Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
Tue Nov 17, 2015, 09:42 AM Nov 2015

Very big difference between refugees and asylum seekers.

Refugees like those slated to arrive in the US and Canada are people who have already been vetted in refugee camps. Asylum seekers, like those flooding into Europe, have not been vetted.



5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
2. The Syrian government isn't in place to help vet
Tue Nov 17, 2015, 10:57 AM
Nov 2015

We know very little about most of the refugees in the camps. Many fled without passports or other means of identification. Some have fake passports, as thousands of "unmade" passport have now been made into forgeries. The vetting process just isn't going to be very comprehensive without a Syrian government from which to get documents, criminal histories, etc.

I would hope that we only take families with young children, since it is foolish to take in single young men of military age, imo. Since we can't take them all, we should take in those who are least likely to be future terrorists.

I'm not anti-refugee settlement, but I'd like us to be pragmatic about the people we do take in. I live in a community with many Muslims, and know most are just regular people who want to provide a good life for their families.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
3. To address your concern, in practice the current Syria refugee criteria is women and children.
Tue Nov 17, 2015, 11:35 AM
Nov 2015

The CIA meanwhile has its own allotment of visas and does "clear" figures on terrorist watchlists for entry. While its criteria isn't made public, we know from past experience (WTC '93, 9/11, the "Underwear Bomber&quot the actual intending terrorists and incendiary clerics who are allowed to board US-bound flights or enter the US are somehow attached to CIA programs.

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
4. Terrorist watch lists don't include those
Tue Nov 17, 2015, 11:47 AM
Nov 2015

we haven't been made aware of yet, and with no way of vetting on the ground in Syria with the state and local governments, we really don't know much about these people.

Of course, we are in a much better position than Europe with its tens of thousands of refugees arriving completely unvetted.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
5. I'm saying that in past instances of actual terrorism in the US, a very high percentage involved
Tue Nov 17, 2015, 12:33 PM
Nov 2015

persons granted visas who were known to the Agency or were actually on terrorist watch lists, but were allowed a visa, boarding, or entry to the U.S., nonetheless. The most recent instance was the elder Tsarnaev brother who was placed on the Visas Viper terrorist watchlist by the CIA, but was allowed to exit and reenter the US without hinderance, despite the fact that he is not a US Citizen.
Before his departure, Tamaran was suspected in a local murder investigation in the Boston area, but nonetheless permitted to leave the country. He journeyed to Dagestan and met there with known AQ figures.

In the past, the Agency has also most certainly resettled Syrian opposition figures and defectors in the U.S. Some of these persons went on to play some role in the opposition.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Very big difference betwe...