Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:13 AM Dec 2015

I think Clinton is sincere about accepting 65,000 Syrian refugees.

I worry about that qualification she made:

Clinton, Nov. 14: I also said that we should take increased numbers of refugees. The administration originally said 10. I said we should go to 65, but only if we have as careful a screening and vetting process as we can imagine, whatever resources it takes because I do not want us to, in any way, inadvertently allow people who wish us harm to come into our country.


In reality, no vetting process can ensure that no ISIS moles slip into the country. But doing the right thing here requires us to accept a significant risk of that happening. We can be cowards or we can do the right thing. I think Clinton is on board here, but I don't know for sure. I do think this could become a huge issue in the GE.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I think Clinton is sincere about accepting 65,000 Syrian refugees. (Original Post) Vattel Dec 2015 OP
I think the verbiage is excellent and necessary. NCTraveler Dec 2015 #1
Basically, I agree with you. Vattel Dec 2015 #2
I don't see how it would change the numbers taken. NCTraveler Dec 2015 #3
I don't think O'Malley is setting up an out. NCTraveler Dec 2015 #4
Yeah, I see your point, and I trust O'Malley on this. Vattel Dec 2015 #5
 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
1. I think the verbiage is excellent and necessary.
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:18 AM
Dec 2015

You are correct that it could not be done with one hundred percent certainty. With the current checks they do when bringing people in it would be easier for them to make their way across our southern border or for them to attract citizens themselves. Unfortunately each person fighting for them must reference it in this way. The quote sound very good.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
2. Basically, I agree with you.
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:20 AM
Dec 2015

It's not so much the content of the quote that worries me. It's just that it could give her a political out in the future--in other words, an excuse not to accept as many refugees.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
3. I don't see how it would change the numbers taken.
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:26 AM
Dec 2015

It must be sold to the public that all resources will be used to check these people. We know that is already done in these instances but we have to combat current republican lies. Fact is, in the future, no elected official would need an out. The easiest decision politically would be to not take any. That wouldn't be the moral decision. This quote simply wouldn't need to be used as an out.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
4. I don't think O'Malley is setting up an out.
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:30 AM
Dec 2015

“I was the first person on this stage to say that we should accept the 65,000 Syrian refugees that were fleeing the sort of murder of ISIL, and I believe that that needs to be done with proper screening,” O'Malley

Like Clinton he is trying to do the moral thing and sell it to the American people. That has to be a part of the pitch.
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
5. Yeah, I see your point, and I trust O'Malley on this.
Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:05 PM
Dec 2015

It was Clinton's "only if" phrasing that worried me, but I hope I am just being paranoid.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I think Clinton is sincer...