

    I can respect, yet disagree, with the view that we just shouldn't allow anyone else in. I can't understand the idea that we have to vet them more extremely and the reason for that being their country of origin doesn't have good records of them. Extreme vetting won't change that. I don't think we are going to get any more extreme than a dismal 1 in 3.64 billion chance of being killed by a terrorist. We have a better chance at winning the lottery, twice.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    I am not sure I believe that statistic of 1 in 3.64 billion chance of being killed by a terrorist.

    That statistic does not jive with what is being reported in other countries that have allowed a groundswell of refugees into their borders.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,634
    Quote Originally Posted by ATasteOfHoney View Post
    Right and then the next important question is what's the assimilation program?
    Now that's funny


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardenista View Post
    Yes they are. I gave you the link that shows they can't be vetted.
    As I've said, some may slip through the cracks. There is not a system that can prevent that when human error will always be involved. The only system is to totally stop accepting refugees. To say, sorry, the chance that 1 in 3.64 billion this woman or child that are fleeing terrorism and persecution may end up being a terrorist is too great a risk for me. Turn them all away.

    Otherwise, when you look up information from actual interviewers and the process, you will see that the policy is that if there is question or something can't be verified adequately, they are denied.

    https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio...609/transcript

    Ira Glass

    And this has become an incredibly politicized question, but I hope you can answer it honestly. Are there times in your job where you feel like, oh, I really can't tell about this person and I wish I had more tools? I wish there was more I could do to figure this out better?

    Bob

    There are times that, because it's impossible to know about some people for whatever reason. But that's why we have a process. We're not letting people in that we have question marks about.

    Ira Glass

    Oh. You're saying, if you can't figure it out, then they just don't get in.

    Bob

    Right. Right.



    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    I am not sure I believe that statistic of 1 in 3.64 billion chance of being killed by a terrorist.

    That statistic does not jive with what is being reported in other countries that have allowed a groundswell of refugees into their borders.
    That statistic is for the US. You are correct, other countries do not have the same "extreme vetting" and thus, terrorists are more drawn to those countries. You have made exactly the point I've been trying to make.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    9,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Momma2cam View Post
    That is what has been happening. If there is any question about refugees' backgrounds or not being able to verify things, they are not let in.

    The individuals that cross the border illegally of course can't be vetted. What are your ideas for border security? Extreme vetting has no impact on that.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
    Okay. So there's no problem with allowing refugee's into the US because you feel there is no threat. I disagree.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardenista View Post
    WTHR did an outstanding series on this tax loophole for illegal aliens.

    Millions of illegal immigrants are getting a bigger tax refund than you. Eyewitness News shows a massive tax loophole that provides billions of dollars in tax credits to undocumented workers and, in many cases, people who have never stepped foot in the United States. And you are paying for it!

    http://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions

    I read the article. It was written in 2012. In 2011, the IRS revamped the IRS ITIN and corrected the issue--which they link to in their article, but make it appear as if it is a current problem. I'm not certain why they updated the article for 2016?
    The link to the IRS site which explains how the ITIN works now;
    An ITIN does not:
    • Authorize work in the U.S.
    • Provide eligibility for Social Security benefits
    • Qualify a dependent for Earned Income Tax Credit Purposes
    https://www.irs.gov/individuals/gene...in-information

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    Okay. So there's no problem with allowing refugee's into the US because you feel there is no threat. I disagree.
    I don't feel there is no threat- I know the threat is dismal and I'm more likely to die by getting struck by lightning, driving to work in the morning, airplane crash, a brain aneurysm, you name it. That is based in statistics and facts, not feeling.

    I do understand the fear, though, and when we operate on fear, we are in survival mode and not using the cognitive part of our brain. I get it. And, as I said, I understand the argument that we just shouldn't let in any more refugees because we cannot possibly vet them well enough since the current standard is not enough (risk 1 in 3 billion). If that's your argument, claim it!

    The argument for more extreme vetting, at least as far as refugees go, though is just not informed.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Page 2 of 90 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. More problems caused by illegal immigration
    By reb in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 01-16-2008, 10:24 AM