Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Legislation to Prevent Terrorists From Entering the U.S. as Refugees

[derek4ever]

If the United States was being attacked or embroiled in a civil war, do you think all of the men would flee to another country and seek refuge? No, I don't think so....I have been suspicious all along...I could see if the women and children left, but not the men. Someone ought to investigate Catholic Charities...they are the ones who brought all of the Somalian refugees into this country and they knew that all of the 'daughters' listed in the family were not really daughters, but wives. Hard to believe they think all of thes men are refugees.

Thanks! Yes, I loomed into the anomalities of the Somalian refugees and what the Catholic Charities used to do. I'm glad FL decided to stop the flow of refugees because they need to be screened properly.

 

[grizzums]

I sure hope this is the time when the relationships Paul has worked to develop in the Senate in contrast to Cruz.. pays off. Paul needs his legislation to move forward and he needs credit. Not Cruz. I think if that happens and Paul's legislation makes it to the Presidents desk..massive game changer.

 

[PierzStyx]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The actual list of nations will be interesting. Will it include the single most dangerous nation?

 

[Danke]

They'll just come over our border with Mexico.

 

[Wilf]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

People never learn; isn't really sad.

 

[Rudeman]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

Who is "We"?

 

[carlton]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

We are one terrorist attack away from a full blown Neocon revival. Paul is proposing a moratorium contingent on more stringent screening. Its a good call. While I sympathize with those caught between local terrorism and western bombing (intervention) the liberty movement will be majorly setback if just a single terrorist slips through the crack.

 

[cindy25]

there is risk here. you need an exemption for Canada, or devastate border communities. banning tourists from Islamic countries but what about France? UK? they have Islamic movements

 

[rg17]

We are one terrorist attack away from a full blown Neocon revival. Paul is proposing a moratorium contingent on more stringent screening. Its a good call. While I sympathize with those caught between local terrorism and western bombing (intervention) the liberty movement will be majorly setback if just a single terrorist slips through the crack.

Unfortunately that is inevitable.

 

[carlton]

Unfortunately that is inevitable.

Bevin's loss was inevitable, so was Washington's. The biggest threat to victory is defeatism!

 

[ds21089]

For so long we've heard the lame justification of "we must fight them there so they dont come here" as the reason for all the wars. Now suddenly they want to go 180 and allow people from those countries in here easily? Fuck TPTB.

 

[rprprs]

I was wondering if any of you have been reading articles about the Governors of many states refusing to take in refugees? I've always been a humanitarian and pro-refugee guy but when I first found out about the refugee situation, I became skeptical. I believe that we are a humanitarian nation and we understand the situation of the average human being running away from war. But, if you start seeing well-bodied young men being like 95% of all the refugees, doesn't it make you wonder? It makes me wonder and it scared the hell out of me!

Here's one I read.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/16/governors-have-little-power-block-refugees/75888766/

WASHINGTON — State governments often play a small role in helping to resettle refugees. But despite protests from more than a dozen Republican governors who want to close their states to Syrian refugees, those governors probably have little power to stop them from coming, legal scholars say.

 

[RonPaulMall]

there is risk here. you need an exemption for Canada, or devastate border communities. banning tourists from Islamic countries but what about France? UK? they have Islamic movements

The proposal here is regarding immigration, not tourism. And with immigration the problem of Canada and Europe being full of non-Canadians and non-Europeans can easily be solved by adding a family ancestry requirement. 4th Generation Europeans and Canadians are welcome, all others are not. And every generation amend the law so the minimum requirement goes up to 5th Generation, 6th Generation, ect as time goes on.

 

[Occam's Banana]

“The time has come to stop terrorists from walking in our front door. The Boston Marathon bombers were refugees, and numerous refugees from Iraq, including some living in my hometown, have attempted to commit terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks in Paris underscore this concern that I have been working to address for the past several years. My bill will press pause on new refugee entrants from high-risk countries until stringent new screening procedures are in place,” Sen. Paul said.

How many thousands of Americans have been killed in the US by Saudis & Egyptians? How many by Chechens & Iraqis?

Of the four groups just mentioned, which two are likely to be barred from entry as "high risk?" Which two are not?

(Not to mention that you are far more likely to be killed by a cop - or even your own bathtub - than by any "terrorist" from anywhere.)

Security theater is theatric "security" ...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Just so that everybody is clear, Rand's proposal isn't a blanket moratorium on immigration. It's a moratorium on immigration from people from high risk countries.

That's right.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise (by "blanket" I meant not discriminating between particular individuals).

 

[wizardwatson]

Man, I just watched a video and Obama was chiding those who won't except refugees and said that not judging and shunning people who are different is what separates us and he ended the speech (or that clip anyway) saying, "if you want to defeat ISIS. That's a good place to start."

So Obama just lectured everyone and said the first step to defeating ISIS is for us to change our attitude.

WTF?

Is is because we aren't obeying the Caliphate hard enough, or because we're closer to the problem than you are Mr. President?

I'm confused.

 

[RabbitMan]

The problem is ISIS breeds off fear and hate and are desperately trying to get western society to keep the Muslim community at arms length.

There has been no terror attack on the USA by refugees.
The only evidence that ONE of the Paris attackers was a refugee was a passport, quickly found to be fake.

The refugee process if pretty stringent as it is, I would like to know what the problem is.
Otherwise scoring cheap political points at the expense of freedom seeking Syrians and Muslims is exactly what these guys want, and to buy into it is pretty sad. I wish Rand hadn't done this. With any luck, Cruz will take the spotlight and the subsequent heat.

 

[Liberty74]

Hey look, it's Rand being weak on Defense. :roll eyes:

#winning

 

[Matthanuf06]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

The problem with your analysis is that it isn't actionable.

You are absolutely correct by the way. If we could turn back the clock and start over, we should without a doubt have a policy much more aligned to what you alluded to.

The problem is there is no time travel. At every single decision point we have to ask "What is the best for the USA? What is the best for liberty?". We have to ask ourselves that with the knowledge that an illegitimate nation exists that wants to harm our nation. One that Rand Paul wanted to declare war on. Unfortunately "what if" we had the right policies is just a thought experiment. Rand has to advocate for the correct policies based on Reality.