Paris attacks

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by sexobon

... I'm posting a link to an article with another rationale. This does not constitute my endorsement of it. It's just to broaden your knowledge:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Be careful Dani, Sexobon is blowing smoke up your skirt. ...

... Maybe Sexobon can cite where the law allows the person's religion,
itself, to be the reason for denying asylum.

I see you're still hell-bent on misrepresenting what other people in the Cellar have say. I said there was another argument out there and demonstrated that by citing it. No follow-up is required since I'm not advocating.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Are these refugees coming in under asylum? I thought they were coming here under humanitarian circumstances. ...

We don't simply take in everyone who's on the losing side of civil strife; or, war.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... The #1 enemy is Muslims who refuse to submit to ISIS and toe the line. Those Muslims must die first, which means these refugees are in danger.

Of course, of course, that's why they massacred people in Paris. Funny you can deduce that ISIS is in recruiting mode; but, don't recognize that their priorities on who dies first have changed with that.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The refugees coming to America have been through an 18 month long vetting procedure, before they get to board the plane.

That's been repeated here and is still relevant to the notion that refugees who make it to the US don't present a danger; but, not to the notion that what constitutes refugee eligibility for relocation here is being expanded.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

We don't simply take in everyone who's on the losing side of civil strife; or, war.

Generally no, but that doesn't mean we can't in extenuating circumstances. We took half a million Vietnamese, and a shit load of Cubans.

Of course, of course, that's why they massacred people in Paris. Funny you can deduce that ISIS is in recruiting mode; but, don't recognize that their priorities on who dies first have changed with that.

Get real, less than 200 in Paris, they behead that many on a good day. Paris was a pisshole in a snowbank compared to what they're doing at home. Killing a few French doesn't recruit, the French retaliation, the airstrikes, are what they want and need to fire up recruitment drives. Westerners attacking the homeland fires up closet Jihadists to come out and fence sitters to fall their way.

That's been repeated here and is still relevant to the notion that refugees who make it to the US don't present a danger; but, not to the notion that what constitutes refugee eligibility for relocation here is being expanded.

There is a standard procedure for handing the trickle of émigrés day in and day out. A set or rules for the low level minions you make decisions without interrupting the boss' golf game. One of them is religious persecution but that's not the only reason and if they weren't Muslims it probably wouldn't even be mentioned, except for politics.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... Get real, less than 200 in Paris, they behead that many on a good day. Paris was a pisshole in a snowbank compared to what they're doing at home. Killing a few French doesn't recruit, the French retaliation, the airstrikes, are what they want and need to fire up recruitment drives. Westerners attacking the homeland fires up closet Jihadists to come out and fence sitters to fall their way.

Cause and effect, western response is predictable and reliable, that's reality. Trying to separate cause and effect in terms of eventual ramifications doesn't hold water.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... There is a standard procedure for handing the trickle of émigrés day in and day out. A set or rules for the low level minions you make decisions without interrupting the boss' golf game. One of them is religious persecution but that's not the only reason and if they weren't Muslims it probably wouldn't even be mentioned, except for politics.

Standards change with the political wind. That's why people have been protesting immigration policies forever. One has to separate the policies in practice from both the procedures and the law. This has been made apparent in other areas such as the American experience with the NSA. People think it's all good; until, they get blindsided with the fact that it's not because they dropped their vigilance.

Oh, and furthermore, have a Happy Thanksgiving. I'm away for the rest of the day. We'll chew the cud some more later.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by sexobon

I see you're still hell-bent on misrepresenting what other people in the Cellar have say. I said there was another argument out there and demonstrated that by citing it. No follow-up is required since I'm not advocating.

What did I misrepresent ?

Your link did not have "another argument" in it.
I went to the specific sections of the law it cited to see what argument(s) might be there.

I concluded there was NONE there.
I also invited you to cite one if you could.
Instead you come back typically with another of your insults.

You have simply bought into the going headlines and bullet points of the radical right.

Trying to duck an issue by precluding follow-up just because
you insert that "you are not advocating it" is cowardly.

.

[Griff]

Don't get played.