So...what is "vetting" in the refugee sense? UPDATED

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

Believe it or not, the Governor of Massachusetts (that's right, MASSACHUSETTS) has announced that he is "not interested in accepting Syrian refugees" right now. Putting aside that states do not control immigration, and once immigrants are legally admitted to this country no Governor can keep them out of his/her state, I have a question.

 

Just what does the Federal Government DO to "vet" refugees?

 

When the President announced his plan to admit 10K Syrian refugees, I assumed that meant folks that were recently plucked from boats in the Med, or had crossed Europe on foot or by car or bus in an effort to get clear of the fighting (and ISIS). When states started to balk at accepting the President's refugees, suddenly the outraged voices of folks who seem to think they have a monopoly on human kindness started ranting about the stupidity of the right...."Don't they know that these people have been "thoroughly vetted" before being given refugee status?" "Don't they realize that it can take 2-3 years to pass the rigorous government background checks (sounds like a carry permit hereabouts)."

 

Whoa, Nellie. Does that mean that the refugees being admitted actually applied for refugee status 2-3 years ago, and have been waiting in camps for the outcome of some unspecified vigorous background search? If so, how do we know that:

• the guy who applied 3 years ago is the same guy getting off the plane in NY?
• The guy applying in a Greek DP camp is who he says he is?
• That there is any reliable background information actually available for every refugee? In the middle of a raging war zone? ("Hello, President Asad? I need a few facts about Ahmed Rafjani, who used to live in Raqqa until ISIS came through about 2 years ago...Can I hold while you check your State Enemy List? Sure....")
• Does that mean that we have actually turned away some folks who applied as refugees based upon background issues? How many? (The head of the FBI didn't sound too hopeful recently when asked about such background checks, admitting that unless a refugee had caused trouble in Syria, had been reported to the FBI, and had been flagged in the FBI database, we would have no way to know if he was a terrorist. So much for that "intensive background check", I'm afraid. See https://www.numbersusa.com/news/fbi-repeats-warning-us-cant-conduct-thorough-background-checks-syrian-refugees

 

Now, if we are not talking about 2-3 year old applications, how do we do background checks on the flood of folks crossing the borders since the war intensified? And how do we now get such information, since everyone in a position in Syria to possibly have such information now hates us for bombing them?

 

Don't get me wrong; I am certain that there are thousands of "legitimate" refugees - men, women and children - who are fleeing for their lives, seeking only safety and life, and who would embrace America if given the chance. And those folks deserve our help. But so far, I haven't seen anyone provide us with an outline of how we separate the rogues from the flock.

 

Now go one more step - the Tsarnaev brothers, of Boston Marathon bombing infamy. They came here as refugees, and were granted legal status. They even became citizens. And then they proceeded to make bombs out of ball bearing filled pressure cookers, murder innocents, execute police officers, and defiantly proclaim "Death to America" like the little fascist stooges they were. How the devil do we sort those folks out in advance? Or can we?

 

At some point, we need to make risk assessments based upon reality. Not based upon how we wish the world operated. I'm with Governor Baker and Ronald Reagan - trust, but verify. If we cannot actively identify a refugee as a peaceful non-terrorist, don't let them in. And that may be quite difficult to accomplish.

 

Anyone have a better understanding of what is done to vet refugees? And whether that is being done for these folks? And does it actually work?

 

LL

 

EXTRA: Found this article on Fox, with a few more details about the actual process

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/18/inside-screening-process-for-syrian-refugees-checking-documents-stories-and/?intcmp=hpbt1

 

ll

 

 

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

I don't think we can properly vet the Syrian refugees since we have no diplomatic ties with Syria. With no ties, we can't get background info on these refugees.

 

If we do take Syrian refugees, I suggest taking only refugees that are not men of military age. Those of men of military age should be sent back to Syria so they can be trained to fight for their own country.

 

Also, any misconduct by any of these Syrian refugees will result in immediate deportation back to the Middle East.

 

Will any of this happen? No-o-o. Not with the current Administration.

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

Don't think about it too hard, LaRue. It'll make your head hurt.

 

By definition, a refugee "crisis" is a fast moving and evolving event. There will be no chance to thoroughly check the background of every person claiming refugee status and trying to cross a border. Any politician who claims otherwise is just blowing smoke.

 

But in the grand scheme of things, I am not overly concerned about ISIS terrorists sneaking in disguised as refugees. If they truly wanted to enter this country, it could be done much easier through fake passport, a student visa, or even a tourist visa depending on the country of origin.

 

And truly, there is a refugee crisis happening in the Middle East. The extreme vast majority of them are leaving everything behind to avoid being killed.

 

"What to do?" is a complex question with many facets, but making a blanket policy of "no refugees" due to the fear of ISIS sneaking in is very wrong.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Remember, according to Obama's latest speech, if you oppose allowing Syrian immigrants into the country you are a coward that hates 3 year old orphans and widows.

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

Remember, according to Obama's latest speech, if you oppose allowing Syrian immigrants into the country you are a coward that hates 3 year old orphans and widows.

 

Dad taught me long ago not to be goaded into doing something wrong by the taunts of a bully.. He also taught me to spot a real coward.

 

LL

[largo casey #19191]

I just heard on the NEWS that people that are on a NO FLY list can legaly purchas a firearm..Gofiggur...

 

Largo

[guitar_slinger]

Vetting?

"are you a terrorist?"

"no"

OK, come on in.

[Rye Miles #13621]

Remember, according to Obama's latest speech, if you oppose allowing Syrian immigrants into the country you are a coward that hates 3 year old orphans and widows.

I heard today that one of the terrorists was a woman. Maybe a widow?? If not her husband is a widower!

[Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171]

First the physiatrist that shot the soldiers was a Major and had been vetted by the Government, allowed to join the Military. Second the immigrants are 75% Male, not a normal demographic for refugees. Third, why aren't they joining their Military at home to protect their families? Running here and leaving their wives and children to face ISIS hardly makes them the kind of people we want, we have our own cowards. This is an invasion aided and abetted by the White house (In My Opinion). Even if only 10% are terrorists, or even one percent compare it to a bowl of M&M's I only poisoned one out of every hundred, would you eat a handful?

[twelve mile REB]

In a nut shell the radical and not so radical Muslim leadership wants to destroy America and what we call the west. Radical Islam is winning the minds of many in the west as well as in the east. Those same radicals that would destroy you and your way of life already have terrorist training centers in the United States and Canada. I wonder were their recruits will come from? Once these immigrants enter the United States they are free to move and do what they will which would include being a terrorist. The west would be wise to discourage the immigration of people who's basic beliefs are counter to the survival of western culture. The people that planned and executed the Paris attacks were immigrants or the children of immigrants and then when our own internal problems start, because with training and direction they will, the second amendment will fall.

My opinion only and yours will certainly vary.

12

[Bad Hand]

Here you go, today. http://news.yahoo.com/honduras-arrests-five-syrians-headed-us-stolen-passports-204536480.html

[Calico Mary]

at least your governor is tryin' ta say no.....mine said "sure, send em here, we'll be glad ta take em!"..... :angry:

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

at least your governor is tryin' ta say no.....mine said "sure, send em here, we'll be glad ta take em!"..... :angry:

 

So's ours.

 

No great surprise there! This is the guy (our Guv) who said he wanted a train from Tijuana to San Diego that would allow "immigrants" to make the trip in 20 minutes.

[Calico Mary]

I new I shudda moved ta Ohio......

[Wyatt Earp SASS#1628L]

By definition an orphan is a child who has lost both parents, so how are all of these little three year olds travelling about on their own?

[Calico Mary]

Mr. Earp, you are tryin' ta bring common sense inta tha equation....dunt yu no that's not allowed???

[Cat Brules]

In this case, it means looking at them, saying, "NO!" To the widows, orphans, and military-aged men, hustling them all "back onto the boat" and sending them back to their country of origin.

 

The majority of these people will have no legitimate means to identify themselves, no means of support, and therefore are a crapshoot as security risks. We're crazy to allow it. After a short time, they will have been approached, become virtual slaves to some imam's influence, they'll be wired in to the freebies and will be used to sponsor "family members" to come here. I'm thinking the "vetting" of those will be non-existent, or close to it.

[Cat Brules]

Duplicate - Sorry

[Clay Mosby]

What irks me the most is that we have the money to bring our enemies here, make sure they have housing, food and health care, but we don't have money for our homeless veterans.

Vetting be damned, there is no way we can weed out any but the really dumb ones. The smart ones simply lie and we believe them because we can't verify.

 

To those that argue that we can't turn away a thousand honest refugees because we might let in one true terrorist. I ask this. Will you still feel the same if that one terrorist is the one that kills a member of your family? That is not a risk I want to take.

[Cat Brules]

What irks me the most is that we have the money to bring our enemies here, make sure they have housing, food and health care, but we don't have money for our homeless veterans.

Vetting be damned, there is no way we can weed out any but the really dumb ones. The smart ones simply lie and we believe them because we can't verify.

 

To those that argue that we can't turn away a thousand honest refugees because we might let in one true terrorist. I ask this. Will you still feel the same if that one terrorist is the one that kills a member of your family? That is not a risk I want to take.

Apparently, neither do at least 53% of the rest of America, probably more.

[Dubious Don #56333]

I have heard government representatives (I would have said stooges but I'm trying to be polite and I didn't want to slander Larry, Curly and Moe) call our vetting process "robust. Uh-huh.

 

A normal proceedure would be what's commonly called a background check. You fill out a questionaire; name, date/place of birth, job history, references and so on. They check databases such as NCIC (national crime information center), CIA, XYZ and probably the Martian credit bureau.(It is very common to run a credit check as part of a background investigation) In some cases they ask for references such as friends, neighbors, former co-workers.

 

All of these things can occur quite easily if you're dealing with someone from an industrialized country that HAS such things.

 

Somehow I suspect their vetting proceedure consists of asking your fellow refugees if you're a terrorist or not. Robust probably means they not only ask the people beside you, they ask six random people from the crowd.

 

Their vetting proceedure is a sham when it comes to admitting people from Syria and other third world places.

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

The President's resent remarks have me just shaking my head in utter disbelief that any POTUS would say such things.

(That's after I've cooled down.)

[Willy B.SASS#26902]

Yesterday at the Midway Museum they had a naturalization ceremony where four Syrians became U.S. citizens, One of our local TV stations interviewed one of them a young woman who stated that the only reason she became a citizen was to get the rest of her family into the country, I expected to hear how happy she was to be able to be part of a free society instead of I'm here to work the system.

I'm sure the Obama regime will be thrilled to have another voter

Willy B'

[Bad Jeemes Kelly]

I don't think we can properly vet the Syrian refugees since we have no diplomatic ties with Syria. With no ties, we can't get background info on these refugees.

 

If we do take Syrian refugees, I suggest taking only refugees that are not men of military age. Those of men of military age should be sent back to Syria so they can be trained to fight for their own country.

 

Also, any misconduct by any of these Syrian refugees will result in immediate deportation back to the Middle East.

 

Will any of this happen? No-o-o. Not with the current Administration.

Diplomatic ties wouldn't make much difference, for 2 major reasons:

 

 

#1 - If Syria is anything like other countries over there, their own government couldn't even "vet" them enough to determine their real names, in most cases. I read an article where the FBI seemed to be confirming that or, even worse, that the government had lost control of official identification documents, so people could have real Syrian passports and ID in any name they want. In Afghanistan, people often had one fairly common name and no date of birth or other identifying information. No, they don't know when they were born - one of our college-educated interpreters knew about when he was born, because it was close to the same time as his neighbor's daughter and the neighbor had actually written down the date in a book, for some reason. Most Afghans just don't track it and they don't have any official government documentation of birth or identity, except what we have imposed. Working with the Afghan Army - with US technology and identification procedures - they couldn't even keep the same people from going AWOL and then rejoining the Army under different names, over and over. One of my Afghan first sergeant pointed out a private in our basic training company who was his drill sergeant, when he went through basic training; that was common - they just couldn't keep track of identities at all. I expect Syrians aren't all that much different.

 

 

#2 - To vet them for being terrorists, there would have to be some record that they are terrorists. Terrorism is not like speeding, where they catch you and let you go (unless you are caught by us, under the present administration, of course). Most of the fighters on the battlefield for ISIS have no record of being terrorists. If we snatched them straight off the battlefield, and really could identify them, there would still be no database that showed any tie to terrorism in their background.

[Tyrel Cody]

Why can't they just stay in the U.N. Camps? I fail to see a reason to bring anyone else into OUR country. The U.S. should be doing our part to provide food, medical care, and protection at these camps and that is all we should be doing. Note I am not saying that I am against normal immigration but importing refugees it outside of that process.

[Bad Jeemes Kelly]

Why can't they just stay in the U.N. Camps? I fail to see a reason to bring anyone else into OUR country. The U.S. should be doing our part to provide food, medical care, and protection at these camps and that is all we should be doing. Note I am not saying that I am against normal immigration but importing refugees it outside of that process.

Several people have pointed out, in the last couple of days, that Saudi Arabia has huge Hadji camps (Hadji is the actual name for people making the Hadj to Mecca - not Army slang) that can hold pretty much the entire population of Syria, but they refuse to take any refugees (as do the other Muslim countries in the area).

[Noz]

Diplomatic ties wouldn't make much difference, for 2 major reasons:

 

 

#1 - If Syria is anything like other countries over there, their own government couldn't even "vet" them enough to determine their real names, in most cases. I read an article where the FBI seemed to be confirming that or, even worse, that the government had lost control of official identification documents, so people could have real Syrian passports and ID in any name they want. In Afghanistan, people often had one fairly common name and no date of birth or other identifying information. No, they don't know when they were born - one of our college-educated interpreters knew about when he was born, because it was close to the same time as his neighbor's daughter and the neighbor had actually written down the date in a book, for some reason. Most Afghans just don't track it and they don't have any official government documentation of birth or identity, except what we have imposed. Working with the Afghan Army - with US technology and identification procedures - they couldn't even keep the same people from going AWOL and then rejoining the Army under different names, over and over. One of my Afghan first sergeant pointed out a private in our basic training company who was his drill sergeant, when he went through basic training; that was common - they just couldn't keep track of identities at all. I expect Syrians aren't all that much different.

 

 

#2 - To vet them for being terrorists, there would have to be some record that they are terrorists. Terrorism is not like speeding, where they catch you and let you go (unless you are caught by us, under the present administration, of course). Most of the fighters on the battlefield for ISIS have no record of being terrorists. If we snatched them straight off the battlefield, and really could identify them, there would still be no database that showed any tie to terrorism in their background.

The Mexican working for Tyson's that are fired for one reason or the other report back to work the next day with all new ID. 3 years ago, Drivers license, Social Security card and Green card cost a grand total of $300 from a supplier on the west side of the state.

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

We have hundreds of thousands homeless here already. We have nearly 60K Veterans homeless and or jobless here. We have a huge unemployment rate here. I really think we should take care of our own first. The "refugees" could have stayed put in Syria and fought for their freedom. They could have fought and died for freedom like many of our ancestors. It is easy to run off and ask for handouts and protection from the bad guys. If the domestic press were honest with the American people, they would report the crime rate which has skyrocketed in Germany, Sweden, France etc with the refugees. Gangs, beating people up, raping etc: sure sounds like just the sort of people we should let into our USA.