I'm honestly conflicted

I saw this post by an Oregon immigration attorney on Facebook yesterday and it made me feel better about allowing refugees in:

 

Yeah, I thought of that. "Scott" could easily be "Abdul". I noticed he says he practices law in "Lebanon" like we're going to assume a city in Oregon, not a country in the Middle East. Get Wookee on his case.

 

I'm not conflicted. However, my position would be a compromise. Saudi Arabia has tents and facilities galore http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/saudi-arabia-has-100000-air-conditioned-tents-sitt/ they could use. I think we tell them to take all the refugees as part of the Islamic tradition of hospitality http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/10662/treating-guests-islamic-way/

Of course, part two is a bit more troublesome. It would require us leading a coalition of foot soldiers throughout Syria to shepherd refugees to safe zones where they could be evacuated. That goal will conflict with the goals of ISIS, Russia and Iran. We'll need to enforce our will to do so. Frankly, I doubt this Administration has it.

The last thing the world wants is a Syrian diaspora. The goal should be a stable Syria where the refugees who left would return and rebuild their country. Again, that's not what ISIS, Russia or Iran wants. Right now the people that oppose their goals are self-deporting.

 

The problem is the screening. If there aren't data to screen them with, then how can you vet them?

 

The current wait for refugees to gain admittance is two years, saying you'll take more doesn't necessarily mean waiving that waiting period. Prumably there is some sort of rejection criteria already being applied to current refugees?

I'm far more concerned with anglophones with U.S. and British passports who have been radicalized and can move about much more freely than any refugees ever will.

 

I've read more into this and read the transcript. What a stupid AP headline. I can admit when I am wrong.

 

Thank you. And on a video after 9/11, even Anderson Cooper said openly "The radical muslims should be monitored" Also, it's not like we aren't monitored already through many outlets like DMV, voter registration, travel and polling. I think the media have blown this way overboard.

 

Here is the article I was looking at. Admittedly it is a conservative journal, but I believe their version of the transcript. I don't know if the transcript is posted elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...im-database-story-got-started/article/2576891

 

You can watch the unedited version right here. As you can see, he was talking about illegals and building the wall while the reporter said "would your White House implement that?"

 

All this talks reminds me of the Homeland episode I watched last night.... (talking about ISIS).

CIA official: You said a program should be renewed. I'm asking is our strategy working?

Peter Quinn: What strategy?Tell me what the strategy is and I'll tell you if it's working. [Silence] See, that right there is the problem because they - they have a strategy. They're gathering right now in Raqqa by the tens of thousands, hidden in the civilian population, cleaning their weapons and they know exactly why they're there.

CIA official: Why is that?

Peter Quinn: They call it the end times. What do you think the be-headings are about? The crucifixions in Deir Hafer, the revival of slavery? Do you think they make this s*** up? It's all in the book. Their f****** book. The only book they ever read - they read it all the time. They never stop. They're there for one reason and one reason only: to die for the Caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That's their strategy and it's been that way since the seventh century