US: House votes to curb Syrian refugees, snubbing veto threat

[webfact]

House votes to curb Syrian refugees, snubbing veto threat
By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Responding swiftly to the terror in Paris, the U.S. House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to erect high hurdles for Syrian and Iraqi refugees coming to American shores, dividing the president's own party as lawmakers reflected the anxiety of voters back home.

The vote was 289-137, enough to override a threatened White House veto of the legislation, which was hurriedly drafted in response to the carnage in the streets of Paris. Forty-seven Democrats voted for the bill, despite President Barack Obama's biting criticism of its proposed limits.

The bill would require new FBI background checks and individual sign-offs from three high-ranking U.S. officials before any refugee could come to the U.S. from Iraq or Syria, where the Islamic State group that has claimed credit for the attacks has flourished.

Republicans said it was simply prudent to place new controls on the refugee system, without ending it entirely or requiring religious tests as some in the GOP, including presidential candidates, have demanded.

"This is an urgent matter and that is why we're dealing with this urgently," declared new House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. "It just is common sense that we pause, re-evaluate and make sure that we have the proper standards in place to make sure something like what happened in Paris doesn't happen here."

The strong vote in the House could improve prospects for the bill in the Senate. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said he would like to see the chamber take up the House legislation as-is, but that is uncertain.

Senate Democrats are trying to shift the focus to other issues regarding travelers from overseas, and Minority Leader Harry Reid predicted Thursday's bill would not be approved.

"Don't worry, it won't get passed. OK? So, next question," he said.

Traveling in Asia this week, Obama mocked Congress and Republicans for yielding to "hysteria" and taking aim at "widows and orphans." The White House threatened a presidential veto, contending the legislation would bring to an end an already highly regulated refugee program while doing nothing to enhance national security. And some Democrats complained that the measure would mar America's image as a welcoming haven for immigrants.

"We might as well take down the Statue of Liberty," Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York asserted in debate on the House floor.

Yet some Democrats chafed at the White House position. Dozens joined Republicans in supporting the legislation, some fretting openly of being put in the politically untenable position of opposing what they considered a reasonable anti-terror bill in the wake of a horrendous tragedy.

Freshman Rep. Brad Ashford, D-Neb., who faces a tough re-election fight next year, called the Paris attacks "a game changer" and supported the bill, saying, "I cannot sit back and ignore the concerns of my constituents and the American public."

The White House dispatched Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to Capitol Hill to meet with Democrats, but several lawmakers said their arguments were unconvincing.

Sean Patrick Maloney of New York got in a forceful exchange with Johnson inside the private meeting, telling him Democrats could lose seats over the vote, according to aides in attendance. Maloney ended up voting with Republicans in support of the legislation.

The administration, which has announced plans to accept about 10,000 Syrian refugees in addition to the 2,500 who have settled here since 2011, says it already takes around 18-24 months on average for them to make it into this country. They must pass a battery of screening requirements including interviews overseas, fingerprinting and biometric investigations. Many are women and children and only about 2 percent are single men of combat age.

The House bill would increase the FBI's role by charging it with conducting a "thorough background investigation" on each refugee. The Homeland Security secretary would subsequently have to certify, with the concurrence of the FBI director and the director of national intelligence, that the refugee posed no security concerns. Under the current system the Homeland Security secretary has the final say, though multiple other agencies are involved.

On his way out of the meeting with Democrats Thursday, Johnson said the House measure was "a bad bill because it seeks to micromanage the process in a way that is counterproductive to national security, to our humanitarian obligations and to the overall ability of us to focus on homeland security."

Defenders of the bill, including some Democrats, described the changes as fairly modest, especially in light of rhetoric coming from some Republican presidential contenders such as Donald Trump suggesting keeping out all refugees. Still, advocacy groups warned refugees could be left to languish while the new changes are put into place, and the Catholic bishops and others announced their opposition.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. should welcome refugees from the region and bolster America's defenses and intelligence operations.
___

Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-20

[ezzra]

Finally, the voice of sanity in the US and a big snub for the president, who, no doubt, will use his

veto powers to go against the people's whishes... and no wonder there......

[Seastallion]

Finally, the voice of sanity in the US and a big snub for the president, who, no doubt, will use his

veto powers to go against the people's whishes... and no wonder there......

Actually quite a lot of doubt.

"The vote was 289-137, enough to override a threatened White House veto of the legislation, "

[Seastallion]

On the one hand, I see nothing wrong in trying to ensure security. At least they dropped the religious test.

On the other hand, it seems this could all be a storm in a teacup. If ISIS wants agents to enter the US, they have the resources to send them on a plane, as a tourist. What's more, those tourists would be further below the radar than any even slightly suspicious refugee. Refugees would be watched, tourists would not.

Not all ISIS people hold Syrian or Iraqi passports.

[seedy]

One off topic post removed

Edit: Make that two.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Scott

[KayCee]

I think whenever you make a statement with "the <insert name of a very large group of people with disparate backgrounds and beliefs>" you're almost certainly going to be both wrong and perceived as bigoted. Replace your statements with "the Christians", "the Africans" or whatever and see how it reads. There are violent Muslims. There are also violent Buddhists (see Myanmar, Sri Lanka, etc.), there are violent Christians, there are violent Arabs and violent Europeans and violent Americans. Violent people who hurt people are evil and should be opposed. Labeling all people who look vaguely like them or who share a broad religion with them (but very different specific beliefs) with that same broad brush is just wrong. I'd be pretty outraged if someone compared me to Timothy McVeigh who blew up babies just because I'm both a Christian and an American. But this stuff is also just totally counter-productive since what ISIS wants is to paint this as a war between the West and Islam, as if their particularly murderous and ignorant brand of Islam is the only one, ignoring that the vast majority of people they are killing and maiming and oppressing are themselves Muslims. Why some want to give them that ideological recruiting victory boggles the mind.

[Scott]

Personally, I think that screening is pretty tight as it is, but if further checks are felt necessary, then so be it. It is better to have them carefully vetted than to deny entry to all because of geography.

This morning on the radio news, the BBC was reporting several people from Syria (?) have been caught with Western passports in Mexico and another Central American country and they were headed to the US.

Keeping an eye on the refugees might be wise, but taking it off the real enemy won't help. Terrorists aren't likely to wait in the refugee queue.

[IAMHERE]

If Obama vetos this and any Iraq or Syrian commits a terrorist act on American soil, the history books will make an entire chapter of the 'Obama Veto' that assisted Muslim terrorist in the USA.

[CMBob]

If Obama vetos this and any Iraq or Syrian commits a terrorist act on American soil, the history books will make an entire chapter of the 'Obama Veto' that assisted Muslim terrorist in the USA.

Baloney. First off, this particular House bill will likely never make it to the floor of the Senate and, even if it does, it won't pass. Alternatively, the Senate will pass a new bill (amended with some of the extreme measures deleted), the amended bill would head back to the House (and/or conference), and, should that amended bill pass, Obama would likely sign it.

[hawker9000]

Finally, the voice of sanity in the US and a big snub for the president, who, no doubt, will use his

veto powers to go against the people's whishes... and no wonder there......

Actually quite a lot of doubt.

"The vote was 289-137, enough to override a threatened White House veto of the legislation, "

...enough to override a veto in the HOUSE. The Senate is much less likely to override, if it even passes there in the first place. But Obama would really be going out on a limb to veto it, esp. in light of IS pronouncements in the wake of the Paris attacks, which many are taking very seriously.

[cookee68]

About time, i also see Merkel is pretty quiet lately, maybe because she added to the problem, all countries should take the same stand

[Krataiboy]

The US and her European allies would be wise to tighten the screening of refugees from Syria and Iraq, while keeping track of any potential jihadist "sleepers" in their own backyards.

What they should NOT do is what IS wants - namely rush into another unwinnable "war on terror" in the Middle East, which will inevitably kill and displace countless more innocent civilians and turn moderate Muslims into militants.

With China and the yuan in the ascendancy, another Vietnam is the last thing the US needs. Struggling European economies are rightly reluctant to back another open-ended imperialistic US-led military campaign with an unpredictable outcome.

Some observers believe the War on Terror 2, should it materialise, will destroy not the nascent Islamic State but the EU - an institution already fracturing along nationalistic lines under an already seemingly endless deluge of refugees and economic migrants.

[hawker9000]

How do you "screen" all these refugees from Syria & Iraq?? Check their social security numbers? Ask them for letters of reference? Have them fill out 10-pg questionnaires? What? If IS is going to go to the trouble to embed their operatives & sleepers in these mobs of immigrants, I suspect they're smart enough to skip the prospects whose face already appears on a playing card... Opening the doors to these refugees is literally playing with fire.

[Scott]

The screening process is two-fold. First the UNHCR will screen them to determine if they are in fact genuine refugees. This involves way more than a 10 page questionnaire. There is extensive background information gathered. There is basic biodata on each family, including the names, ages, birthdates of their parents and siblings. At times, this information is checked by DNA testing, although this is not common. Any discrepancies need to be reconciled. Then there is data about residence, where they have lived, how long and affiliations of groups, such as political, religious groups etc..

Then there is the gathering of information to support the current claim of refugee status. Again, discrepancies must be reconciled. If the claimant is less than honest, then there is a serious question of credibility and that overshadows the entire refugee claim. Dishonesty is taken very seriously.

All the information is then compared to what is known about in-country conditions, and there is a lot of information about what has happened in the country.

Once they are screened and it is determined they are a refugee, they will be presented to various countries for consideration. The decision to present them to a country is based on a number of considerations, such as any connection they may have with that country, such as family already living there, having worked for a company from that country, etc..

Those with no connection, will be presented to a country with available space for refugees. Some individuals/families are refused by numerous countries. Each country will review the information and will start the interview process over to see if the claimants are suitable for resettlement. Clearance by security agencies is SOP for most countries.

Historically, some of the European countries took lower numbers of refugees, but took hard to place individuals -- such as those with medical conditions or mental problems. Of course, Europe is pretty much saturated, so that option will not be available.

The process is a very long and thorough one. Many of those screened in will not be resettled and will spend many years sitting in refugee camps.

The US, like many other countries, are under no obligation to take anybody that they feel is not suitable or in any way a threat to the security of the country.

The numbers of refugees the President mentioned is probably not even possible given the length of time it takes to screen them.

[hawker9000]

So, it's basically a matter of relying on a screening activity, for purposes of national security, carried out by the UN, right?

I'm sorry, I just can't believe that information at that depth, can be reliably accumulated and effectively assessed on each of these refugees, numbering in the tens of thousands. Particularly by the UN. (I understand that in addition to the 10k Obama has signed up for, Canada & Australia have each agrred to accept 12k - but that's just word-of-mouth, I don't have a quotable source).

[chuckd]

Scott:

Since Syria, Libya and seemingly Iraq have no real functioning government, how does the information the refugees provide get verified?

I could have a rap sheet as long as your arm and without a functioning government, the State Department or any other interviewers have no other option than to take the refugee's words as fact.

The verification process seems to be the hangup with many people.

[Scott]

Even without functioning gov't there is a long paper trail. This includes military records, household registration and information gathered by others from the same communities. Even in these countries they have ID cards to move around from place to place.

The UN and various NGO's also have extensive records on those receiving assistance. While I was working in Iraq, we received funding to do a database on all the people receiving food assistance. A quick review of some of the shelters showed that the number of people listed and the number actually residing in them was not accurate -- some of the shelters listed 500 people and there wasn't room for 500 rats in those shelters. It was also clear that the displaced people were among the healthiest on earth since the birth rate was astronomical and there were no deaths -- or at least no names ever disappeared from the list.

Every family was interviewed and complete information on the family composition. A few little computer tricks quickly showed that some of these families would have been producing a child every 4 or 5 months and that the wife would have had the first child when she was 9 or 10. They were cut off until the family composition was verified.

Family names take on the name of the father and grandfather going back. We went back 5 generations in the names.

There was a large number of Iranian dissidents in the area as well and most had some paperwork. The displaced Arab population also had some paperwork and verification was provided by the UN offices in Baghdad or other areas.

Even with very broken gov'ts, there are hospitals and there are offices where births, deaths and other records are kept. In Iraq this was done by the two main Kurdish factions, the PUK and the KDP.

[Scott]

And just as a follow-up, with those for whom there is doubt about the credibility of their claim, there is no requirement to resettle them. Simply because someone is a refugee does not mean they are eligible for resettlement in the US, or any other country for the matter. A good example is those families with more than one wife. Bigamy is excludable and such families are not permitted entry to the US--only one wife per customer.

Legally entering the US is a rather onerous ordeal as many people here have experienced.

[hawker9000]

Even without functioning gov't there is a long paper trail. This includes military records, household registration and information gathered by others from the same communities. Even in these countries they have ID cards to move around from place to place.

The UN and various NGO's also have extensive records on those receiving assistance. While I was working in Iraq, we received funding to do a database on all the people receiving food assistance. A quick review of some of the shelters showed that the number of people listed and the number actually residing in them was not accurate -- some of the shelters listed 500 people and there wasn't room for 500 rats in those shelters. It was also clear that the displaced people were among the healthiest on earth since the birth rate was astronomical and there were no deaths -- or at least no names ever disappeared from the list.

Every family was interviewed and complete information on the family composition. A few little computer tricks quickly showed that some of these families would have been producing a child every 4 or 5 months and that the wife would have had the first child when she was 9 or 10. They were cut off until the family composition was verified.

Family names take on the name of the father and grandfather going back. We went back 5 generations in the names.

There was a large number of Iranian dissidents in the area as well and most had some paperwork. The displaced Arab population also had some paperwork and verification was provided by the UN offices in Baghdad or other areas.

Even with very broken gov'ts, there are hospitals and there are offices where births, deaths and other records are kept. In Iraq this was done by the two main Kurdish factions, the PUK and the KDP.

'Don't see how much, if any of this, goes to political & social affiliations, which is the crux of any background security investigation (which anyone who's undergone one can tell you). 'Sounds more like a census-taking on steroids... Criminal records may be touched, but these are 3rd world countries. Bribery. Nepotism. Connections. Physical destruction. Falsification. And like I already said, IS is savvy enough I'm sure to not waste resources trying to embed anyone that they don't consider reasonably vettable.

Even in the states, in the wake of some horrendous crime, how often do we hear the family & friends of little Jimmie S. exclaiming how he was simply incapable of such brutality, further claiming no awareness whatsoever of his secret plans & preparations. "Family interviews" of these thousands of Syrian would-be immigrants, to the depth & extent they really do take place, by UN workers (who'll be no doubt working processing quotas vs time) don't fill me with confidence...

I'll bet a sizeable percentage of current IS enlistees have backgrounds obscure enough to get past the screening you've described. In any case, asking a population of 360 million to bet their lives on the effectiveness of such a screening, by the UN, of thousands from this region claiming refugee status, just kind of defies reason.

Edited November 22, 2015 by hawker9000

[LuckyNo4]

"and bolster America's defenses and intelligence operations"

and there you have it.

[Scott]

Even without functioning gov't there is a long paper trail. This includes military records, household registration and information gathered by others from the same communities. Even in these countries they have ID cards to move around from place to place.

The UN and various NGO's also have extensive records on those receiving assistance. While I was working in Iraq, we received funding to do a database on all the people receiving food assistance. A quick review of some of the shelters showed that the number of people listed and the number actually residing in them was not accurate -- some of the shelters listed 500 people and there wasn't room for 500 rats in those shelters. It was also clear that the displaced people were among the healthiest on earth since the birth rate was astronomical and there were no deaths -- or at least no names ever disappeared from the list.

Every family was interviewed and complete information on the family composition. A few little computer tricks quickly showed that some of these families would have been producing a child every 4 or 5 months and that the wife would have had the first child when she was 9 or 10. They were cut off until the family composition was verified.

Family names take on the name of the father and grandfather going back. We went back 5 generations in the names.

There was a large number of Iranian dissidents in the area as well and most had some paperwork. The displaced Arab population also had some paperwork and verification was provided by the UN offices in Baghdad or other areas.

Even with very broken gov'ts, there are hospitals and there are offices where births, deaths and other records are kept. In Iraq this was done by the two main Kurdish factions, the PUK and the KDP.

'Don't see how much, if any of this, goes to political & social affiliations, which is the crux of any background security investigation (which anyone who's undergone one can tell you). 'Sounds more like a census-taking on steroids... Criminal records may be touched, but these are 3rd world countries. Bribery. Nepotism. Connections. Physical destruction. Falsification. And like I already said, IS is savvy enough I'm sure to not waste resources trying to embed anyone that they don't consider reasonably vettable.

Even in the states, in the wake of some horrendous crime, how often do we hear the family & friends of little Jimmie S. exclaiming how he was simply incapable of such brutality, further claiming no awareness whatsoever of his secret plans & preparations. "Family interviews" of these thousands of Syrian would-be immigrants, to the depth & extent they really do take place, by UN workers (who'll be no doubt working processing quotas vs time) don't fill me with confidence...

I'll bet a sizeable percentage of current IS enlistees have backgrounds obscure enough to get past the screening you've described. In any case, asking a population of 360 million to bet their lives on the effectiveness of such a screening, by the UN, of thousands from this region claiming refugee status, just kind of defies reason.

First of all the initial screening is done by UNHCR. The further screening is done by the individual countries. These areas are very tribal, with lots of villages. If you say you fled because your house was blown-up, that can be verified. Few people live outside the confines of their group and they are known to one and all. The facts, whether objective or subjective have to match up.

And, if things don't add up, then they won't get resettled. Have you tried to take a spouse for resettlement in the US? The gatekeepers take their jobs very seriously. Oh, and if they are approved overseas, they still get to go through immigration as they enter the states and those fine guardians have been known to not accept someone.

My point is the screening process is pretty good and there have been relatively few security issues with refugees, statistically speaking. Terrorists are unlikely to sit in the queue awaiting resettlement and if they did, they have no guarantee of what country they will get sent to.

The refugee numbers are set and it is a matter of what groups the US wishes to give priority to. There are a lot of people from some of the interior countries of Africa also awaiting resettlement.

[Pinot]

If Obama vetos this and any Iraq or Syrian commits a terrorist act on American soil, the history books will make an entire chapter of the 'Obama Veto' that assisted Muslim terrorist in the USA.

Will this be the chapter right after "Bush Administration Failed to Stop 9/11 Attacks Despite Repeated Warnings?"

The brave Republicans , true humanitarians.

These are the people fleeing ISIS, you cowards. Absolutely disgraceful.

[dexterm]

Thankfully some people have more integrity and compassion than Congress. Well done, Holocaust Museum, for speaking up for those in need and distress.

Holocaust Museum to US: Don't turn away Syrian refugees

"This week, in response to efforts by American politicians to slow the flow of people coming to the US from Syria, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, issued a statement reminding Americans the US has been down this road before."

"Acutely aware of the consequences to Jews who were unable to flee Nazism, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum looks with concern upon the current refugee crisis," the statement read, making a historical comparison to the millions of Jewish citizens trapped in Europe during World War II who were forced to live under a regime that harassed, imprisoned, or killed them.

"While recognising that security concerns must be fully addressed, we should not turn our backs on the thousands of legitimate refugees."

http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/americas/2015/11/holocaust-museum-don-turn-syian-refugees-151120203816336.html

Edited November 22, 2015 by dexterm

[Linky]

Of course the US should take the refugees, and lots of them. They are up to their eyeballs in the reason there are so many.