abelcainsbrother wrote:melanie wrote:Abel the vetting system in place is adequate, keeping in mind that a tiny percentage will slip through who shouldn't. There is no such thing as a perfect system but countries like the US and Australia are very prudent when it comes to asylum seekers and refugees. Much more so than many other countries, especially when screening people from the Middle East.
The next measure save what is already in place would be to just put a blanket ban on any at all coming through. When you do so only to a specific race or religion there begins a very slippery decline into the type of society that I would do everything in my power to stop.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11 ... ted-states
So,it seems that you're implying that they cannot be vetted properly and yet despite this,you're willing to tolerate the threat that always follows Muslims wherever they live in the world,allow them to come in anyway regardless of the threat.Meanwhile Islamic countries will not allow them in their countries for this very reason.I'm willing to ban one religion if it keeps America safe.I think it would cause a change in Islam,if not? It still doesn't effect us. I'm all for freedom of religion,but it is not a suicide pact.
I looked at the link about the vetting process but I do not trust this government and I wonder why you do.also I see nothing in that vetting process that would stop a terrorist and especially the more that are allowed in when the FBI is already over burdened to investigate terrorist threats in the US.
Abel what I was saying was despite a prudent and intensive screening it remains impossible for any process to remain 100% foolproof. That doesn't the process isn't adequate.
Across the board.
We see this in many areas for example the screening for those that work with children. In Australia we call it 'the working with children check'. Every teacher, teachers aid, helper, coach, foster career, pre school worker, cleaners that work in schools, ect ect must be screened and go through this process.
But yet pedophiles fall through the cracks.
It's an extensive screen but it not perfect. Perfection is impossible, there will always be human error and those that will commit crimes in the future but have clean screenings as they haven't been caught or commited indecency previously.
These processes do not have a crystal ball into the future. They work with the info to date and make decisions.
Going by your logic and that it's possible someone could fall through the cracks it would stand to reason we make no one teachers, or coaches or foster careers just in case.
Late last year my hubby and I got full parental responsibility of my niece and nephew. Who are our son and daughter.
It was the most invasive, exhausting process.
Because it meant cutting all ties with the government authorities they need to make sure that the decision is in the absolute best interest of the child/children. We had several checks from within the department, questioning the children, their preschool ect. Then there were independent accessors. Doctors screenings and a full psychological rundown and report from a psychologist on us individually, as a couple and of each child. Again our home was inspected, every room. My eldest two children were also questioned on numerous occasions.
It was intense.
And sadly despite all of the screening on Occassion long term foster children are abused within foster homes.
By your logic because the process isn't perfect then no child should be placed within long term foster homes because of the small percentage of times it goes wrong.
All we have to work with is best practises that are always being improved.
It even counts into the gun issue. A rouge unhinged person making it 'unfair' for every law abiding gun owning citizen. But if one person is going to do the wrong thing then we can't take the chance with anyone. That is working on your logic.
Abel you don't trust your government despite the link I provided. Then what reasoning to you hold too??
Suspicion and a totalitarian distrust against every Muslim based on nothing but fear.
I get that fear is very real but just as real is the fear of condemning, mistrusting and banning every person of the Muslim Faith with no regard for the person or personal circumstance.
Your assertion that even Muslim countries won't take 'them', Syrian refugees is by and large not the case. Majority of Syrian refugees have been taken in by 'Muslim' nations. In fact millions of them.
There refugee camps are over run and sub standard.
More than 4.5 million refugees from Syria have been taken in by just five countries; Turkey, Lebannon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.