L. Brooks Patterson to stop resettlement in Pontiac of Syrian Refugees

[Zacha341]

Well stated! I like how you put that!

I'm not an LBP fan one bit. But I don't think he's just playing politics here. He may be wrong -- but that doesn't make him an idiot. His lunacy is firmly established -- but concern about the safety of Americans is reasonable. Diversity is a fine goal. So is helping people who are in need. Keeping citizens safe is a higher goal, however -- its the purpose of states, IMO.

LBP might be basically doing nothign much different than San Francisco is. Creating a 'sanctuary city, ahm, county' where residents are safe from terrorists. Same idea -- different politics.

[aj3647]

I'm not an LBP fan one bit. But I don't think he's just playing politics here. He may be wrong -- but that doesn't make him an idiot. His lunacy is firmly established -- but concern about the safety of Americans is reasonable. Diversity is a fine goal. So is helping people who are in need. Keeping citizens safe is a higher goal, however -- its the purpose of states, IMO.

How exactly is it reasonable? Is it based in facts and evidence? If so, what?

Here's some facts:
-Of roughly 2000 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States since 2001, there's not a single documented case of any one of them engaged in any type of terrorist or extremist activity.
-All of the known Paris attackers were EU citizens. The two Syrian passports found at the scenes of the attacks have been determined to be forgeries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512


I'm just curious how it makes sense to ban Syrian refugees in response to a terrorist attack that was committed by non-Syrians. Maybe you can explain how L Brooks Patterson is being "reasonable." This isn't reasonable, it's knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering. It's the exact same sentiment that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. It's the exact same bigoted sentiment that led the U.S. to refuse entry to Jewish refugees during WWII. It's the exact same xenophobic bullshit that was levied against the Irish, the Chinese, the Haitians, the Cubans, and countless other past waves of immigrants. Same shit, different day. "Compassionate conservatism" on display, if you're not white and Christian, you aren't wanted.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

How exactly is it reasonable? Is it based in facts and evidence? If so, what?

Here's some facts:
-Of roughly 2000 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States since 2001, there's not a single documented case of any one of them engaged in any type of terrorist or extremist activity.
-All of the known Paris attackers were EU citizens. The two Syrian passports found at the scenes of the attacks have been determined to be forgeries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512


I'm just curious how it makes sense to ban Syrian refugees in response to a terrorist attack that was committed by non-Syrians. Maybe you can explain how L Brooks Patterson is being "reasonable." This isn't reasonable, it's knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering. It's the exact same sentiment that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. It's the exact same bigoted sentiment that led the U.S. to refuse entry to Jewish refugees during WWII. It's the exact same xenophobic bullshit that was levied against the Irish, the Chinese, the Haitians, the Cubans, and countless other past waves of immigrants. Same shit, different day. "Compassionate conservatism" on display, if you're not white and Christian, you aren't wanted.

Don't need any damn facts when we can thump our chests and grandstand.

[Richard]

How exactly is it reasonable? Is it based in facts and evidence? If so, what?

Here's some facts:
-Of roughly 2000 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States since 2001, there's not a single documented case of any one of them engaged in any type of terrorist or extremist activity.
-All of the known Paris attackers were EU citizens. The two Syrian passports found at the scenes of the attacks have been determined to be forgeries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512


I'm just curious how it makes sense to ban Syrian refugees in response to a terrorist attack that was committed by non-Syrians. Maybe you can explain how L Brooks Patterson is being "reasonable." This isn't reasonable, it's knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering. It's the exact same sentiment that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. It's the exact same bigoted sentiment that led the U.S. to refuse entry to Jewish refugees during WWII. It's the exact same xenophobic bullshit that was levied against the Irish, the Chinese, the Haitians, the Cubans, and countless other past waves of immigrants. Same shit, different day. "Compassionate conservatism" on display, if you're not white and Christian, you aren't wanted.

You are kinda discussing three different things that have nothing to do with the conversation.

1 The discussion does not entail for the most extent already established "refugees".

2. It is not relevant what passports were held by the Paris incident.

3.It has nothing to do with skin color,only to you.

Plain and simple,counteract a knee jerk reaction to open the borders without proper vetting and saying compassion overpowers safety or let everybody in and worry about the intended or unintended consequences later.

The question is,does one have so much faith in the system that they would be willing to personally guarantee with their life,that no other Americans will be subject to harm.

Unless one is at least 70% sure,then maybe it is time to take a step back to re-evaluate what it is we are doing,and what the resolution is,the down side is the price of the mistakes are going to be paid by innocent Americans going about their day.

[aj3647]

You are kinda discussing three different things that have nothing to do with the conversation.

1 The discussion does not entail for the most extent already established "refugees".

2. It is not relevant what passports were held by the Paris incident.

3.It has nothing to do with skin color,only to you.

Plain and simple,counteract a knee jerk reaction to open the borders without proper vetting and saying compassion overpowers safety or let everybody in and worry about the intended or unintended consequences later.

The question is,does one have so much faith in the system that they would be willing to personally guarantee with their life,that no other Americans will be subject to harm.

Who the Paris attackers are has nothing to do with the conversation? L Brooks Patterson would disagree with you. This is an exact quote from his statement:

I am not overreacting to the tragedy that befell Paris. I am pointing out that lax immigration policies contributed to this terror."

So yes, he cited Paris [[an attacked committed by non-Syrians) as justification for banning Syrian refugees.

And who said we should let people in without vetting them? I know I didn't. So you can stop with that strawman right now. Any Syrian refugee coming into this country WOULD be vetted. They would be interviewed by law enforcement, undergo a background check, have their identities crosschecked through international databases of known terrorists and extremists, and they would have their fingerprints and other biometric data placed on file. Sounds pretty comprehensive to me.

Since you've created a benchmark that is impossible to obtain [[to guarantee that no American could ever be harmed by an immigrant, ever), by your logic, we should permanently close our borders to all immigrants and not let anyone in...ever. Because how can you guarantee that some guy from Sweden who wants a student visa to study here might not snap one day and harm someone? You can't guarantee that. So to maximize safety, we shouldn't let anyone in. That's literally the insane benchmark you've set to justify your own xenophobia.

[Wesley Mouch]

How exactly is it reasonable? Is it based in facts and evidence? If so, what?

Here's some facts:
-Of roughly 2000 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States since 2001, there's not a single documented case of any one of them engaged in any type of terrorist or extremist activity.
-All of the known Paris attackers were EU citizens. The two Syrian passports found at the scenes of the attacks have been determined to be forgeries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512

I'm just curious how it makes sense to ban Syrian refugees in response to a terrorist attack that was committed by non-Syrians. Maybe you can explain how L Brooks Patterson is being "reasonable." This isn't reasonable, it's knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering. It's the exact same sentiment that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. It's the exact same bigoted sentiment that led the U.S. to refuse entry to Jewish refugees during WWII. It's the exact same xenophobic bullshit that was levied against the Irish, the Chinese, the Haitians, the Cubans, and countless other past waves of immigrants. Same shit, different day. "Compassionate conservatism" on display, if you're not white and Christian, you aren't wanted.

I in fact am in favor of acceptance of way more Syrian refugees than Obama. I think it is our obligation, and its smart. I believe in the Syrian people, and that they can make a contribution to the US.

LBP and Obama and I have different opinions. We're allowed that in the US. I don't see how it helps to label people as bigots just because they have a different opinion than you.

Very few people in the US really hold the 'if you're not white and Christian, you aren't wanted' opinion. About the same percentage I think of Muslims worldwide who believe that infidels should be murdered as a religious obligation. All the ethnic groups you mentioned above made it here. And they are now part of the fabric of our society. Non-white and non-Christian immigration has been in place since the 60s at least.

Stop looking so hard for racism. Accept diversity of opinion. Safety of the public is more important than open Syrian refugee immigration. I don't see the public safety concern, but I expect our public officials to work collectively to ensure that the immigration is done safely.

Is everyone who disagrees with you racist?

[Richard]

aj3647

See,you are not understanding the concept of a cell,it is nothing with no known contacts until it is formed for action.

That is why they are hard to stop,because you cannot identify the participates until after the fact.

60 countries all running willy nilly around the Middle East with the best intelligence in the world but yet they cannot identify a cell before it acts.Do I need to show proof?

So what is the FBI and UN doing that all of those countries combined intelligence cannot do?

Excuse me Mr. terrorist can you give me a reference for this guy so we can allow him in to our country,you do not even know who you can trust.How do you vette somebody with no records?

Everybody is over there as usual pitting everybody against everybody,arm this one to fight that one then arm this one to fight that one now that the stance has changed,we are using IS to get rid of the Taliban who we used to fight the Afghans then we get mad when they come back at us.

It does not matter what,left wing,right wing,republican,democrat,green,white ,yellow and blue,nobody but nobody is going to stand up unless they are 100% positive and advocate for the refugees,because if one thing happens it will bite them in the butt,or political suicide.

I think you may be just looking at the refugee without understanding how the real world actually works and how it relates.

You see what I did there,I responded to your post without out calling you a bigot,calling you a xenophobia,I understand your view and opinion and countered with mine.

[bust]

With newspapers struggling and barely able to pay journalists, tv news pandering to the lowest common denominator, 24-hour cable stations and talk radio substituting demagoguery for rationality, and all the nonsense you can find on the internet, it takes extra effort to get good information these days. And we're ramping into election season, with our public discourse in the typical race to the bottom that corresponds.

So rather than sharing my opinion I'll just share some reputable sources for facts about the application and vetting process Syrians must undertake in order to qualify for refugee status in the United States, and thoughtful analysis of the risk of terrorism they represent:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ction-congress
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/19/politifact-sheet-5-questions-about-syrian-refugees/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-economics-of-syrian-refugees
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34848248
http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/18/us/politics/ap-us-congress-syrian-refugees-glance.html

I implore you to read them.

It is my good-hearted intention to help you form an informed opinion of your own.

[Richard]

With newspapers struggling and barely able to pay journalists, tv news pandering to the lowest common denominator, 24-hour cable stations and talk radio substituting demagoguery for rationality, and all the nonsense you can find on the internet, it takes extra effort to get good information these days. And we're ramping into election season, with our public discourse in the typical race to the bottom that corresponds.

So rather than sharing my opinion I'll just share some facts and thoughtful analysis about Syrian refugees, from reputable sources:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ction-congress
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/19/politifact-sheet-5-questions-about-syrian-refugees/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-c...yrian-refugees
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34848248
http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/18/us/politics/ap-us-congress-syrian-refugees-glance.html

I implore you to read them.

It is my good-hearted intention to help you form an informed opinion of your own.

Once again it is not an issue with the refugees,it is a issue with the vetting of.

The state department does not leave Washington to Syria,they have contractors,lets forget for a moment about the 6 Billion dollars unaccounted for in payment to said contractors.

Private contractors working independently,Wackenhut is one of them,so lets say you are a private contractor and tasked with finding the trail of a individual where no records are available

The same companies providing security at the airport are within the vetting process under homeland security.Are they issue free?

If you do not produce you do not get paid,or you are getting paid $200,000 a year and somebody slips you a $500,000 envelope to look the other way,it leaves to much room for error.

It is clear knowledge that the state department has communication problems with their contractors when it comes to security,it was proven with Benghazi.

It is not like it is here where you are issued a SS number and traced from birth,over there you can change your identity many times over.

There are no computer records,who is walking through a war zone knocking on doors checking references and next door neighbors that have been spread out across the world.

So give 5 friends burner phones and a story,tell that story to the vett process and have them call the numbers to verify the story.

I am not sure why everybody keeps reverting to the actual refugees themselves,that is why they always say that the refugees are properly vetted,but never say how and ultimately by whom,they will not because every agency has its own form of plausible deniability built in.

The state department,FBI,etc. I know individuals within and would trust them with my life with out a question,but it is the system as a whole that has the issues.

The vetting process is a crap shoot at best and a matter of odds,but they will not say that.

[Newdetroit]

The irony behind all of this is that are millions of displaced Christians from Syria and Iraq. They have been displaced due to the US invasion of Iraq, and US tacit support for ISIS to get rid of Assad. Saudi Arabia, Qutar, and Turkey are actively supporting ISIS, and this has been done with US approval. Now it is backfiring on the West. Russia's intervention screwed up the plans to topple Assad. It's sickening to hear commentators and politicians come on TV and start talking about how there needs to be more cooperation and possibly boots on the ground from Saudi Arabia. This just plainly shows how little these supposed experts/commentators are with regard to the situation. At any rate, let them bring in Christian, Yezidi, and Kurdish vulnerable minority groups living in refugees camps in part due to US foreign policy. Otherwise, let the US clean up and sweep up the glass they shattered. How convenient it is for some in this country who were pounding their chests to invade Iraq, and then when things went south, they all started to have a conscience and say..."bring our troops home."

With regard to Syrians coming to the US and Michigan for that matter - yes they should all be vetted. For that matter, also vet them to not become members of the Bloods or Crips. But there have been American born non-Middle Eastern people radicalized. Remember the girl from Mississippi?

Repopulate Highland Park or the area by City Airport r 7 Mile and Woodward or off Warren between Greenfield and Southfield. Bakeries, stores, restaurants, cafes, etc would pop up instead of blighted buildings. Not a bad alternative. Just my two cents.

[bust]

Once again it is not an issue with the refugees,it is a issue with the vetting of.

[snip...]

I am not sure why everybody keeps reverting to the actual refugees themselves,that is why they always say that the refugees are properly vetted,but never say how and ultimately by whom,they will not because every agency has its own form of plausible deniability built in....

I edited my comment to specifically state the reputable sources I referenced provide facts about the application and vetting process Syrians must undertake in order to qualify for refugee status in the United States, and thoughtful analysis of the risk of terrorism they represent.

If you have time I strongly recommend you read them.

I also edited my comment to correct the hyperlinks, which somehow got munged.

Here they are again, fixed:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ction-congress
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/19/politifact-sheet-5-questions-about-syrian-refugees/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-economics-of-syrian-refugees
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34848248
http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2...es-glance.html

[Wesley Mouch]

The irony behind all of this is that are millions of displaced Christians from Syria and Iraq. They have been displaced due to the US invasion of Iraq, and US tacit support for ISIS to get rid of Assad. Saudi Arabia, Qutar, and Turkey are actively supporting ISIS, and this has been done with US approval. Now it is backfiring on the West. Russia's intervention screwed up the plans to topple Assad. It's sickening to hear commentators and politicians come on TV and start talking about how there needs to be more cooperation and possibly boots on the ground from Saudi Arabia. This just plainly shows how little these supposed experts/commentators are with regard to the situation. At any rate, let them bring in Christian, Yezidi, and Kurdish vulnerable minority groups living in refugees camps in part due to US foreign policy. Otherwise, let the US clean up and sweep up the glass they shattered. How convenient it is for some in this country who were pounding their chests to invade Iraq, and then when things went south, they all started to have a conscience and say..."bring our troops home." ...snip...

Blaming the US is a popular idea. And there's no shortage of blame to toss around. I'm curious to know what you think would have happened if the US had stayed home. Would Saddam have stopped suppressing and murdering his own citizens? Was he treating the Kurds well? Was an Iran/Iraq free trade agreement about to be signed? Were the Israelis and Palestinians preparing for their joint International Freedom Parade?

Do you think Obama was wrong to set a 'red line' in Syria as regards using chemical weapons on rebels who were waging civil war on Assad's regime?

I think there are costs to both engagement and to inaction. They're different. Iraq invasion was a mistake. What I wonder is whether its better to make mistakes, or better to do nothing. We're seeing the result of doing nothing.

Likewise in immigration to Detroit, I think we're better to be engaged. We should just be careful.

[Newdetroit]

Well considering that the NeoCons were from the US and pushed for this war, I can see how blaming the US would be a popular idea..Oh, wait, our intelligence at the time indicated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In terms of what Saddam would have done to his people...ah none of our business. Secondly, don't even try for a split of a second to tell me that nauseating belief that we had to go in for the benefit of the Iraqi people. During the 1990s, the US and Great Britain made damn sure the sanctions were not lifted off of Iraq while every other nation [[except Israel of course) wanted to lift the sanctions. Do you know how many civilians in Iraq died from 1991 to 2003????? You remember Secretary Albright being asked if the life of 5,000 Iraqi children every month was worth the sanctions, and she said yes. So, after 2 million people were killed, we went into Iraq because we were concerned with the way Saddam treated his people?? Is that why the Iraqi people greeted American troops with roses and chocolates?

With regard to Iran/Iraq free trade agreement--- haha- actually there is no need now. The US gave Iraq to the Iranians on a silver platter. The Iraqi govt is made up of political parties loyal and supported by Iran. So no need, thanks to the USA. Go read about hisb al dawa...sistani, and the likes.

You asked in a sarcastic tone, if the Israelis and Palestinians were preparing for a joint international freedom parade? For what? Israel can continue building settlements in the West Bank, and the USA can continue exercising its veto power. No need for a parade. But anyway, demographics are on the side of Palestinians. Hey they waited 50 years, so they can wait another 50. A one state solution will be the demands of the new Palestinian generation....and I can't wait to see how Israelis will respond to that.

Yes. I am against the use of Chemical weapons, and also Phosphorus which was used in Fullujah. You should look at how many birth defects there are in this Iraqi city. But there was no red line for that.

Anyway, in short make sure there are no terrorists among these people, and settle them in Detroit.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I wonder how much better things would be today if we had not deposed Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953 and more or less kept out of that region from then on.

[Zacha341]

And if the so called Arab Spring had not gone off the rails...

http://middleeast.about.com/od/relig...-Islamists.htm

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12813859

I wonder how much better things would be today if we had not deposed Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953 and more or less kept out of that region from then on.

[Wesley Mouch]

I wonder how much better things would be today if we had not deposed Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953 and more or less kept out of that region from then on.

Has anyone read Phillip Roth's book on the US after Hitler's victory?

Newdetroit makes an argument against intervention. Obama has shown us the price of non-intervention. Bush showed us the price of intervention.

I respect the argument that we should not have intervened in Iraq in 1953. But I'm not sure that it would be been any better. Its very hard to know, isn't it.

Imperfection in our engagement as the world's superpower is a given. But when we withdraw as we clearly have over Obama's term, we see those costs and their terrible humanitarian impacts on people. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Bush didn't try and create a mess in Iraq. Obama didn't try and create a mess in Syria. But they both did -- by taking totally different actions.

[Zacha341]

Yep, the vetting will be nearly impossible for all the reasons you detail and more. I don't know solution to the refugee crisis, without some declined, and or how many we should allow. But the vetting construct applied to a useful level of insuring our safety, is in part partisan rhetoric.

Once again it is not an issue with the refugees,it is a issue with the vetting of.

The state department does not leave Washington to Syria,they have contractors,lets forget for a moment about the 6 Billion dollars unaccounted for in payment to said contractors.

Private contractors working independently,Wackenhut is one of them,so lets say you are a private contractor and tasked with finding the trail of a individual where no records are available

The same companies providing security at the airport are within the vetting process under homeland security.Are they issue free?

If you do not produce you do not get paid,or you are getting paid $200,000 a year and somebody slips you a $500,000 envelope to look the other way,it leaves to much room for error.

It is clear knowledge that the state department has communication problems with their contractors when it comes to security,it was proven with Benghazi.

It is not like it is here where you are issued a SS number and traced from birth,over there you can change your identity many times over.

There are no computer records,who is walking through a war zone knocking on doors checking references and next door neighbors that have been spread out across the world.

So give 5 friends burner phones and a story,tell that story to the vett process and have them call the numbers to verify the story.

I am not sure why everybody keeps reverting to the actual refugees themselves,that is why they always say that the refugees are properly vetted,but never say how and ultimately by whom,they will not because every agency has its own form of plausible deniability built in.

The state department,FBI,etc. I know individuals within and would trust them with my life with out a question,but it is the system as a whole that has the issues.

The vetting process is a crap shoot at best and a matter of odds,but they will not say that.

[Cliffy]

Has anyone read Phillip Roth's book on the US after Hitler's victory?

Newdetroit makes an argument against intervention. Obama has shown us the price of non-intervention. Bush showed us the price of intervention.

I respect the argument that we should not have intervened in Iraq in 1953. But I'm not sure that it would be been any better. Its very hard to know, isn't it.

Imperfection in our engagement as the world's superpower is a given. But when we withdraw as we clearly have over Obama's term, we see those costs and their terrible humanitarian impacts on people. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Bush didn't try and create a mess in Iraq. Obama didn't try and create a mess in Syria. But they both did -- by taking totally different actions.

Dude are you really that dense. Bush didn't try to create a mess HAHAHA. Shock and Awe was a celebration of culture.

[401don]

FYI, Canada is accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees within the next couple of months, several hundred of whom will be settled in Windsor. Some began arriving this week. Asked what they are most looking forward to most refugees sighted their first ride on the Tunnel Bus.

~https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...MtyD6vmYWcDwwl

[Wesley Mouch]

FYI, Canada is accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees within the next couple of months, several hundred of whom will be settled in Windsor. Some began arriving this week. Asked what they are most looking forward to most refugees sighted their first ride on the Tunnel Bus....

Canada's strong response to the humanitarian aspect of the Syrian crisis should be commended.

The newly elected Trudeausians promised 25,000 by end-of-year -- but the wisely decided to slow down just a little to do it right -- to their credit. Their southerly 10x larger neighbor remains sadly tied up over immigration -- to our discredit.

Bravo, Canada.

[G-DDT]

Unless you've already seen this [[or posted it), John Oliver hit well with this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqvYhb3wf4The actions of the woman taking glee tripping small children disgusts me. He follows up well with this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByPw5jjiYk0Yup, could've done without FDR incest scene, but moreso, I could've done without Jeb claiming you can [[among many heretical, separatist sects claiming to be the "True Church") "prove you are a Christian".