Up to 2,300 Syrian refugees expected in Calgary over the next six to eight weeks

[NewFan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If they can get fake documents that can pass Canadian security anyway, then why bother even going through the rigmarole of the refugee process when they would have a less than 50% chance of being selected? Why wouldn't they just get fake documents of a different nationality and come over as a legit visitor? They would be making it unnecessarily difficult on themselves trying to do it via a refugee camp.

Sure, there is always a theoretical chance that some ISIS people escaped to camps and will be among those selected and we certainly don't want that ideology being spread here. There were Nazi war criminals that immigrated to Canada after WW2 as well, so the system isn't fool proof. But should that stop us from doing the right thing? The due diligence will be laboursome, no doubt about it. But that doesn't mean that it needs to take a long time.

I'm just not sure about bringing 25000 refugees in 6 weeks. US is planning to bring only 10000 in 2016 and so far they just accepted 1800 refugees from Syria.

[2Stonedbirds]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbar...ugees-n2063189

Lack of available data to properly vett Syrian refugees is a concern for FBI officials, should we not be concerned as well?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbar...ugees-n2063189

Lack of available data to properly vett Syrian refugees is a concern for FBI officials, should we not be concerned as well?

More fear mongering articles.


Also, your source have reduced credibility when this is linked on the top of the page:

http://bearingarms.com/

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

More fear mongering articles.


Also, your source have reduced credibility when this is linked on the top of the page:

http://bearingarms.com/

So James Comey didn't say this then?

'Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday, FBI Director James Comey weighed in from a security perspective, lending credence to Republican concerns over proper vetting of refugees.

“My concern there is there are certain gaps ... in the data available to us,” Comey said.'

How is that fear mongering? Legitimate concerns are now considered fear mongering?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2437617

I'd like to find the story from a more mainstream media outlet, however they are all busy telling us how we can fix the terrorist problem with hugs.

When ISIS has declared attacks on US soil, due diligence isn't fear mongering or xenophobia, it's responsible.

30 US states have now said they will either not take Syrian refugees or asking the Fed's to reconsider refugee relocation.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/16/us-st...-refugees.html

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

So James Comey didn't say this then?

'Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday, FBI Director James Comey weighed in from a security perspective, lending credence to Republican concerns over proper vetting of refugees.

“My concern there is there are certain gaps ... in the data available to us,” Comey said.'

How is that fear mongering? Legitimate concerns are now considered fear mongering?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2437617

I'd like to find the story from a more mainstream media outlet, however they are all busy telling us how we can fix the terrorist problem with hugs.

When ISIS has declared attacks on US soil, due diligence isn't fear mongering or xenophobia, it's responsible.

30 US states have now said they will either not take Syrian refugees or asking the Fed's to reconsider refugee relocation.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/16/us-st...-refugees.html

That link is clearly a biased news source.

I will say that I agree the "mainstream" (what an awful term) can be muddled.

This is also from you article:

Refugees are first recommended by the United Nations, according to the administration, and then screened by multiple U.S. agencies. The White House insists that the vetting process will be thorough.

“We should do the right thing by accepting more, but we should be careful in doing it,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

So to be clear, prospective refugees are screened by the UN, they are then screened again by multiple US agencies.

Isn't that enough for you?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

So James Comey didn't say this then?

'Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday, FBI Director James Comey weighed in from a security perspective, lending credence to Republican concerns over proper vetting of refugees.

“My concern there is there are certain gaps ... in the data available to us,” Comey said.'

How is that fear mongering? Legitimate concerns are now considered fear mongering?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2437617

I'd like to find the story from a more mainstream media outlet, however they are all busy telling us how we can fix the terrorist problem with hugs.

When ISIS has declared attacks on US soil, due diligence isn't fear mongering or xenophobia, it's responsible.

30 US states have now said they will either not take Syrian refugees or asking the Fed's to reconsider refugee relocation.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/16/us-st...-refugees.html

You should read the CTV article undercoverbrother posted and then I reposted. The country isn't accepting refugees in willy nilly.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That link is clearly a biased news source.

I will say that I agree the "mainstream" (what an awful term) can be muddled.

This is also from you article:



So to be clear, prospective refugees are screened by the UN, they are then screened again by multiple US agencies.

Isn't that enough for you?

Not when the FBI director isn't convinced, no.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You should read the CTV article undercoverbrother posted and then I reposted. The country isn't accepting refugees in willy nilly.

I never said they were, they are vetting them with the available information they have.

The concern is that information isn't enough.

I'm fine with bringing in refugees, although I would want to see women and children fast tracked. If we can properly vett these people and assure they are who we think they are, then great.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I never said they were, they are vetting them with the available information they have.

The concern is that information isn't enough.

I'm fine with bringing in refugees, although I would want to see women and children fast tracked. If we can properly vett these people and assure they are who we think they are, then great.

That is what the article posted says.

It says that the refugees pass through multiple levels of vetting, but you indicate that isn't enough for you.

Perhaps you can tell me what vetting approach is acceptable to you?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I never said they were, they are vetting them with the available information they have.

The concern is that information isn't enough.

I'm fine with bringing in refugees, although I would want to see women and children fast tracked. If we can properly vett these people and assure they are who we think they are, then great.

According to the CTV article, it sounds like they've already figured that out.

[undercoverbrother]

I guess we can all decide which side of history to be on


http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...ewish-refugees

[Addick]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbar...ugees-n2063189

Lack of available data to properly vett Syrian refugees is a concern for FBI officials, should we not be concerned as well?

In the article you provided, the head of America's National Counterterrorism Center makes the same admission as the FBI director but also states:

“We are building that fact into our analysis as well,” he added, “so that we can at least identify what more questions we need to ask.”

Is this not addressing the legitimate concern?

[octothorp]

As I see it, part of the benefit to taking a number of these low risk refugees who have been living in camps for years, is that it opens up spots in those camps for other refugees, or allows the Turkish authorities to provide better support for those who are there. In turn, that reduces the numbers of refugees outside the camp system in Turkey, reduces the migrant flow to Europe, and allow both Turkey and the EU to devote more resources to tracking other, less known refugees.

We're in a position where, for very low risk, we can not only help a large number of innocent civilians, we can also help lower the risk for our allies who, due to geography are in much higher-risk situations. We should be looking at Paris and not say, 'how can we prevent that from happening here,' but rather 'how can we prevent that from happening again here, there, or anywhere else'. And if it turns out that this was caused by someone who slipped through the cracks of the migration system, reducing the strain on that system is one major way we can help.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That is what the article posted says.

It says that the refugees pass through multiple levels of vetting, but you indicate that isn't enough for you.

Perhaps you can tell me what vetting approach is acceptable to you?

For the third time, the FBI director is concerned the available information isnt enough. That's what he is saying, not me. If he is concerned about security, then we should try and address those concerns. That's what I'm saying.

Multiple levels of vetting is being implemented, and that's fine, the question is, is it enough?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Addick

In the article you provided, the head of America's National Counterterrorism Center makes the same admission as the FBI director but also states:



Is this not addressing the legitimate concern?

Yes it is. So move forward with figuring out which additional questions need to be asked, find an applicable way of implementing those extra steps, and ensure that we have covered all our bases.

Some officials are saying we have enough information, others are not convinced. If we can get everyone on the same page stating that the vetting process has been complete and 100% accurate, then I'm comfortable with moving ahead with mass refugee relocation.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

they're not necessarily going to send a raving mad terrorist over, they're going to send guys over that will integrate into the communities and recruit and radicalize.

They're going to send over people that are planners not trigger men, people that already know where the network of weapons are for example, who can encourage and put together a plan.

They're sending over the virus, not the tumor.

Wow, could you dehumanize them a little more?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Wow, could you dehumanize them a little more?

Sensitive much?

Firstly, it was just an analogy saying how if a ISIS operative who disguised himself as a refugee came over, he likely wouldn't be the raving suicide bomber type. It would be someone who plant ideas and radicalizes native Canadian muslims. Therefore they are sending the virus that will radicalize folks and cause the tumor (home grown violent terrorists).

2ndly, even if he directly called ISIS operatives a virus, I have no problem with that. The mass murder and rape they are committing in their caliphate is disgusting.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Sensitive much?

Firstly, it was just an analogy saying how if a ISIS operative who disguised himself as a refugee came over, he likely wouldn't be the raving suicide bomber type. It would be someone who plant ideas and radicalizes native Canadian muslims. Therefore they are sending the virus that will radicalize folks and cause the tumor (home grown violent terrorists).

2ndly, even if he directly called ISIS operatives a virus, I have no problem with that. The mass murder and rape they are committing in their caliphate is disgusting.

You might be right, and certainly read in that context it reads better.

I would have preferred CC had used the word "if" in his post.

[FlamesAddiction]

Venezuela is also letting in 20,000. Not sure of the time table, but that is a lot for them. Granted, something like 10% of their population (30m) is of Syrian decent already, so there is a large cultural cushion to absorb them.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Wow, could you dehumanize them a little more?

ISIS members don't act human and shouldn't be treated as one.