Terrorist attack in Paris

[Jenksismyhero]

Ok but that doesn't really address the point at all! That one can much more easily come from any number of countries that the US routinely issues travel visas for. If ISIS wants to do something in the US, there are much, much easier ways of going about it than trying to get in as a refugee.

 

Just because it's easier another way doesn't mean there isn't an increased risk. Why expose ourselves even more to people who are less likely to be known/tracked? I like how someone on the news this morning was trying to calm people by citing to the fact that background checks are done to these people before they come to the country. Yeah, i'm sure a Syrian refugee has an extensive history that's been recorded and is easily obtainable. I'm sure someone from the State Dept can just call up Syrian's State Dept. for paperwork.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Much much easier than being allowed to send in a trained solider? Pray tell

 

The screening process is more rigorous than any other way to get into this country. The attacks in France were carried out mainly by French and Belgian nationals. Those guys could have flown to the US on their legitimate French and Belgian passports no problem. There's also always the issue of home-grown terrorists in this country.

 

Now why would they try to go through the 18-24 month process with in-depth screening and security checks and a pretty small shot of admission anyway (we've only taken several thousand out of millions of refugees to this point) when there are much, much easier ways to get in?

[cabiness42]

The way I look at is this: Is there a very slight increased risk by letting in the refugees? Yes. But if you don't let them come here, they go to some other country, probably one with worse intelligence than us and probably do more damage. Since 9/11, the US has had a pretty good track record at snuffing out terror activity. There were the Boston Marathon guys but they weren't with any organization and just did that on their own, and even for all their planning they only killed 4 people.

 

I'd feel better about having them here than somewhere else.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well if you want to get someone into the United States, the easiest way would be to recruit a US citizen and then have them return to the US. The second easiest way would be to recruit someone from a country friendly with the US (Turkey) and have them visit the US with a valid passport issued by Turkey.

 

A refugee would be one of the worst ways to send someone to the US as unlike the other ways they would actually have to apply to the US for that status and thus would be much easier to track/find.

 

Lets just all be thankful terrorists are for the most part not really bright or great at what they do. If they were they could inflict extreme amount of casualties with almost no way to prevent it.

 

Haven't we been arresting people that are doing this? Not sure that's the "easy" route.

 

The easy route is to have someone here try to convince others already here.

[StrangeSox]

Just because it's easier another way doesn't mean there isn't an increased risk. Why expose ourselves even more to people who are less likely to be known/tracked? I like how someone on the news this morning was trying to calm people by citing to the fact that background checks are done to these people before they come to the country. Yeah, i'm sure a Syrian refugee has an extensive history that's been recorded and is easily obtainable. I'm sure someone from the State Dept can just call up Syrian's State Dept. for paperwork.

 

The risk is minuscule and the real human harm of turning refugees away is large.

 

If you have zero trust in the State Department's ability to vet someone, you should be advocating for completely sealed borders. No student, work or travel visas for anyone. There's obviously risk from French and Belgians, anyway.

[Jenksismyhero]

The screening process is more rigorous than any other way to get into this country. The attacks in France were carried out mainly by French and Belgian nationals. Those guys could have flown to the US on their legitimate French and Belgian passports no problem. There's also always the issue of home-grown terrorists in this country.

 

Now why would they try to go through the 18-24 month process with in-depth screening and security checks and a pretty small shot of admission anyway (we've only taken several thousand out of millions of refugees to this point) when there are much, much easier ways to get in?

 

That screening process sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Basically check a list we already have to see if they're on it, that's it. We have no way of knowing if they're already brainwashed pyschos on a mission.

 

[Soxbadger]

Haven't we been arresting people that are doing this? Not sure that's the "easy" route.

 

The easy route is to have someone here try to convince others already here.

 

This was if they wanted to give them "military training". I think it would be harder to do military training in the actual US, as opposed to a camp in Libya, etc.

 

[illinilaw08]

The screening process is more rigorous than any other way to get into this country. The attacks in France were carried out mainly by French and Belgian nationals. Those guys could have flown to the US on their legitimate French and Belgian passports no problem. There's also always the issue of home-grown terrorists in this country.

 

Now why would they try to go through the 18-24 month process with in-depth screening and security checks and a pretty small shot of admission anyway (we've only taken several thousand out of millions of refugees to this point) when there are much, much easier ways to get in?

 

Vox article describing some of the policy differences between resettlement of refugees in Europe and in the US.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/17/9750538/syrian-refugees

 

Like SS said, we're talking about an 18-24 month screening process, including multiple interviews. That's a really, really slow burning plan. And as others in this thread have pointed out, it's one of the more difficult ways for ISIS to get assets into America...

[StrangeSox]

That screening process sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Basically check a list we already have to see if they're on it, that's it. We have no way of knowing if they're already brainwashed pyschos on a mission.

That's the Eurozone process, not the US process.

[Jenksismyhero]

The risk is minuscule and the real human harm of turning refugees away is large.

 

If you have zero trust in the State Department's ability to vet someone, you should be advocating for completely sealed borders. No student, work or travel visas for anyone. There's obviously risk from French and Belgians, anyway.

 

Student and work can be verified though. Random refugee cannot. Is there ever 100% certainty? Of course not. But again, if there's a risk, why chance it? What's the "real human harm" when half are denied anyway, and the other half have to wait 1-2 years? It's not some immediate "let me in or I die tomorrow" situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's the Eurozone process, not the US process.

 

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

 

How do we know the refugees aren’t terrorists?

 

Every refugee goes through an intensive vetting process, but the precautions are increased for Syrians. Multiple law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies perform “the most rigorous screening of any traveler to the U.S.,” says a senior administration official. Among the agencies involved are the State Department, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS officer conducts in-person interviews with every applicant. Biometric information such as fingerprints are collected and matched against criminal databases. Biographical information such as past visa applications are scrutinized to ensure the applicant’s story coheres.

[RockRaines]

They could radicalize a former US or Canadian soldier, and then they could go down the street and buy 500 weapons legally.

So it would be easier and quicker to completely find, turn and groom a US or Canadian soldier?

[StrangeSox]

Student and work can be verified though. Random refugee cannot. Is there ever 100% certainty? Of course not. But again, if there's a risk, why chance it? What's the "real human harm" when half are denied anyway, and the other half have to wait 1-2 years? It's not some immediate "let me in or I die tomorrow" situation.

The Belgian nationals came freely into France.

 

There is always risk, and you decide what is acceptable based on analysis. The risk of ISIS coming into the US as a refugee seems to be very minimal, certainly much less likely than any number of other avenues. There's risk of us continuing to allow French and Belgian citizens into the country, but we don't hear calls for stopping that.

 

The real human harm is that there are millions of displaced people. The US should be taking in more than we currently are, but even the numbers we do take in help. And for some, it is immediate or at least near-term because they would have started their vetting process 18-24+ months ago.

[illinilaw08]

Student and work can be verified though. Random refugee cannot. Is there ever 100% certainty? Of course not. But again, if there's a risk, why chance it? What's the "real human harm" when half are denied anyway, and the other half have to wait 1-2 years? It's not some immediate "let me in or I die tomorrow" situation.

 

The real human harm is that once they make it through a very long and thorough screening process, they are resettled and out of danger.

 

I encourage you to read A Long Way Gone about the value to a refugee of finally being allowed to come to the United States. There is absolutely a real human cost here, whether the refugee is accepted a year later, two years later or four years later.

 

Unless you think that our intelligence agencies are bad at their jobs, there is no reason to oppose continuing to accept refugees from Syria or any other humanitarian crisis.

[StrangeSox]

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

Thanks for supporting my point? I think you're thinking of the Eurozone screening process, which is essentially just checking if there's an international warrant out for them. The US process is substantially different from that.

[GoSox05]

I thought none of the Paris terrorists were refugees? Has that changed?

[StrangeSox]

So it would be easier and quicker to completely find, turn and groom a US or Canadian soldier?

Easier to find someone in the US already or with easy access to the US than trying to get in through the refugee process. Plus, you don't really need "trained soldiers" to do exactly what they did in France.

[StrangeSox]

I thought none of the Paris terrorists were refugees? Has that changed?

A Syrian refugee passport was found near one of the stadium bombers, but last I heard there were still questions as to its authenticity, if it was the bomber's, and if the bomber really did come in through the refugee path.

Edited November 17, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Its just xenophobia. Even if you look at 9/11 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from UAE, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon. The obvious problem being that Saudi Arabia is considered one of our "strongest allies" in the Middle East.

[bmags]

Student and work can be verified though. Random refugee cannot. Is there ever 100% certainty? Of course not. But again, if there's a risk, why chance it? What's the "real human harm" when half are denied anyway, and the other half have to wait 1-2 years? It's not some immediate "let me in or I die tomorrow" situation.

 

Honestly, this annoys me very much. The US is a very important and influential global policy player. If the US refuses to come to bat because of our enhanced risk-aversion to violence-via-terrorism (vs our incredible risk-acceptance to every other form of violence), while the problem escalates to crisis for our allies, what standing would we have to ask for any assistance the next time we need their resouces, or airspace, or bases? It's so shortsighted.

[RockRaines]

Easier to find someone in the US already or with easy access to the US than trying to get in through the refugee process. Plus, you don't really need "trained soldiers" to do exactly what they did in France.

To build a bomb and detonation device? I would assume you needed SOME training, not to mention a ridiculous amount of doctrine brainwashing that makes you adhere to Sharia law.

[bmags]

A Syrian refugee passport was found near one of the stadium bombers, but last I heard there were still questions as to its authenticity, if it was the bomber's, and if the bomber really did come in through the refugee path.

 

It was fake, they even know it was made in Turkey.

[StrangeSox]

To build a bomb and detonation device? I would assume you needed SOME training, not to mention a ridiculous amount of doctrine brainwashing that makes you adhere to Sharia law.

 

Building a bomb and blowing things up isn't really related to Sharia law.

 

We've had plenty of home-grown bombers, as well. Unibomber, OKC, Boston Marathon, that failed attempt in Times Square, Atlanta Olympics. You don't need some sort of special ISIS training to build a bomb. Fuel + ignition source = boom. Building it to reliably detonate is a challenge, but it's something anyone with some chemistry and electronics text books could figure out if they wanted.

[RockRaines]

Building a bomb and blowing things up isn't really related to Sharia law.

 

We've had plenty of home-grown bombers, as well. Unibomber, OKC, Boston Marathon, that failed attempt in Times Square, Atlanta Olympics. You don't need some sort of special ISIS training to build a bomb. Fuel + ignition source = boom. Building it to reliably detonate is a challenge, but it's something anyone with some chemistry and electronics text books could figure out if they wanted.

I never said it was, however the entire philosophy behind the attacks are based in ISIS's doctrine and strict adherence to Sharia law.

 

So you need to find a US national, convert him to a very literal interpretation of Islam, train him in arms and bomb making and ship him back to the US. That doesnt sound like some two week vacation in Syria.

[Jenksismyhero]

Thanks for supporting my point? I think you're thinking of the Eurozone screening process, which is essentially just checking if there's an international warrant out for them. The US process is substantially different from that.

 

I'm seeing bunch of PR language there and not much substance. Seems to me the process is essentially the same - take down information, vet it on the databases we have, do interviews, and that's that. Again, no stopping anyone that doesn't have much of a record to check back at home (how good can that be in a country in the midst of a civil war for 4-5 years now?) and who is now on a mission to come here and either recruit or commit acts on his/her own.

 

Even if it's a 1% increased risk, it's dumb to do it. It's got nothing to do with xenophobia. It's just smart.

 

After 9/11 we didn't decide against more airline security by arguing "Well there are easier ways to kill people than stealing plans and flying them into buildings!" It was a known risk (much like Syria is now the center of Islamic terrorism) that we acted on. It made sense to do so, as a precaution. Over time can that and should that change? Sure. I don't have a problem with it right now.