U.S. religious leaders make forceful appeals to admit refugees

Top organizations representing evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Jews and liberal Protestants say close vetting of asylum seekers is a critical part of forming policy on refugees. But these religious leaders say such concerns, heightened after the Paris attacks a week ago, do not warrant blocking those fleeing violence in the Middle East.

Three cheers. Good to see the "base" of the Republican party, the supposed "Chrsitian right", thinks the opportuntists in Washington and the state capitals have gone too far.

Three cheers. Good to see the "base" of the Republican party, the supposed "Chrsitian right", thinks the opportuntists in Washington and the state capitals have gone too far.

Oh, so now it's the religious right or the Christian right that is doing the good thing, so ONLY in this situation the right is supposedly good? Amazing! What the heck do you think ANY religious leader would say? Flat out NO? Doesn't mean that because they're for it that it means it's the right, logical or smart thing to do. Very different than coming from an emotional point of view.

From the little I know I don't think the entire Republican party can be broad-brushed as reactionaries, but from what I have read written by some JT posters and read elsewhere online in mainstream media like those controlled by Rupert Murdoch there is a large right-wing group within the party which is strongly opposed to what I had understood were US American principles and what I had understood were Christian principles. They make the US sound like a scary place to live. The fact that many of them have guns and threaten to use them makes them even scarier. I feel sorry for the peace loving US Americans.

Oh, so now it's the religious right or the Christian right that is doing the good thing, so ONLY in this situation the right is supposedly good? Amazing! What the heck do you think ANY religious leader would say? Flat out NO? Doesn't mean that because they're for it that it means it's the right, logical or smart thing to do. Very different than coming from an emotional point of view.

I didn't understand a word of this.

Doesn't mean that because (the religious leaders are) for it that it means it's the right, logical or smart thing to do

So you're an atheist, then?

From the little I know I don't think the entire Republican party can be broad-brushed as reactionaries, but from what I have read written by some JT posters and read elsewhere online in mainstream media like those controlled by Rupert Murdoch

Not controlled, owned. Even I wouldn't say that about the majority of the liberal media.

there is a large right-wing group within the party which is strongly opposed to what I had understood were US American principles and what I had understood were Christian principles. They make the US sound like a scary place to live.

Some people think the same way living around Atheists.

The fact that many of them have guns and threaten to use them makes them even scarier.

But allowing a bunch of refugees that we know nothing about that from previous reports came in from through Greece to enter Paris and Belgium and then we found out 2 were attempting to come in through Honduras to Mexico and the final destination was the US. That's ok? Doesn't scare you that ISIS is trying mix in Jihadist with the refugees that cause carnage and damage and would kill you in a blink of an eye, because you're an infidel, but that doesn't phase you in the slightest, right? A law-abiding US citizen that is allowed to own a firearm is the problem? You guys are really something else.

I feel sorry for the peace loving US Americans.

I feel sorry for people that want to live as victims.

I didn't understand a word of this.

That's because common sense and irrationality are things that Democrats and liberals are known for.

U.S. religious leaders make forceful appeals to admit refugees

Are these the same "religious" leaders supporting same-sex marriages? Seems ike their priorities are mixed up too about admitting refugees.

Foolish but an expected response at this juncture by the various religious leaders in the USA, especially for the Muslims who has the most to benefit.

The key at this time is not whether to let refugees in, but when, who, which, what kind of, how and how many, not to justify "idealism" and "religious beliefs" but safely, securely, practically, reasonably within the capacity of the "people" within the country (the social and societal impact) as well as the economic and other impact and consequences of doing the same. That is the "RESPONSIBILITY" and "DUTY" of the National / Federal government.

The biggest problem next to that is the fact that these are refugees from a major religious and racial war that actually is threatening the entire world. To make matters worse, by the nature of the war it is extremely difficult to say the least identify the true refugees from the infiltrating terrorists that has already declared the USA as it primary target.

The question everyone should be asking is WHY is the President who should be "protecting" the people of the USA is without any real practical justification asking these religious leaders to come forward and "demand" taking in refugees without the proper planning and preparation. The President is "using" and "playing" the religious and racial "equality and freedom" concept at the "extreme idealistic" level to literally INCITE internal DIVISION and even a REVOLUTION.

The last thing the USA and the WORLD need is a weak and divided USA.

Because religion and race are the two main issues now incited and moving the emotions of the people of the USA, the world, especially the enemies of Democracy and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM are preparing to do the entire world HARM. Sadly the very religious people "quiet" about it all, the entire Muslim population of the world, have NOT made any effort to assist religiously, economically or otherwise to help resolve this problem the entire world faces.

Have you asked WHY?

Forget your idealism and values, be realistic, be practical, do value your lives, step down and plant your feet on this earth and do ask WHY?

@Bass They make the US sound like a scary place to live. Some people think the same way living around Atheists.

I hadn't thought about US Americans being afraid of atheists. Do you have some examples of crimes committed in the name of atheists or how atheists are undermining US American principles?

A law-abiding US citizen that is allowed to own a firearm is the problem?

I think if they threaten people who disagree with them they are a problem.

You guys

I was writing as an individual. I thought US Americans valued individualism, or is that something else you would rather see changed?

Well, guess it's again as Santorum said regarding Pope Francis' visit:

When we get involved with political and controversial scientific theories, I think the church is not as forceful and credible.

or Bush:

I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home. But I don’t get my economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope.

My bet is that the far right crowd will not be amenable to immigration advice either. In fact, the only religious advice seemingly acceptable to them regards the rights of a woman to her body.

I hadn't thought about US Americans being afraid of atheists. Do you have some examples of crimes committed in the name of atheists or how atheists are undermining US American principles?

Yes, the ones that committed the crimes NOT in the name of a particular religious sect.

I think if they threaten people who disagree with them they are a problem.

I disagree with people and there are people that disagree with me, I haven't been shot and I would never shot anyone, unless either my life or someone tried to hurt my family, then it's a very different story.

I was writing as an individual. I thought US Americans valued individualism, or is that something else you would rather see changed?

You liberal individual guys, sorry, my bad.

the ones that committed the crimes NOT in the name of a particular religious sect.

So according to bass, any crime not committed in the name of a particular religious sect is committed in the name of atheism. Makes a lot of sense.

"I hereby rob this 7-11 in the name of Christopher Hitchens!"

these religious leaders say such concerns, heightened after the Paris attacks a week ago, do not warrant blocking those fleeing violence in the Middle East.

This is the first news I have read in a very long time of Christians acting like Christians in terms of opening one's doors to those in need and showing compassion for your fellow human being, even if he is not a Christian. This non-vindictive approach is a welcome change and I hope religious leaders and churches speak up more often in the months ahead.

Still, the pessimist in me thinks these views sadly don't reflect those of a majority of America's Christians, particularly the GOP evangelical religious right types. I hope they prove me wrong.

Thank you for your response to my entry...

But do please read the "perspective" from which I base my opinion. It is from a universal, global , humanitarian perspective with reality and most of all humankind in mind.

i do not side with any political group or a minor specific issue, but the entire global issue of life and death, religion, race and such broad topics with hopefully as little value judgements as possible other than the survival of mankind.

In that light I do tend to be very critical and sometimes abrasive those with personal preferences to political and other correctness and righteousness. That... I consider a fair opportunity to argue one's thoughts a very important part of life and the survival of mankind.

So according to bass, any crime not committed in the name of a particular religious sect is committed in the name of atheism. Makes a lot of sense.

Let's put it this way, they are or were mostly NOT church going people, so go figure.

This is the first news I have read in a very long time of Christians acting like Christians in terms of opening one's doors to those in need and showing compassion for your fellow human being, even if he is not a Christian.

They are religious leaders, what else are they supposed to say? They ARE supposed to be compassionate. No one whether you are a Christian or not wants to see anyone suffer, but that doesn't mean you have to be stupid and blind and trusting like most liberals are.

This non-vindictive approach is a welcome change and I hope religious leaders and churches speak up more often in the months ahead.

Good luck with that.

Still, the pessimist in me thinks these views sadly don't reflect those of a majority of America's Christians, particularly the GOP evangelical religious right types. I hope they prove me wrong.

Has nothing to do with Christianity and EVERYTHING to do with stopping radical Islam and being safe not only for Americans, but for the country as well. So maybe you don't remember or you choose not to remember how many Christians had their heads sawed off.

I'm all for accepting refugees to America and certainly these Syrians but I'm sure most of them are going to live in Europe as we all know. The real problem is letting in people who will have malevolent intentions out of this particular group and congress has gotten scared of the possibility of terrorist coming in.

They are religious leaders, what else are they supposed to say? They ARE supposed to be compassionate. No one whether you are a Christian or not wants to see anyone suffer, but that doesn't mean you have to be stupid and blind and trusting like most liberals are.

A la carte Christianity on one side; cherry-picked Islam on the other:

God Bless America hand in glove with Allahu Akhbar

The teachings of the money-hating, pacifist, compassionate leftist radical from Nazareth still causing rightist heads to explode.

I think it's more like liberal intolerance and liberal hypocrisy that makes their heads explode with disbelief.

The teachings of the money-hating, pacifist, compassionate leftist radical from Nazareth still causing rightist heads to explode.

Hallelujah!

The Gospel according to Bass;

Jesus said "Give all you have to the poor". The disciples said "Libs/dems/Socialists/ROFL"

Jesus said "Do not repay evil with evil" and "Turn the other Cheek". The disciples said "Libs/dems/pacifist loons/LOL"

Jesus said on kindness to those in need "For I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me". The disciples said "Libs/dems/terrorists/takers/keep them out/LMAO"

Amen.

All this talk of fear, discrimination, and etc of having Muslim refugees, I would imagine, would alienate even more the already sizable Muslim American population....

Jerseyboy:.

" Three cheers. Good to see the "base" of the Republican party, the supposed "Chrsitian right" "

Gee, after lambasting the "religious right" for years, suddenly you like them? Just because they are doing something politically correct?

In the event, this stance is not surprising from these people. Christian leaders, up to the Pope, have been cheering the islamic invasion of Europe constantly. Based on the misguided belief that everybody who calls himself a "refugee" is one, and that all "religions" are equally benevolent. These fools obviously never took the time to read what the Koran says about them.

It is embarrassing, but alas not surprising. I guess they can´t wait to be relegated to second-class dhimmi status.

So now we're learning that the refugee path was already the hardest path for entry into the U.S. It involves an initial screening by the UN, interviews, fingerprints and retina scans, and then they go through another screening process when a country is selected. The fact is that anyone who could pass it would simply buy a plane ticket and fly over which would obviously be much easier and less intense.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/politics/paris-attack-refugee-visa-waiver/

But instead the GOP rushed to makes laws with little to no conversation and now we have a harder "most difficult" process and a major black eye. And of course the free propaganda handed to ISIS.

Just a shockingly immature way to run a government Next time stop, research, think, talk, debate...anything that thoughtful people should do.

PTownsend - right on!

That's because common sense and irrationality are things that Democrats and liberals are known for.

Ah...

But instead the GOP rushed to makes laws with little to no conversation

You mean NO conversation with the most Stubborn president since "Ivan the terrible." How would that even take place?

and now we have a harder "most difficult" process and a major black eye. And of course the free propaganda handed to ISIS.

When your president refused to close the border that's where the Black eye started, that is what ultimately gave ISIS the idea and the advantage, not to mention the propaganda.

Just a shockingly immature way to run a government Next time stop, research, think, talk, debate...anything that thoughtful people should do.

Please run that statement to Obama, maybe he would listen, certainly he's not listening to anyone else.

fear, discrimination, and etc of having Muslim refugees, I would imagine, would alienate even more the already sizable Muslim American population....

If they aren't radical, they (the muslims already here in US) shouldn't fear. When was the last time muslims (in the US) suffered mass casualties on US soil?

Sure there might be hate crimes and threats here / there. But noting like the people who were slaughtered in Paris. Radical islam is alienating their entire religion globally.

The sooner the west point their fingers @ Mecca and Medina, and hold them accountable, the better.

SenseNotSoCommonNOV. 22, 2015 - 09:15AM JST

Doesn't mean that because (the religious leaders are) for it that it means it's the right, logical or smart thing to do

So you're an atheist, then?

This comment doesn't make sense. Are you saying that religious people must follow the directives of their leaders and if not they are atheists?

Don't normally reply to former journalists, but temptation is at times overwhelming.

You mean NO conversation with the most Stubborn president since "Ivan the terrible." How would that even take place?

Can you name any president in any country in history named "Ivan the Terrible"? You may not like him, but that puts you in a minority of Americans - and America remains a democracy.

When your president refused to close the border that's where the Black eye started, that is what ultimately gave ISIS the idea and the advantage, not to mention the propaganda.

"Your president" is a common phrase sore Republicans use when out of office but would castigate liberals as traitors if they did the same. "Close the border" - what does that mean? Completely isolate America due to a terror attack barely reaching the weekly level of gun violence in the US? And why capitalize "Black" - a subtle racial dig?

Please run that statement to Obama, maybe he would listen, certainly he's not listening to anyone else.

As the article notes, leaders from the vast majority of American religions have come out in support of Obama's position, as have the vast majority of Democrats, some Republicans, and a majority of the American people. Just because he's not in agreement with the right-wing echo chamber doesn't mean he's not listening to them, either - he just doesn't agree with them.

This will likely end like the Republican freak-out over Ebola, when our eminent former journalist jumped on the bandwagon to ban all travel from Africa - which didn't happen, leading to a result of zero American deaths and a huge memory hole. But go for it: Xenophobia and Islamophobia might both be good for the primaries, but America as a whole is much more enlightened.

Since those most knowledgeable about vetting these refugees have made it quite clear that they can't really know who they are since they have no data at all on many of them, it seems Very risky to let such folks in.

@ohara,

Doesn't mean that because (the religious leaders are) for it that it means it's the right, logical or smart thing to do

So you're an atheist, then?

This comment doesn't make sense. Are you saying that religious people must follow the directives of their leaders and if not they are atheists?

Religious leaders - extremists aside - are expected to adhere faithfully to the teachings of their faith.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for missing the subsequent post of:

A la carte Christianity on one side; cherry-picked Islam on the other:

God Bless America hand in glove with Allahu Akbar

You might also refer to Jimizo's post about a dude from Nazareth. I hope this clarifies matters.

So everyone... would you "invite" one of the refugee families into your home?

Or are you asking everyone else to take care of the refugees as long as you don't have to accommodate them yourselves?

That is the final... but I believe... the most fair question.

Then if you wish... do take them into your home.., just because they are refugees.

I for one, cannot... I can hardly take care of my own family. I am selfish, and myself and my family comes first.

But I do feel the need to find ways to help them, provided they do not take away my ability to care for my family.

It should be obvious that you don't prevent 20K refugees fleeing possible death over concerns about 5 people. Living is dangerous to our lives. It is much more likely that I will be harmed in a car accident than by any terrorist action anywhere in the world. The true risks are small. Fear levels are not a valid way to assess true risks.

Political leaders need to use their brains a little more. Please.

Were any Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu leaders included in those calls to admit refugees? If not, that says much about these organizations too. Certainly the Muslim leadership must be included, though they cannot take the lead for political reasons. I'm still pissed that 99.99999% of Muslim leaders aren't on TV condemning these attacks. Until the radicalized Islamic people see that, they will continue to believe their efforts are silently approved.

. I'm still pissed that 99.99999% of Muslim leaders aren't on TV condemning these attacks. Until the radicalized Islamic people see that, they will continue to believe their efforts are silently approved.

Muslim leaders all over Europe were making public condemnation of terrorism in the wake of the Paris attacks. Muslim leaders denounce this stuff all the time. Why aren't you listening?

It's just like when whites complain that black leaders never talk about black-on-black violence; except black leaders talk about black-on-black violence all the time, but white people and the media in general pay absolutely no attention.

Not part of narrative apparently.

Hear, hear, Triumvere!

Muslims condemning attacks doesn't make for good clickbait. The Donald, on the other hand...

This comment doesn't make sense. Are you saying that religious people must follow the directives of their leaders and if not they are atheists?

No! Relax! It was meant as a metaphor.

Don't normally reply to former journalists, but temptation is at times overwhelming.

I usually don't like to reply to progressives, but we got do with what we got, right?

Can you name any president in any country in history named "Ivan the Terrible"? You may not like him, but that puts you in a minority of Americans - and America remains a democracy.

The person you are referring to would be the guy with the strange name. And remember, he was voted in by mostly millennials who many were first time voters freshly graduated High school or college kids that had no idea about the system, the history and about the issues that would later impact them in life that many are now in their late 20's and some in their 30's who do have buyers remorse and who would NOT vote for him again, if he were to run for a 3rd term.

"Your president" is a common phrase sore Republicans use when out of office but would castigate liberals as traitors if they did the same.

Spare me, I heard the exact phrase when the president was a Republican. Don't even go there.

"Close the border" - what does that mean?

Shutting it down completely. Every other NORMAL country does it, why not us. You don't have borders, you don't have a country-period!

Completely isolate America due to a terror attack barely reaching the weekly level of gun violence in the US?

No, but you don't let in a bunch of people knowing full well that ISIS themselves said they have imbedded fighters within the refugees, if that's so, then extra precautionary measures should be taken. We just had two ISIS members caught trying to sneak in the US via Honduras on their up to Mexico. So yes, I am all for shutting the border down and taking our time with allowing these people to come in. But we could ask Latin America, the Arab States and Canada (they really need people) to take them in. The majority of Governors don't want them in and the majority of the people don't want them in and you have a Tyrant that basically is telling the people that put him in office to shove it, I'm going to do what I want? The Democrats are really digging a hole for themselves this time.

And why capitalize "Black" - a subtle racial dig?

You are diving in way too deep on this, put the doobie down.

As the article notes, leaders from the vast majority of American religions have come out in support of Obama's position,

And many came to support pedophiles and other criminals in the past, even sympathized and collaborated with the Nazis. So what's your point? That's supposed to get every Christian to back them up because these religious leaders support what Obama is doing? They can say or do whatever they want, that doesn't mean, the rest of us have to!

as have the vast majority of Democrats, some Republicans, and a majority of the American people.

In over 30 States you have governors that are refusing to accept ANY refugees and who are they working for? Their constituents and they overwhelmingly don't want this.

Just because he's not in agreement with the right-wing echo chamber doesn't mean he's not listening to them, either - he just doesn't agree with them.

Obama has NEVER, let me repeat, NEVER listened or really tried to work with the GOP on anything. I have never seen this in politics in almost 21 years in the business, I have never seen anything like this. The man is THE MOST partisan ideologue president EVER.

This will likely end like the Republican freak-out over Ebola, when our eminent former journalist jumped on the bandwagon to ban all travel from Africa - which didn't happen, leading to a result of zero American deaths and a huge memory hole.

Liberals created the Hippie and Free love movement, why would they care anything about the dangers that are out in the world. Carefree, peace, love and free love. How's that working for Charlie Sheen lately?

But go for it: Xenophobia and Islamophobia might both be good for the primaries, but America as a whole is much more enlightened.

After seeing how millennials have screwed up the political process and are in the universities and colleges politically devoid of virtually any knowledge of anything else but the progressive liberal, one-sided, ideologue, indoctrination that they get. I seriously doubt it.

I just don't think bass is equipped to be in the conversation.

Don't normally reply to former journalists, but temptation is at times overwhelming.

Oh, no... please don't.. you're going to make the rest of us have to scroll forever through the upcoming non sequitur crawl.

Can you name any president in any country in history named "Ivan the Terrible"?

Nuts... you had to go and do it didn't you.

The person you are referring to would be the guy with the strange name. And remember, he was voted in by mostly millennials who many were first time voters freshly graduated High school or college kids that had no idea about the system, the history and about the issues that would later impact them in life that many are now in their late 20's and some in their 30's who do have buyers remorse and who would NOT vote for him again, if he were to run for a 3rd term.

And there you go... asinine gibberish. Thank you Laguna.

Seriously though:

"This is falling into the trap of what the terrorists wanted us to become. We shouldn’t allow them to change who we are as a people.”

Amen!

I see liberals are already saying that 140 dead is just a statistical blip, that more die in car accidents every day, and that therefore you're a racist bigot if you don't fancy letting tens of thousands of people that you have zero data on into your country. Note that JAMES CLAPPER has explicitly said in testimony that we don't have information on the refugees we let in. Please address that.

Republican reality: if you don't fancy letting tens of thousands of people that you have zero data on into your country.

Reality: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/cruz-misquotes-clapper-on-refugees/

The Syrians being considered for refugee status are referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. According to the State Department official, UNHCR prioritizes “the most vulnerable” for referral. This includes “female-headed households. It could include victims of torture or violence. It could include religious minorities. It could include LGBT refugees, people who need medical care that they can’t get in their country of origin. So basically, people who are not thriving or expected to thrive in their country of origin.”

Caseworkers collect biographic and other information from refugees while they are living in resettlement support centers overseas. Refugees are then interviewed in person at the resettlement center by Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Citizenship and Immigration officers, primarily to determine whether the applicants meet the definition of a refugee based on one of five protected grounds: “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”

The applicants are then subjected to security checks involving screening by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. The State Department official did not go into detail on those security checks, noting that “[m]ost of the details of the security checks are classified.”

Applicants also go through health screenings and a three-day “cultural orientation” program. In all, the State Department official said, the vetting process takes “anywhere from 18 to 24 months or even longer to process a case from referral or application to arrival in the United States.”

(end)

Carly Fiorina is going around saying a majority of the refugees are able-bodied males, which is also false, and by a longshot. A majority of those being let in are women, and of the males, the majority are under 18. Just endless bullshit from the Right.

But don't worry, Republicans. Your rushed and misguided legislation might pass anyway. Too many children at the table.

racist bigots... not to mention cowards, and soft-minded nitwits easily susceptible to political demagogy and fear-mongering, yeah, that about covers it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/cruz-misquotes-clapper-on-refugees/

addressed.

We're better than that.

Oh, no... please don't.. you're going to make the rest of us have to scroll forever through the upcoming non sequitur crawl.

If you have THAT kind of time in your life to do that and nothing else going on or better to do, the only thing one can is go woooow!

you had to go and do it didn't you.

Hey, if the shoe fits....

And there you go... asinine gibberish.

Which makes up the bulk of liberal talking points.

"This is falling into the trap of what the terrorists wanted us to become. We shouldn’t allow them to change who we are as a people.”

I agree, but that doesn't mean, we have to be fools and let them in because a bunch of dovish, progressives want to feel good and give themselves a high five and if you want to do this and the Dems want this, they have the money, the estates, they should lead by example and open their homes for these people first and see how they feel....

Republican reality: if you don't fancy letting tens of thousands of people that you have zero data on into your country.

I could give a flying....what any factcheck says on this particular issue! Again, the Dems and libs want to blindly trust these people, I say, go ahead and take them into THEIR PERSONAL dwellings and leave the rest of us alone that don't want them. There is NO way to do a serious background check on these people, so why do we have to rush. Liberals never learn. Crime is up everywhere in the country that has sanctuary cities, these cities won't cooperate with ICE and often the FBI and we should just allow this people in, just because libs think it's the right thing to do?

The Syrians being considered for refugee status are referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. According to the State Department official, UNHCR prioritizes “the most vulnerable” for referral. This includes “female-headed households. It could include victims of torture or violence. It could include religious minorities. It could include LGBT refugees, people who need medical care that they can’t get in their country of origin. So basically, people who are not thriving or expected to thrive in their country of origin.”

That is not the argument and you know it, the vast majority of the refugees at this point and time are MEN, are you serious? This is just madness. So then go somewhere build a center away from the general population, build a camp and take your time in scrutinizing these people. By all means, take in the religious minorities as top priority and then follow up with letting the rest little by little.

Caseworkers collect biographic and other information from refugees while they are living in resettlement support centers overseas.

I don't care about overseas, I care about the US and by the way, Europe is not a good example, whether you are talking about socialism or talking about a group of people where a large portion of them refuse to assimilate into the host country societies and where radical Islam is through the roof.

Refugees are then interviewed in person at the resettlement center by Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Citizenship and Immigration officers, primarily to determine whether the applicants meet the definition of a refugee based on one of five protected grounds: “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”

I wouldn't trust this admin. with $10! They have been derelict in their duties, an admin. that allows sanctuary cities to flourish, harbors and protects illegal immigrants, doesn't even know exactly how many immigrants there are in the country, doesn't realize that many immigrants have drivers licenses, collect social security illegally, refuses to seal off the borders, trying to allow illegals and grant them amnesty from Latin America in huge numbers. 2/3 or Americans will pass on that.

The applicants are then subjected to security checks involving screening by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. The State Department official did not go into detail on those security checks, noting that “[m]ost of the details of the security checks are classified.”

Sanctuary cities won't even cooperate with ICE or the FBI, heck, the other agencies can't stand each other and how do you or anyone else expects this to use the system efficiently. Hasn't happened over the last 7 years and now all of a sudden it will. Not a chance.

Applicants also go through health screenings and a three-day “cultural orientation” program. In all, the State Department official said, the vetting process takes “anywhere from 18 to 24 months or even longer to process a case from referral or application to arrival in the United States.”

So what happened to all those children that came in in that mass Exodus last year from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala? Where are they? Why is it that no one knows where they are? Again, why is it that Democrats don't want to talk about sealing the open borders and punishing the employers that would hire these illegals?

Carly Fiorina is going around saying a majority of the refugees are able-bodied males, which is also false,

No, it's not and if you look at the majority of the men, they don't look skinny or scrawny. They look good, well fed, big...refugee? I think not, but in any case, even if they are, they can wait before we allow these men to come in blindly. Given the past history how libs deal with these issues, we should definitely and methodically take our time and NOT rush this.

and by a longshot. A majority of those being let in are women, and of the males, the majority are under 18. Just endless bullshit from the Right.

But the Left doesn't spew politically BS? Come on now!

But don't worry, Republicans. Your rushed and misguided legislation might pass anyway. Too many children at the table.

You've never seen a child suicide bomber before I am betting?

racist bigots... not to mention cowards, and soft-minded nitwits easily susceptible to political demagogy and fear-mongering, yeah, that about covers it.

Hmmm....because conservatives are cautious and don't want another 9/11 styled attack and allow ANYONE in that could be a potentially danger and risk to the country, because they care and refuse to make this a political and partisan issue? Well, then I guess from that liberal unicorn, paisley incense and peppermints perspective, you could be right.

We're better than that.

Yeah, one would think that, right?

If you have THAT kind of time in your life to do that and nothing else going on or better to do, the only thing one can is go woooow!

Time to go through the most pointless, irrelevant and juvenile rants ... I doubt anyone has that kind of time. Yes, WOW, is what we all think reading your scrawls for the first time. After that it's like rubbernecking past a traffic accident.

LOL, ROFL, lib, anointed one, yak yak, woot woot, paisley, peppermint... There. I just addressed all of your points in your own language.

Time to go through the most pointless, irrelevant and juvenile rants ...

Because they strike a nerve, you don't like hearing the truth or because there are people out there that refuse to drink the Obama Kool aid?

I doubt anyone has that kind of time. Yes, WOW, is what we all think reading your scrawls for the first time. After that it's like rubbernecking past a traffic accident.

So you DO think I should follow in lock step with all the other Obama boot licking leeches? That, I hate to break it to you, will never happen.

LOL, ROFL, lib, anointed one, yak yak, woot woot, paisley, peppermint... There. I just addressed all of your points in your own language.

No, you just acknowledged the truth that what this joker of a president really is.

Hmmm....because conservatives are cautious and don't want another 9/11 styled attack and allow ANYONE in that could be a potentially danger and risk to the country, because they care and refuse to make this a political and partisan issue? Well, then I guess from that liberal unicorn, paisley incense and peppermints perspective, you could be right.

No, you just acknowledged the truth that what this joker of a president really is.

Sometimes I wonder if bass is actually one of the moderators on JT just having us on. Who else would have so much time to blather on like this? Otherwise I'm appalled that the moderators would let this troll get away with all of these nonsensical, infantile, and hateful rants.

1 Good Bad SenseNotSoCommonNOV. 22, 2015 - 09:33PM JST @ohara,

Doesn't mean that because (the religious leaders are) for it that it means it's the right, logical or smart thing to do

So you're an atheist, then?

This comment doesn't make sense. Are you saying that religious people must follow the directives of their leaders and if not they are atheists?

Religious leaders - extremists aside - are expected to adhere faithfully to the teachings of their faith.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for missing the subsequent post .

It still doesn't make sense. You are saying if a religious person doesn't follow the directives of his religions leaders then he is an atheist?