Why wouldn't you want this?

@Rollo1 (16649)
Boston, Massachusetts
November 19, 2015 3:07pm CST
The US House of Representatives just overwhelmingly passed the SAFE Act, which is designed to require certain safeguards, background checks and investigations in order to certify that any refugee being granted admittance to the US is not a security threat. Naturally. Senate Democrats have vowed to block the bill. But the bill doesn't prevent refugees from being admitted to the US. It would, however, help us prevent terrorists from slipping into the country in a group of real refugees. More importantly, the bill calls for the establishment of "safe zones" within the Middle East so that people can escape the ravages of civil war and be safe and secure without having to make the long and dangerous trek that we have seen result in tragedy for so many refugees. The bill allows for compassion towards real refugees and still provides a level of security. To me, it sounds like a reasonable solution. I don't understand why anyone would object to screening refugees in order to maximize the number of real refugees receiving help and asylum while screening out potential threats to our security. Why wouldn't we want to do this?
6 people like this
7 responses
@Namelesss (1332)
• United States
19 Nov 15
Because none of us actually believe our leaders are capable of real and useful action. Our politicians are really great shuffling paperwork but in the end paperwork is all it is. We need compassion but we need tough love too. It's a sticky situation and no matter how it gets handled all anyone will see is 'what went wrong'.
3 people like this
@Rollo1 (16649)
• Boston, Massachusetts
19 Nov 15
It's unfortunate that common sense is being replaced with accusations and labelling. So often, politicians fear to do what is right because the labels start to get thrown around. We have to protect the citizens of our country first. We should extend aid and compassion, but we cannot weaken our national security to do it.
1 person likes this
@Namelesss (1332)
• United States
20 Nov 15
@Rollo1 Amen to that Anja, my daughter and I were discussing this this afternoon. She and her friends had been talking about it after school. Shows that at least some of your young people are paying attention.
@Jessicalynnt (47789)
• Centralia, Missouri
20 Nov 15
So many things to consider, how to help but remain safe...sounds like a good idea to me
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16649)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Nov 15
There are several instances of men with terrorist ties using faked Syrian passports to move along through borders with the refugees. Why is it wrong to check for those things? We must be vigilant. The lives of refugees can be saved, but we also need to protect the lives of the citizens of the countries that are taking them in. I think my life is equally important, for instance. And the lives of my children, and friends, etc.
1 person likes this
• Centralia, Missouri
21 Nov 15
@Rollo1 I totally agree. I want to help. But i want us to be safe first.
@RonElFran (894)
• Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
19 Nov 15
A couple of reasons: First this is not a reasonable strengthening of background checks. We already have the most extensive system of vetting potential immigrants in the world. The FBI director has said that the requirements of this bill are probably impossible to implement. So, the obvious intent is not to do a better job of bringing in refugees, but to keep them out without saying that's what we are doing. Second, if the politicians were really concerned about terrorists sneaking in, they would ban all immigration and tourism from Europe. What we've seen in Paris is, for the most part, home-grown terrorists doing their dirty work. These are almost all people with European passports who could far more easily make it into the U. S. than a refugee who must already pass through more than half a dozen levels of background scrutiny before being admitted. In my opinion the politicians who back such measures are feeding into the worst fears of a population who are not aware of the facts of how detailed the background check system is already, and who are rightly concerned that we not import terrorists. The right thing for politicians to do is to work with the system we have to strengthen it, but don't stir up xenophobic fear for political gain.
@Rollo1 (16649)
• Boston, Massachusetts
19 Nov 15
I don't think this is a partisan issue. This is about national security. They just stopped 8 men with Syrian passports at the Texas border. Two of the Paris attackers came in as refugees. There is no good reason not to conduct background checks to the best of our ability. We would already be monitoring anyone who is traveling with a European passport and has ties to terrorist organizations. Who says that a European or even a US passport means that you can't make it on a no-fly list? I am not interested in anybody's political gain, I am interested in the safety and security of my nation. And the latest poll - reported yesterday - shows that a majority of Americans are in favor of halting the admittance of refugees unless security measures are in place. The duty of Congress is to execute the will of the people. That's not "political gain", that's their sworn duty.
1 person likes this
• Pune, India
20 Nov 15
@Rollo1 Well said ! I appreciate your point of view. We, the civilians are more concerned about the threat posed by terrorism rather than the games played back stage.
1 person likes this
@troyburns (1430)
• New Zealand
19 Nov 15
It does sound like a sensible measure - we have a similar system here, I believe. My biggest concern is how long these background checks might take. I understand that some European countries have such a backlog that clearance may take months or even years.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16649)
• Boston, Massachusetts
19 Nov 15
However, if they provide safe zones closer to home, then refugees will not be traveling long distances only to get held up at refugee camps. Although some Muslim majority countries have taken in a large number of refugees, some of the richest Middle Eastern countries won't allow a single refugee - Saudi Arabia for instance. They cite security risks, that is, risk of terrorism, as the reason for their refusal to take in Syrian refugees. I do think we have to temper compassion with wisdom and caution. Let's be compassionate but also safe.
1 person likes this
@troyburns (1430)
• New Zealand
19 Nov 15
@Rollo1 - Don't get me started on Saudi Arabia! I think it's important to recognise that safe zones will only be waystations for many of the refugees. and not - as Bill O'Reilly seems to be suggesting - a home away from home. There is no returning for most of these folks. I totally agree that we need to use wisdom and caution,mainly because I think accepting refugees might be the easy part. Finding a place for them in society is where things get tricky.
1 person likes this
@Rushi27 (45)
• Pune, India
20 Nov 15
On the backdrop of one of the Paris attackers being a registered Syrian refugee, Safe Act should be backed unanimously. I cannot find any reason to protest or say 'no' to this new development.
@Rollo1 (16649)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Nov 15
People are concerned that it will appear that they are not compassionate. Surely, we are all compassionate towards those truly in need. But this mass migration is an easy cover for those who want to hide themselves within it. I don't think it's unreasonable to try to be sure that everyone seeking asylum and aid is truly in need of it.
1 person likes this
@Tampa_girl7 (25386)
• United States
20 Nov 15
It sounds like a good idea to me.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16649)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Nov 15
Yes, to me, too.
1 person likes this
@mom210 (6711)
• Atlanta, Georgia
19 Nov 15
I have no idea how politicians thinks they are so confusing sometimes.
1 person likes this