Schumer: Refugee pause may be necessary
Last edited Wed Nov 18, 2015, 07:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: The Hill
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, on Tuesday said it may be necessary to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.
...
Schumer, however, declined to take the option off the table ahead of a special briefing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on the process that is now used to vet refugees entering the United States.
“We’re waiting for the briefing tomorrow, a pause may be necessary. We’re going to look at it,” he said.
Schumer is widely expected to become leader of Senate Democrats in the next Congress, after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) retires.
...
Centrist Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) signed a letter to President Obama Monday calling on him not to allow another Syrian refugee into the country unless federal authorities can guarantee with 100-percent assurance they are not connected to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/260471-schumer-refugee-pause-may-be-necessary
I caution you all to hold your fire at Schumer: Americans at least are on his side by almost 2:1, and more than 2:1 if you add "Christian refugees only" to "none at all" (which makes sense because the obvious fear is jihadism).
Proud to call him my Senator! This issue needs reason and a measured approach, not anyone's jerking knees, right or left
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)This is incredibly disappointing. This is exactly what ISIS wants, and it seems that we're only too happy to play along.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And Manchin needs to stop wetting himself and step up too.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Right now ISIS is hoping to compound the havoc they've caused by worsening the refugee crisis. The best way to do that is to scare the other countries into refusing to welcome refugees, and it looks like they've suceeded, probably beyond their wildest dreams. I'm deeply saddened that instead of providing leadership the Democrats seem to be following the reactionary Republicans.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)What a schmuck.
840high
(17,196 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)We already have a robust vetting process in place to ensure the safety of the American people. This isn't about re-examination, it's about caving in to Republican fearmongering.
840high
(17,196 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)As has been explained several times by several different sources in the past 5 days, we have a robust vetting process in place. The people who are coming here are overwhelmingly coming seeking safety from the very same people who're responsible for last week's violence in Paris. In a very real way, if we don't welcome refugees, we're letting the ISIL win.
840high
(17,196 posts)taking our time. Paris scared the hell out of me. I don't believe we have a good vetting system.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Admittedly, no one has spelled out the details of the process, but I'd imagine that it's probably pretty good, since it's been described as "robust". If it were not robust, I doubt they'd have used that word to describe it. What makes you think it's not a good system? Fear?
840high
(17,196 posts)concern right now is our country and it's people. Maybe my fear will die down with time. 'nite
treestar
(82,383 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)do you really believe they have no need to answer to us at all? that they don't care if terror attacks happen?
People in government have lied, but that they would on this scale doesn't fit.
There have been refugees for decades:
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/refugees-fact-sheet
When there were terror attacks, they were carried out by people let in on visitor or student visas. If you count the Tsarnaevs, they were children of asylum seekers.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> I'd imagine that it's probably pretty good, since it's been described
> as "robust". If it were not robust, I doubt they'd have used that word
> to describe it.
How delightfully sweet of you.
Must admit though, your post reminded me of a different quote:
"We have top men working on it right now."
"Who?"
"Top ... Men."
treestar
(82,383 posts)It should stop with welfare, food stamps, health insurance, after all, it is so dishonest. It is probably just giving money to the banksters and not the poor, right?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)admitted there were issues and risks associated with trying to vet the Syrian refugees.
I don't see how reviewing the process is a bad thing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to really believe government is so full of liars that they would casually let in terrorists without checking.
They did that before 911 to an extent, letting two hijackers in who are on the watch list. They let Atta back in with an expired visa.
It's hard to believe they would allow things like that to happen again, or, strange to assume they would.
christx30
(6,241 posts)vetting process. I'd like to know how many people are in the office, and how they are expecting to fully examine 10,000 or more people in a year.
Will there be interviews for prospective asylum seekers? Who will do them? Is it going to as intense as an IRS audit? How will background checks be done if the infrastructure in their home country has been bombed to hell? Will asylum seekers that have commited crimes in Syria be granted asylum? If not, what crimes would disqualify someone? A shoplifter is ok, but armed robbery to murder would deny you?
And finally, the cynical side of me wants to ask... Can homeless vets or people that lost their homes in the last economic downturn apply for asylum, since the refugees are getting job placement and housing assistance?
840high
(17,196 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)and assume the worst of the government.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/refugees-fact-sheet
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)many progressives are having about Islamism, I doubt Schumer will be alone.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)Who will shelter them if we don't? One could make a very convincing argument that the US is in a large way responsible for the conditions from which they are fleeing, and as such we should shoulder a great deal of the burden of sheltering refugees.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)so and those countries have large amounts of space, are closer to home, and offer true cultural cohesion. We give the first two billions a year: maybe a deal with Sudan could be struck to let Bashir off the hook for his current ICJ warrant (yes that would suck to do but perhaps a necessary evil; he goes everywhere anyway).
As much as we can relitigate the Iraq War, America did take in a lot of Iraq War refugees last decade already.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)No one looks to those countries for leadership. This is what makes us us and makes them them.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Until every man, woman and child already living in the USA is provided for, then I don't think the USA Should accept any refugees.
I live in CT. That state just accepted a family that Indiana rejected. No offense to that family, but I see folks every day near where I work and play that are homeless. Those folks should have been provided for first.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)How's about we stop using the majority of our budget and all of our military to overthrow other countries and instead use that money here at home?
That would:
A. reduce the number of vets needing care by not making any new ones
B. free up money to support domestic programs and
C. stop creating 'new terrorists' who pose a risk to national security / create refugee flows.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
24601
(3,962 posts)budget.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132
The Defense/Homeland Security as a percentage of
Discretionary Spending* 54%
.
All Federal Spending 16.2%
GDP 4.35%
*All discretionary spending makes up 29% of the Federal Budget, Mandatory Spending makes up 65%, and 6% pays interest on the Debt
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)If this is how it's going to be, I can't imagine he'll be a great minority leader.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Ouray
(17 posts)I enjoy your posts, Scootaloo, and you are a very informative poster.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)By denying refuge to those fleeing the horrors of ISIS, we would simply strengthen the hold ISIS has over those living in the areas it controls. And the stronger it becomes in its operational base, the more, not less, capable it will become of exporting its particular brand of violence to Western shores.
BarstowCowboy
(171 posts)
DebbieCDC
(2,543 posts)Schumer is a putz
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)He correctly sees it as a no-win issue for the short- to medium-term, and is trying to get ahead of it. I think he is advising the president to back off, and as I had guessed, there is talk of the refugee program being "delayed" while they work on security issues. Schumer is up for re-election in 2016 and does not want this to become a campaign issue.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)He is a politician and is reading the political "tea leaves".
Right now a major of Americans and I assume his constituents are concerned. He is saying what it takes so they think he is listening to their concerns.
4139
(1,893 posts)Which might stop the republicans plan
Myrina
(12,296 posts)
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Yeah right. Syra problems didn't start two years ago. It was this summer so how are some arriving today in Pennsylvania?
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Munchkin is a DINO puke anyway, so this isn't out of character for him, but this is another new low for Chuckles....
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)He understands the politics of the issue more than Obama does.
As soon as this happened Obama should have held a press conference and declared a moratorium.
He then should have said he was going to have his national security team take a look at the vetting process and make any adjustments needed.
Then he could come back and either leave the same or make some tweaks and allow it to happen.
This way Obama could have got ahead of the GOP on this.
Schumer is trying catch up to the GOP. Make sure it's safe and the issue is not a win for the GOP. I can tell you most people I talk to want to ban all people in the middle east from even traveling here.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)he's so hated in some parts of the country so much more than others, thus affective downballot races.
What you said, I'm hearing from some Democrats, long time ones too.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Wets finger, raises it into the air ... and whichever side of an issue he comes down on, he will make reasoned arguments. 
christx30
(6,241 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 19, 2015, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)
and $6 can get an outgoing senator a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Can't get reelected if you tell your voters "I'm right. You're wrong, stupid cowards."
Reter
(2,188 posts)It's a losing issue. It's going to cost us the election if we run on letting them in.
840high
(17,196 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)He is not saying he wants to completely stop the process, he's saying that there are new concerns that may need to be reviewed.
goldent
(1,582 posts)that the goal of every politician is to be elected or reelected -- that trumps most issues.
Slowing down the program is a way of having your cake and eating it too - in principle you support the refugee program, but you need to delay it to make sure it is done right (at least until the election is over).
I am surprised by the president's stand, because you can see what is coming. The republicans are going to add an amendment (to some important bill) to halt the refugee program. Democrats will feel pressured to vote for the amendment, and now the president will either have to back down (which is what the democratic congressmen really want) or veto it and be asked about this on a daily basis.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)It is a pretty safe bet that he is getting a lot of flack from his caucus on this.
goldent
(1,582 posts)I'd think a lot of the caucus don't want to touch this issue - they want it to go away until after the election.
Edit for punctuation.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)time to 'Vet' them Schumer you washingtondc coward.
Meanwhile, Cubans can set foot on dry USA soil (wet foot/dry foot), hop the border in Mexico and its instant resident.
So many other countries take in refugees right off the boats.
?alias=standard_600x400
I've read it's more like 18-24 months.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)He's become a pandering DINO & is all about Chuck.
treestar
(82,383 posts)of refugees annually and where they come from.
Every President exercise it every year.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)Why not sympathize with their wants and needs. 1% attitude.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)And if the security concerns are ignored, people that are in favor of the refugees are going to find themselves out of a job, and someone like Trump, (saying "first thing I'll do is send them all back" is going to be in office. (I added up the electoral votes for the states refusing refugees. Comes out to 300 electoral votes. I don't have to tell you, it takes 270 to win the presidency).
So don't be so quick to dismiss the fear. For every 10,000 good people that want to get away from the horror of Syria, you get 2 or 3 Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs trying to bring that horror here to our shores.
And that's all it takes to kill a large number of people.
So Schumer is right. Slow it down. Address the security concerns. Let the American people know that everything that can be done to assure their safety is being done. If the attitude is "take your fear and shove it", many people will shove their vote for the other guy.
The states won't cooperate. The can withhold money for education or job training for the refugees.
So the "shove it down their throats if they don't like it" strategy isn't going to win.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)And don't tell me Jews didn't bomb Paris. Neither did these people. They are escaping a devastating war. If the SS could possibly had infiltrated Jewish refugees in WW2 coming to America would that have been a reason to deny all Jews entrance?
You need to read George Takie's post in the General Discussion. He nails it. Just because the initial reaction of many Americans is fear, that shouldn't be the reaction of our leaders. Roosevelt made a mistake in the internment of Japanese Americans out of fear because people looked different, because maybe one of these Japanese Americans was a spy or terrorist. He was wrong to do so and the nation apologized long ago.
There are already screening measures in place, and most of the people fleeing this devastation are children for chrisakes with less than 2% accepted of men of combat age.
Tell me which screening procedure in place is not to your satisfaction. Frankly, I'm more concerned with home grown terrorists like Fort Hood than I am of refguees. As Obama said, we are already screening these people.
All you do by denying refugees is give ISIS a victory to your own fear and terror. As the one man who lost his wife in Paris said, "I will not give you my hatred."
You don't win by denying refugees.
christx30
(6,241 posts)But again, you won't win by going against the will of the American people. There are too many checks and balances in place. You need the cooperation of the states. You need to win elections.
President Trump is going to load these people on a C-130 and drop them off at Damascus international airport a few days after his inauguration. He's said as much. If you don't want that to happen, you need to do more than a few inspirational quotes.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Sometimes the majority is just flat out wrong. Hope Obama upholds the moral choice over the majority one based on fear.
christx30
(6,241 posts)of the country. And he can't do everything alone. He needs the support of the state governors. If they don't support him, it's going to be a huge mess. So Obama can't just say "here's how it is. Deal with it." He has to massage egos and he has to persuade. And he has to get the majority of the country on his side.
And he has to hope no crimes of any kind are committed by the refugees. Picture the fury after the murder of Kathryn Steinel's murder by someone that "shouldn't have been in the country", and apply that to a Syrian refugee.
Public opinion, already shaky at best, is going to tank BIG time.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)No Syrian refugee was part of the Paris crew.
This is just more MIC and RW fear mongering.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)hardly there, the result of only conservative fear mongering.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)2:1 doesn't make it right.
Again, Syrian refugees had nothing to do with the Paris attacks.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Explain that we're only proposing to slow things down a bit so as to compensate for the extra time it takes to recover records from areas that ISIS has devastated.
These are the victims of ISIS, and our likely allies and spokespeople in, and/or to, that region. Their towns have been overrun, so we're going to need extra time to confirm their life history. We're going to help these people, one way or the other, let's not spit on the opportunity to look good while doing so.
Invoke WWII, the shameful internment of Japanese/American citizens, and the shameful turning away of Jewish refugees.
P.S. It really, really, wouldn't hurt if some of these displaced Syrians talked about organizing to go back and reclaim their towns from ISIS.
Edit: To be clear, we need to say we don't need the added measures of the bill passed by the House. We got this, and we'll take all the extra time we need to insure our existing standards are met.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . it doesn't make that position any more morally defensible.
seaotter
(576 posts)
