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

[philipped]

I support this concept, and this legislation, and I'm still standing with Rand!

 

[ApathyCuredRP]

Media already claiming "Ted Cruz is about to announce a bill to stop Syria refuges or refuges from terror countries." I hate Ted Cruz because he is such a slithering snake salesman. I swear his order was to mirror Rand Paul but is nothing but a hollow puppet.

 

[alucard13mm]

Immigration screening should be done by a jury process where the people will listen to his or her case. Maybe have everyone write a question to ask anonymously.

 

[ds21089]

There's a viral video going around showing what these "refugees" are doing.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/watch-anti-migrant-video-going-viral-across-europe/

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I support this concept, and this legislation, and I'm still standing with Rand!

Hey man, long time no see, glad you're back

 

[derek4ever]

There's a viral video going around showing what these "refugees" are doing.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/watch-anti-migrant-video-going-viral-across-europe/

I've watched the video long before and have been skeptical about the refugee situation. How many here would support accepting only women and kids? I think what most of the states are doing is good for the time being but I wonder if Obama will try to use an executive order to make all states receive refugees. What do you all think??

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

The problem with this approach is that it "truncates the antecedents" (to use a pharase coined by Robert Higgs).

While it is manifestly so that "there is no time travel" and that we cannot change the antecedents that have defined our current straits, the problem is that the prior "decision points" that created those antecedents also had antecedents of their own - and those antecedents in their day were also dismissed as "water under the bridge" by the very same kind of here-and-now, range-of-the-moment "realists" who presently insist that it isn't usefully "actionable" to consider such "what if" questions and "thought experiments."

The fatal conceit of this approach is that it confines itself to reacting merely to the surface "reality" of the immediate moment. It disdains to consider the deeper "reality" underlying and driving those surface events and circumstances - a reality to which those "what if" questions and "thought experiments" are very germane and eminently "actionable." It is precisely those previous "realists" who eschewed to look back at the antecedents that had led to the "immediate moment" in which they found themselves who thereby created the very antecedents which present "realists" now eschew to see - and in so doing, those present "realists" will thereby create the very antecedents that future "realists" will eschew to see ...

And so long as this remains the case, the history and consequences of US entanglement in the Middle East will continue repeating themselves - or at least rhyming like some mad, deranged rapper.

 

[euphemia]

My city has the highest Kurdish population of anyplace in the United States. We got a huge wave of Somalians when they were starving to death.

I think if we are going to let people call themselves refugees, we need to think about whether the US is the best place for them to seek refuge. I also think that we should be considering whether we want individuals, or whole families. Are we bringing in the poorest and most at-risk people? It doesn't look like it. Intact families with children seem vulnerable. The elderly seem vulnerable. I don't know. I think we have to be careful.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Paul aims to suspend visas for high-risk countries

Paul aims to suspend visas for high-risk countries

By DAN TUOHY - November 17. 2015

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said his bill to suspend refugee arrivals from known terrorist regions will help prevent Islamic radicalism from being imported to America.

The Republican presidential hopeful’s legislation would suspend visas for countries, like Syria, with a high-risk of terrorism. He is proposing a waiting period for background checks on visas from other countries until the U.S. can ensure terrorists cannot gain entry through immigration and visa channels.
...
More: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20151118/NEWS0605/151119236

 

[PierzStyx]

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.

The correct policies to advocate are those that perpetuate freedom for the masses. You cannot say you defend liberty while writing legislation that violates basic human liberties. "Realism" has always been the argument for violating human rights, and as long as we fail to take a stand on basic human rights and refuse to violate them, "realism" will always lead to violation of human rights and the current state of affairs will continue.

 

[PierzStyx]

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.

It isn't the "liberty movement" if the movement isn't supporting human liberty.

 

[ds21089]

It isn't the "liberty movement" if the movement isn't supporting human liberty.

That'd be like saying Rand using an executive order to get rid of executive orders previously made isn't for liberty because he's using an executive order in a manner which it wasn't intended. Is it not supporting liberty by ensuring the safety of citizens here to prevent another attack / false flag when the "refugees" come here? It's quite obvious that attack would be used as a means to destroy the remaining freedoms we have here just as how Paris is doing this right now. Enhanced surveillance, Martial Law, etc. So either the few in suspicion can be double checked or the entire nation can plummet deeper into an Orwellian world. Which would you choose?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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.

What happens if Rand's proposal passes, and one of the dozens of millions of visitors the US receives every year commits an act of terrorism? Ban all tourism and travel?