Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

i was about to write the same thing, but not as articulately. we need to look at the long term consequences and not make rash decisions to grow a population thst will be very difficult to assimalate (sp).

I can only assume that those of you who believe Syrians will be hard to assimilate have never met an actual Syrian. These folks will assimilate quite easily, at least as long as they don't encounter a solid wall of prejudice, fear, and hatred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

i was about to write the same thing, but not as articulately. we need to look at the long term consequences and not make rash decisions to grow a population thst will be very difficult to assimalate (sp).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

Because blood is thicker than water. While citizenships are acquired and relinquished freely, the cultural background is the baggage that stays with you till death.

How positively Shakespearean. But I'm pretty sure citizenships aren't actually acquired freely. By the way, can you identify the cultural background gene for us? Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

Because blood is thicker than water. While citizenships are acquired and relinquished freely, the cultural background is the baggage that stays with you till death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

Setting aside the fact that are talking about 10,000 Syrians, not the millions who emigrated to France from the Maghreb, the way to avoid replicating what has happened in France and Belgium is to develop and implement policies and programs through which Syrians will be assimilated and become "American" over time. That means not segregating them from the community or subjecting them to discrimination. That means treating them with respect, educating their children and offering them a step up in terms of jobs and economic opportunity. There are no guarantees that they will succeed in America but shutting the door in their face won't do much to stop someone from being radicalized.

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

I think that is why the White House has stated they will veto it. It doesn't do anything to deter potential terrorism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

Another PP here. Would you also acknowledge that your objection would prove the point that OP was making about the legislation being too narrow if it is to adress YOUR objection? Here is my point - there are radical Muslims ALREADY in the United States - that were born here. There are heavy Muslim populations that have been here for decades already - places like Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, etc. Call me an eternal optimist, but I am not sure that a refugee family or child whose entire life was uprooted and family members killed because of ISIS/Radical Islam is going to flock to them 10 years from now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

Children of Americans-for-generations and refugees can become radicalized. More likely is that children of Americans-for-generations will become school/church/movie theater shooters. That threat is much more likely, and much more present, in our country.

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

You have correctly identified my objection to importation of refugees. It's not that I think the refugees are terrorists, almost none of them are. It's the children of Muslim immigrants who are radicalized. I have zero desire to replicate the failure of Europe in absorbing large numbers of Muslims. And yes, I am aware how politically incorrect that sounds, and that it is only a small percentage of horrific apples ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

Who could pass up a chance to look tough on ISIS while pandering to public fear? Syrian refugees don't vote, and American Muslims aren't big enough to sway an election.

Politics. Republican presidential candidates are using the issue of refugees to get attention. Largely Republican governors are find it an easy way to score political points (with no real consequences because they can't legally stop resettlement). Ryan is simply responding to pressure from below. This is a natural consequence of drumming up unrealistic fear and then needing to respond to it. It is security theater on the political stage.

Cynical political theater. Red meat for Obamaphobes.

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?

It's not a rational bill.

Legislation doesn't stop terrorists.

My understanding is that we know that two of the people involved in the Paris attack are citizens of France and one is a citizen from Belgium. They have a Syrian passport for one of the people, but they have confirmed that it was stolen or a fake; thought they do know that this man entered Europe via Turkey and claimed to be a refugee.

So why are we trying to keep Syrians out when the wrong doers are citizens of France and Belgium. Even the "shoe bomber" was traveling on a British passport. If you are concerned about terrorists coming to America, isn't this legislation too narrow?