Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for Halo 1 modding and tech, with unique means of rewarding individual content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time! EST. 2012

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
giraffe

France in shock after Islamist attacks kill 129

59 posts in this topic

Each country's highest priority is the wellbeing of its citizens. If France saves as many French lives as possible, it is a success for France. Countries should not have to risk the lives of their citizens just because other countries have failed their citizens.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think this can be taken as categorically true of all nations. Each nation typically has a charter of some sort which defines their unique aims and expectations of government. (Often in their native language, which adds subtlety to the whole issue of nailing down exactly what a nation is.)

 

The first part is the most open-ended: "Each country's highest priority is the wellbeing of its citizens."

I could use that line to support a whole slew of leftist initiatives, such as universal access to healthcare or improved care for veterans.

 

Your concrete example "If France saves as many French lives as possible, it is a success for France." also indicates support for universal access to healthcare.

 

Lastly, your assertion at the end is a very isolationist take: "Countries should not have to risk the lives of their citizens just because other countries have failed their citizens." Wellbeing of a nations own citizens and that of foreigners is not necessarily mutually exclusive. A good example of this is developed nations offsetting their slightly-negative population growth with immigration.

 

Yeah. Can a terrorist use refugees as cover? Sure. Should all refugees be shut out because of this? No.

:thumbsup:

 

No one here, but you has seen that as "blaming refugees", when in fact you're to damn blind to see it's France's poor immigration policy that allowed this and that the refugees are victims used by the terrorists as a cover for their deeds.

So shore up the screening process?

 

Regardless, many of those involved in the Paris bombing were French nationals. http://time.com/4113864/paris-attacks-isis-homegrown-terrorism/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members of Open Carnage never see off-site ads.

The first part is the most open-ended: "Each country's highest priority is the wellbeing of its citizens."

I should have added emphasis on "its" then. The point was that the nation looks inward before looking outward; but yes wellbeing is defined as whatever a state currently has defined it as.

 

I could use that line to support a whole slew of leftist initiatives, such as universal access to healthcare or improved care for veterans.

I believe I've said before that I would support universal healthcare if it replaced all other forms of welfare, and we migrated to a flat tax. It would, of course, not cover self-inflicted injuries.

 

Lastly, your assertion at the end is a very isolationist take: "Countries should not have to risk the lives of their citizens just because other countries have failed their citizens." Wellbeing of a nations own citizens and that of foreigners is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

It has been established that it is, though, in this case. Allowing immigration at this time is synonymous with allowing entrance to foreign enemies.

 

A good example of this is developed nations offsetting their slightly-negative population growth with immigration.

Which I believe I've said before that I strongly oppose. Replacing your citizens and their culture is the opposite of preserving them. Let the population rise/decline take its course; people will eventually begin to have children as frequently as they were when the nation was developing, when the decline becomes an apparent detriment to the economy.

 

So shore up the screening process?

How? Using what? Nonexistent records on those immigrating? Lie detectors to see if immigrants plan to harm the native population?

 

Regardless, many of those involved in the Paris bombing were French nationals. http://time.com/4113864/paris-attacks-isis-homegrown-terrorism/

Police have arrested at least 60 suspects in all. If 5 of them are locals, that means approximately 8% of the attackers were local to France.

Beyond that, it's pretty apparent what Time is trying to do even before you do the math. It's Time, for one thing; secondly just look at the vocabulary, at all those emotions it's trying to evoke, and the extensive description of pointless minor details to fill in the gaps of the fact that they are singling out 8% of the total group. It's an attempted sensationalism opinion piece disguised as a relevant point, as is most news. (They use the word "hipster" for Lord's sake... in what's supposed to be a formal writing.)

Edited by TCK

Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think this can be taken as categorically true of all nations. Each nation typically has a charter of some sort which defines their unique aims and expectations of government. (Often in their native language, which adds subtlety to the whole issue of nailing down exactly what a nation is.)

 

The first part is the most open-ended: "Each country's highest priority is the wellbeing of its citizens."

I could use that line to support a whole slew of leftist initiatives, such as universal access to healthcare or improved care for veterans.

 

Your concrete example "If France saves as many French lives as possible, it is a success for France." also indicates support for universal access to healthcare.

 

Lastly, your assertion at the end is a very isolationist take: "Countries should not have to risk the lives of their citizens just because other countries have failed their citizens." Wellbeing of a nations own citizens and that of foreigners is not necessarily mutually exclusive. A good example of this is developed nations offsetting their slightly-negative population growth with immigration.

 

:thumbsup:

 

So shore up the screening process?

 

Regardless, many of those involved in the Paris bombing were French nationals. http://time.com/4113864/paris-attacks-isis-homegrown-terrorism/

Definitely shore them up.

Unless they're converted ethnic Frenchmen they still had to migrate to France at some point. Plenty of people have dual citizenship, are in countries on visas, or are expats. 

 

The Tsarnaev Brothers where naturalized Chechen migrants that had migrated to the US with their parents in 2002. Both were attending college, both involved in civic groups and sports, both described as normal and very friendly. 

 

FBI investigations believed the Brother's where recent converts after a trip Russia (North Caucasus'), but an uncle close to them says that their conversion and radicalization had started long before then. 

 

That's not to say people of particular ethnicity are at fault, nor are Muslims as a whole, but someone has to convert ethnic citizens, which means someone is a dual citizen, had migrated, is on a visa or is having a radicalized ethnic convert do it for them.

 

The Tsaenaev Brothers where a lone cell, which means they had a handler, but weren't directly apart of a larger group like ISIS. They where given a task, but with no specificity, which is why they used domestically available weapons and pressure cookers with fireworks.  

 

What happened in France, in the Charlie Hebdo Attack, the Paris Attack, and the GIGN raid this morning was the work of Active Service Units. Highly trained, well organized, brutal, and effective teams apart of a well organized and larger organization. They use a semi-military command structure, know how to gather intelligence, preform reconnaissance, and can operate independently of their parent organization in a supplemental role (basically they can act as their own eyes, ears, support and operations arm without the parent organization). They operate just like clandestine operatives do. 

The reports on the Charlie Hebdo Attack and the raw amateur footage of the shooters show this; they employed Small Unit Tactics, executed wounded victims without a moments hesitation, and knew what they wanted to hit and when. 

 

The footage and reports of the Paris Attack show the same level of expertise and experience in the attacks.

How? Using what? Nonexistent records on those immigrating? Lie detectors to see if immigrants plan to harm the native population?

 

National governments and intelligence agencies in particular are extremely territorial, even after the series of high profile attacks across the globe in earlier part of the 2000's. The CIA had received notice from the FSB (Russian Intelligence) that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had visited various radical groups and training camps with in Russia. This information was suppressed and flagged as a low priority because it was received from a foreign intelligence source. 

 

Another big issue is intelligence agencies are harangued because of profiling restrictions and governmental policy. 

WaeV and xvii like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For context, here is a clear description of the way refugees are resettled in the US under current law:

 

Most of my friends know I practice Immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you want actual information about the process, keep reading.

 

I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue.

The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked.

First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process.

Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States.

We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority.

First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO).

Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan.

Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS.

Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States.

The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived.

At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family.

Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel.

Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country.

Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination.

This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years.

The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan.

Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa.

Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process.

Source

xvii likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For context, here is a clear description of the way refugees are resettled in the US under current law:

 

Source

 

Here's my question...while I take Mr.Hicks account at face value, what effect does the 1980 Refugee Act have on this process? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not aware of that act until just now, but I would assume that 35-year-old law has helped shape the refugee immigration process into what it is today.

 

Wiki says the United States Refugee Act of 1980 was "the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy".

 

How do you think the act affects this process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not aware of that act until just now, but I would assume that 35-year-old law has helped shape the refugee immigration process into what it is today.

 

Wiki says the United States Refugee Act of 1980 was "the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy".

 

How do you think the act affects this process?

 

The act allows for 50,000 refugees per year, unless an emergency situation exists and the President is allowed to increased the number of admitted refugees for 12 months. The act doesn't provide a cap for the amount of refugees the President can admit, just the duration. Nor does it limit how often an "emergency situation" can be declared on a FY to FY basis.

 

Based on what Mr. Hicks said, that FY16 is slated to have 85,000, which means the President has declared an emergency situation and that previous years the average has been 70,000. Which means that each of those years was a declared emergency situation. 

 

Exactly how far does this power extend? Can a President declare an emergency situation for foreseeable Fiscal Years? Is it limited to years within his terms? While wiki touts the act as "it established explicit procedures on how to deal with refugees in the U.S. by creating a uniform and effective resettlement and absorption policy", it left an open end that the Executive Branch can abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The act allows for 50,000 refugees per year, unless an emergency situation exists and the President is allowed to increased the number of admitted refugees for 12 months. The act doesn't provide a cap for the amount of refugees the President can admit, just the duration. Nor does it limit how often an "emergency situation" can be declared on a FY to FY basis.

[...]

Exactly how far does this power extend? Can a President declare an emergency situation for foreseeable Fiscal Years? Is it limited to years within his terms? While wiki touts the act as "it established explicit procedures on how to deal with refugees in the U.S. by creating a uniform and effective resettlement and absorption policy", it left an open end that the Executive Branch can abuse.

We could find some way of limiting the president's power here, but emergency situations don't exactly happen on a schedule. What emergencies were used to justify taking an extra 20,000 refugees for the past few years?

I would assume a president is limited to declaring emergencies within their term, but I'm open to fact-checking on that point.

To be frank, I don't consider this power particularly egregious. So what if we accept an extra 35,000 refugees? ALL of which have been extensively vetted by the FBI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could find some way of limiting the president's power here, but emergency situations don't exactly happen on a schedule. What emergencies were used to justify taking an extra 20,000 refugees for the past few years?

I would assume a president is limited to declaring emergencies within their term, but I'm open to fact-checking on that point.

To be frank, I don't consider this power particularly egregious. So what if we accept an extra 35,000 refugees? ALL of which have been extensively vetted by the FBI?

 

No they don't, but continuous declaration of emergencies is a flagrant misuse of that power, which should be left to Congress. 

 

I don't know myself, I'm not exactly sure if the President uses an Executive Order or if he simply notifies the State Department he's declaring an emergency situation.

 

While this power may not be particular egregious, it doesn't detract from the fact it can be abused to further gain political clout and legitimacy. 

 

Notice the article below directly quotes Sec. Kerry, who interestingly enough states the US will eventually be receiving up to 100,000 refugees annually by 2017...which is outside the President's term, which also ends his appointment as Secretary of State. It also shows either the SecState is dictating policy...which is a violation or the President has already either declared an emergency for 2016 and 2017 in regards to refugee admittance.

 

Secretary of State John Kerry is pledging that the United States will significantly increase the number of migrants it accepts over the next two years, ratcheting up to 100,000 annually by 2017.
 
The move, meant to show solidarity with Europe in the face of a growing migrant crisis that has seen hundreds of thousands of refugees from fighting in Syria and Iraq flood into Western Europe, is still a modest one compared to the scale of the situation that exists for European Union countries.
 
"In consultation with Congress, we will continue to explore ways to increase those figures while maintaining robust security," Kerry told a news conference after meeting German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. "The need is enormous, but we are determined to answer the call."
 
The U.S. will take 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, an increase from 70,000. By 2017, the number would be 100,000, Kerry says.
 
According to The Associated Press:
 
"Many, though not all, of the additional refugees would be Syrian, American officials have said. Others would come from strife-torn areas of Africa. The White House had previously announced it intended to take in 10,000 additional Syrian refugees over the next year.
"Asked why the U.S. couldn't take more, Kerry cited post-Sept. 11 screening requirements and a lack of money made available by Congress.
"'We're doing what we know we can manage immediately,' he said, adding that the U.S. cannot take shortcuts on security checks."
 
Reuters adds:
 
"Kerry's comments on refugees address calls on U.S. President Barack Obama to help more in the crisis. Obama has said the U.S. will accept at least 10,000 Syrians over the coming year displaced by the four-year-old civil war.
 
"His announcement comes ahead of a Sept. 23 emergency summit meeting of European Union leaders to address the stream of refugees that has overwhelmed the region."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.