Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Legislation to Prevent Terrorists From Entering the U.S. as Refugees

[Virgil]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Rand Paul today announced legislation that would suspend visa issuance for countries with a high risk of terrorism and impose a waiting period for background checks on visa issuance from other countries until the American people can be assured terrorists cannot enter the country through our immigration and visa system. This legislation is based off language first proposed by Sen. Paul in 2013.

“The time has come to stop terrorists from walking in our front door. The Boston Marathon bombers were refugees, and numerous refugees from Iraq, including some living in my hometown, have attempted to commit terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks in Paris underscore this concern that I have been working to address for the past several years. My bill will press pause on new refugee entrants from high-risk countries until stringent new screening procedures are in place,” Sen. Paul said.

Sen. Paul’s legislation would suspend issuance of visas to nationals of countries with a high risk of terrorism until the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) certifies and Congress votes to approve that:

1) Aliens already admitted from high-risk countries have been fingerprinted and screened, pose no terrorist risk, and are being monitored for terrorist activity

2) Enhanced security measures are in place to screen future applicants and prevent terrorists from entering the country

3) DHS' visa entry-exit system is 100 percent complete and a tracking system is in place to catch attempted overstays

Additionally, the legislation would impose a 30-day waiting period for all entries to the U.S. in order for background checks to be completed, unless the traveler has been approved through the Global Entry program. This requirement will be lifted after DHS certifies and Congress approves that:

1) Screening of entrants is sufficient to prevent terrorists from entering the country

2) DHS' visa entry-exit system is 100 percent complete and a tracking system is in place to catch attempted overstays

http://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/sen-rand-paul-introduces-legislation-to-prevent-terrorists-from-entering-the-us-as-refugees-

-virgil

[r3volution 3.0]

I agree with this.

Despite being for free immigration, I have no problem with reasonable security screening as the situation requires. A blanket moratorium on immigration is a bad idea in general (killing termites with hand grenade), but if it's a temporary measure, to give us time to develop proper screening, it's acceptable.

This is also great politics for Rand: perfectly complementing his foreign policy.

"Spend less time poking the hornet's nest over there, and more on common sense security here at home..."

[squirl22]

How long will it take for Cruz to take credit for this legislation?

[TaftFan]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/16/exclusive-rand-paul-supports-states-not-taking-syrian-refugees-issues-legislation-senate-halt-refugee-resettlement/

[SilentBull]

On Drudge now.

[KEEF]

How long will it take for Cruz to take credit for this legislation?
Right after he co-sponsors it and then makes sure that he is the first to stump speech about it on the campaign trail. so Rand, get talking about it.

[puppetmaster]

Common sense

[garyallen59]

This just got posted to The Blaze. If you have an account please submit good comments and upvote other good comments.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/16/rand-paul-introduces-legislation-to-prevent-refugees-from-countries-with-significant-jihadist-movement/

[moraha]

I just heard on CNN that "Ted Cruz will be introducing a bill that bans refugees" this week.

:confused:

[Brian4Liberty]

https://www.facebook.com/davebratforcongress/posts/823404507768989



Dave Brat

FBI director James Comey recently told the House Committee on Homeland Security that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the thousands of Syrian refugees that the Obama administration plans to resettle in the U.S.

"You can only query what you've collected," he told the panel, acknowledging that there is a knowledge gap due to what information is currently in databases. “And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”

Yet, the Obama administration insists that the refugees will go through a "careful vetting process."

Americans are a compassionate people, but that good will is being stretched to a breaking point. President Obama is absent when it comes to securing our border, so we have no idea who is coming across and for what purpose. Now he plans to bring in thousands of additional refugees from terrorism hotbeds to unsuspecting American communities -- without knowing who they are.

Enough is enough. We should learn from the tragedy in Paris. It defies common sense to move forward with current refugee resettlement policy without sufficient vetting procedures in place.

[PCKY]

I just heard on CNN that "Ted ctuz eil be introducing a bill that bans refugees" this week.

:confused:
Too bad...item to note, Rand is re-introducing legislation from 2013. And, if you need Senate support, who gets that better--Rand or Ted?

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/666376578721427457

666376578721427457

[derek4ever]

I was wondering if any of you have been reading articles about the Governors of many states refusing to take in refugees? I've always been a humanitarian and pro-refugee guy but when I first found out about the refugee situation, I became skeptical. I believe that we are a humanitarian nation and we understand the situation of the average human being running away from war. But, if you start seeing well-bodied young men being like 95% of all the refugees, doesn't it make you wonder? It makes me wonder and it scared the hell out of me! :toady:

[Brett85]

Good for Rand.

[jmdrake]

I agree with this.

Despite being for free immigration, I have no problem with reasonable security screening as the situation requires. A blanket moratorium on immigration is a bad idea in general (killing termites with hand grenade), but if it's a temporary measure, to give us time to develop proper screening, it's acceptable.

Just so that everybody is clear, Rand's proposal isn't a blanket moratorium on immigration. It's a moratorium on immigration from people from high risk countries. He brought up the Boston Marathon bombers. The older brother kept going back on forth to Chechnya. The Russians warned us he might be a terror threat. One of those trips back to Chechnya should have been his last because he shouldn't have been allowed back in the country. Makes me think he was let back in on purpose.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmjAg_-Vi9Y



This is also great politics for Rand: perfectly complementing his foreign policy.

"Spend less time poking the hornet's nest over there, and more on common sense security here at home..."

This has to be taken in stages for boubus Americanus not to think he's being "un-Mericun".

Stage 1: Quick arming the hornets.

Stage 2: Close the screen door and don't let the hornets in.

Stage 3: Quit making the hornets mad in the first place.

[IndianaPolitico]

Be sure to spread this around social media FAST. Definitely will look good for Rand.

[enhanced_deficit]

Rand probably will get good support on this and can be incorporated into his message. But I suspect major neocon forces will oppose it as it limits US ability to intervene in other countries.

As for list of "countries with a high risk of terrorism"... will Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria will be on the list? America has made huge investments of trillions of dollars of borrowed money and hundreds of thousands of American lives/limbs in bringing freedom/democracy to these countries going back 3-4 decades; a US legislative or policy statement now declaring these countries as "hotbeds of terrorism" will be defacto indictment of US Foreign Policy and a recognition that our interventions increase risk of terrorism.
Hope this gets traction.

[RonPaulMall]

Rand probably will get good support on this and can be incorporated into his message. But I suspect major neocon forces will oppose it as it limits US ability to intervene in other countries.

As for list of "countries with a high risk of terrorism"... will Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria will be on the list? America has made huge investments of trillions of dollars of borrowed money and hundreds of thousands of American lives/limbs in bringing freedom/democracy to these countries going back 3-4 decades; a US legislative or policy statement now declaring these countries as "hotbeds of terrorism" will be defacto indictment of US Foreign Policy and a recognition that our interventions increase risk of terrorism.
Hope this gets traction.

More important, it could put a wrench in to their long term population replacement plan because presumably a number of high population African countries would fall on the list as well.

[squirl22]

I was wondering if any of you have been reading articles about the Governors of many states refusing to take in refugees? I've always been a humanitarian and pro-refugee guy but when I first found out about the refugee situation, I became skeptical. I believe that we are a humanitarian nation and we understand the situation of the average human being running away from war. But, if you start seeing well-bodied young men being like 95% of all the refugees, doesn't it make you wonder? It makes me wonder and it scared the hell out of me

If the United States was being attacked or embroiled in a civil war, do you think all of the men would flee to another country and seek refuge? No, I don't think so....I have been suspicious all along...I could see if the women and children left, but not the men. Someone ought to investigate Catholic Charities...they are the ones who brought all of the Somalian refugees into this country and they knew that all of the 'daughters' listed in the family were not really daughters, but wives. Hard to believe they think all of thes men are refugees.

[Jonderdonk]

And, if you need Senate support, who gets that better--Rand or Ted?

I don't know... Who was more humanitarian--Stalin or Hitler?

[derek4ever]

If the United States was being attacked or embroiled in a civil war, do you think all of the men would flee to another country and seek refuge? No, I don't think so....I have been suspicious all along...I could see if the women and children left, but not the men. Someone ought to investigate Catholic Charities...they are the ones who brought all of the Somalian refugees into this country and they knew that all of the 'daughters' listed in the family were not really daughters, but wives. Hard to believe they think all of thes men are refugees.

Thanks! Yes, I loomed into the anomalities of the Somalian refugees and what the Catholic Charities used to do. I'm glad FL decided to stop the flow of refugees because they need to be screened properly.

[grizzums]

I sure hope this is the time when the relationships Paul has worked to develop in the Senate in contrast to Cruz.. pays off. Paul needs his legislation to move forward and he needs credit. Not Cruz. I think if that happens and Paul's legislation makes it to the Presidents desk..massive game changer.

[PierzStyx]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

[Brian4Liberty]

The actual list of nations will be interesting. Will it include the single most dangerous nation? ;)

[Danke]

They'll just come over our border with Mexico.

[Wilf]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

People never learn; isn't really sad.

[Rudeman]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

Who is "We"?

[carlton]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

We are one terrorist attack away from a full blown Neocon revival. Paul is proposing a moratorium contingent on more stringent screening. Its a good call. While I sympathize with those caught between local terrorism and western bombing (intervention) the liberty movement will be majorly setback if just a single terrorist slips through the crack.

[cindy25]

there is risk here. you need an exemption for Canada, or devastate border communities. banning tourists from Islamic countries but what about France? UK? they have Islamic movements

[rg17]

We are one terrorist attack away from a full blown Neocon revival. Paul is proposing a moratorium contingent on more stringent screening. Its a good call. While I sympathize with those caught between local terrorism and western bombing (intervention) the liberty movement will be majorly setback if just a single terrorist slips through the crack.

Unfortunately that is inevitable. :(

[carlton]

Unfortunately that is inevitable. :(


Bevin's loss was inevitable, so was Washington's. The biggest threat to victory is defeatism!

[ds21089]

For so long we've heard the lame justification of "we must fight them there so they dont come here" as the reason for all the wars. Now suddenly they want to go 180 and allow people from those countries in here easily? Fuck TPTB.

[rprprs]

I was wondering if any of you have been reading articles about the Governors of many states refusing to take in refugees? I've always been a humanitarian and pro-refugee guy but when I first found out about the refugee situation, I became skeptical. I believe that we are a humanitarian nation and we understand the situation of the average human being running away from war. But, if you start seeing well-bodied young men being like 95% of all the refugees, doesn't it make you wonder? It makes me wonder and it scared the hell out of me! :toady:
Here's one I read. :confused:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/16/governors-have-little-power-block-refugees/75888766/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/16/governors-have-little-power-block-refugees/75888766/)

WASHINGTON — State governments often play a small role in helping to resettle refugees. But despite protests from more than a dozen Republican governors who want to close their states to Syrian refugees, those governors probably have little power to stop them from coming, legal scholars say.

[RonPaulMall]

there is risk here. you need an exemption for Canada, or devastate border communities. banning tourists from Islamic countries but what about France? UK? they have Islamic movements

The proposal here is regarding immigration, not tourism. And with immigration the problem of Canada and Europe being full of non-Canadians and non-Europeans can easily be solved by adding a family ancestry requirement. 4th Generation Europeans and Canadians are welcome, all others are not. And every generation amend the law so the minimum requirement goes up to 5th Generation, 6th Generation, ect as time goes on.

[Occam's Banana]

“The time has come to stop terrorists from walking in our front door. The Boston Marathon bombers were refugees, and numerous refugees from Iraq, including some living in my hometown, have attempted to commit terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks in Paris underscore this concern that I have been working to address for the past several years. My bill will press pause on new refugee entrants from high-risk countries until stringent new screening procedures are in place,” Sen. Paul said.

How many thousands of Americans have been killed in the US by Saudis & Egyptians? How many by Chechens & Iraqis?

Of the four groups just mentioned, which two are likely to be barred from entry as "high risk?" Which two are not?

(Not to mention that you are far more likely to be killed by a cop - or even your own bathtub - than by any "terrorist" from anywhere.)

Security theater is theatric "security" ...

[r3volution 3.0]

Just so that everybody is clear, Rand's proposal isn't a blanket moratorium on immigration. It's a moratorium on immigration from people from high risk countries.

That's right.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise (by "blanket" I meant not discriminating between particular individuals).

[wizardwatson]

Man, I just watched a video and Obama was chiding those who won't except refugees and said that not judging and shunning people who are different is what separates us and he ended the speech (or that clip anyway) saying, "if you want to defeat ISIS. That's a good place to start."

So Obama just lectured everyone and said the first step to defeating ISIS is for us to change our attitude.

WTF?

Is is because we aren't obeying the Caliphate hard enough, or because we're closer to the problem than you are Mr. President?

I'm confused.

[RabbitMan]

The problem is ISIS breeds off fear and hate and are desperately trying to get western society to keep the Muslim community at arms length.

There has been no terror attack on the USA by refugees.
The only evidence that ONE of the Paris attackers was a refugee was a passport, quickly found to be fake.

The refugee process if pretty stringent as it is, I would like to know what the problem is.
Otherwise scoring cheap political points at the expense of freedom seeking Syrians and Muslims is exactly what these guys want, and to buy into it is pretty sad. I wish Rand hadn't done this. With any luck, Cruz will take the spotlight and the subsequent heat.

[Liberty74]

Hey look, it's Rand being weak on Defense. :roll eyes:

#winning

[Matthanuf06]

So..... Let me get this straight.

Step 1: We blow up their country, or pay others to blow it up for us, or do both.

Step 2: We get surprised when that makes them angry.

Step 3: We punish those who survived being slaughtered by US bombs and guns by keeping them trapped in the hellhole we've turned their country into.

Step 4: We get surprised when they get angry at us.

Step 5: What happens when they terrorists aren't from countries with a "high risk of terrorism"?

Salah Abdeslam and his brothers, who are the main suspects in who carried out the Paris attacks, were were born in Belgium not Syria, Palestine, or Libya. Belgium.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers who massacred 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine was radicalized in a French prison.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189781#.VkpshWa8AgM

This legislation is stupid. Not only does it not dress the real issue of terrorism, that it is an international idea that you can't check at a border, it fails to address the causes of terrorism, which have to do with international military intervention. All this legislation is, is a knee jerk reaction against something that isn't even the problem. Legislation like this would have still allowed for the Paris bombing, or for that matter 9/11. It doesn't do anything to address real matters of security either. I'm sure in this climate of fear that such legislation will go over well with the Republicans, and quite a few Democrats too, but other than deny people dying of sickness and starvation a chance to rebuild their lives after we destroyed them , I doubt it'll accomplish anything like its purposed goal.

The US can't even figure out which Syrian militants are or aren't "terrorists" how am I supposed to believe it will be able to determine which refugees are terrorists? The whole proposition is a joke.

And finally they want to have a 100% effective way of knowing where your are at all times and being able to monitor you so they can capture you if you overstay? I wonder what totalitarian system will be put into place to accomplish that goal. The state wants to control where you go, when you go, how you go, and be able to deny it at all times. In other words, Rand Paul wants refugees to forfeit their freedoms of movement, association, privacy, and pursuit of happiness. Probably freedom of speech too- can't say anything too "radical" because, after all, Big Brother will be watching.

Quite frankly this is all quite disgusting. It is a perfect example of how the state uses the threat of violence, and the actuality of it, to deny you a basic human right only to turn around and grant it back to you as a "privilege" of submitting to its control of your life.

The problem with your analysis is that it isn't actionable.

You are absolutely correct by the way. If we could turn back the clock and start over, we should without a doubt have a policy much more aligned to what you alluded to.

The problem is there is no time travel. At every single decision point we have to ask "What is the best for the USA? What is the best for liberty?". We have to ask ourselves that with the knowledge that an illegitimate nation exists that wants to harm our nation. One that Rand Paul wanted to declare war on. Unfortunately "what if" we had the right policies is just a thought experiment. Rand has to advocate for the correct policies based on Reality.

[philipped]

I support this concept, and this legislation, and I'm still standing with Rand!

[ApathyCuredRP]

Media already claiming "Ted Cruz is about to announce a bill to stop Syria refuges or refuges from terror countries." I hate Ted Cruz because he is such a slithering snake salesman. I swear his order was to mirror Rand Paul but is nothing but a hollow puppet.

[alucard13mm]

Immigration screening should be done by a jury process where the people will listen to his or her case. Maybe have everyone write a question to ask anonymously.

[ds21089]

There's a viral video going around showing what these "refugees" are doing.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/watch-anti-migrant-video-going-viral-across-europe/

[r3volution 3.0]

I support this concept, and this legislation, and I'm still standing with Rand!

Hey man, long time no see, glad you're back

[derek4ever]

There's a viral video going around showing what these "refugees" are doing.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/watch-anti-migrant-video-going-viral-across-europe/

I've watched the video long before and have been skeptical about the refugee situation. How many here would support accepting only women and kids? I think what most of the states are doing is good for the time being but I wonder if Obama will try to use an executive order to make all states receive refugees. What do you all think??

[Occam's Banana]

The problem with your analysis is that it isn't actionable.

You are absolutely correct by the way. If we could turn back the clock and start over, we should without a doubt have a policy much more aligned to what you alluded to.

The problem is there is no time travel. At every single decision point we have to ask "What is the best for the USA? What is the best for liberty?". We have to ask ourselves that with the knowledge that an illegitimate nation exists that wants to harm our nation. One that Rand Paul wanted to declare war on. Unfortunately "what if" we had the right policies is just a thought experiment. Rand has to advocate for the correct policies based on Reality.

The problem with this approach is that it "truncates the antecedents" (to use a pharase coined by Robert Higgs).

While it is manifestly so that "there is no time travel" and that we cannot change the antecedents that have defined our current straits, the problem is that the prior "decision points" that created those antecedents also had antecedents of their own - and those antecedents in their day were also dismissed as "water under the bridge" by the very same kind of here-and-now, range-of-the-moment "realists" who presently insist that it isn't usefully "actionable" to consider such "what if" questions and "thought experiments."

The fatal conceit of this approach is that it confines itself to reacting merely to the surface "reality" of the immediate moment. It disdains to consider the deeper "reality" underlying and driving those surface events and circumstances - a reality to which those "what if" questions and "thought experiments" are very germane and eminently "actionable." It is precisely those previous "realists" who eschewed to look back at the antecedents that had led to the "immediate moment" in which they found themselves who thereby created the very antecedents which present "realists" now eschew to see - and in so doing, those present "realists" will thereby create the very antecedents that future "realists" will eschew to see ...

And so long as this remains the case, the history and consequences of US entanglement in the Middle East will continue repeating themselves - or at least rhyming like some mad, deranged rapper.

[euphemia]

My city has the highest Kurdish population of anyplace in the United States. We got a huge wave of Somalians when they were starving to death.

I think if we are going to let people call themselves refugees, we need to think about whether the US is the best place for them to seek refuge. I also think that we should be considering whether we want individuals, or whole families. Are we bringing in the poorest and most at-risk people? It doesn't look like it. Intact families with children seem vulnerable. The elderly seem vulnerable. I don't know. I think we have to be careful.

[Brian4Liberty]

Paul aims to suspend visas for high-risk countries (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20151118/NEWS0605/151119236)

By DAN TUOHY - November 17. 2015


U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said his bill to suspend refugee arrivals from known terrorist regions will help prevent Islamic radicalism from being imported to America.

The Republican presidential hopeful’s legislation would suspend visas for countries, like Syria, with a high-risk of terrorism. He is proposing a waiting period for background checks on visas from other countries until the U.S. can ensure terrorists cannot gain entry through immigration and visa channels.
...
More: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20151118/NEWS0605/151119236

[PierzStyx]

The problem with your analysis is that it isn't actionable.

You are absolutely correct by the way. If we could turn back the clock and start over, we should without a doubt have a policy much more aligned to what you alluded to.

The problem is there is no time travel. At every single decision point we have to ask "What is the best for the USA? What is the best for liberty?". We have to ask ourselves that with the knowledge that an illegitimate nation exists that wants to harm our nation. One that Rand Paul wanted to declare war on. Unfortunately "what if" we had the right policies is just a thought experiment. Rand has to advocate for the correct policies based on Reality.

The correct policies to advocate are those that perpetuate freedom for the masses. You cannot say you defend liberty while writing legislation that violates basic human liberties. "Realism" has always been the argument for violating human rights, and as long as we fail to take a stand on basic human rights and refuse to violate them, "realism" will always lead to violation of human rights and the current state of affairs will continue.

[PierzStyx]

We are one terrorist attack away from a full blown Neocon revival. Paul is proposing a moratorium contingent on more stringent screening. Its a good call. While I sympathize with those caught between local terrorism and western bombing (intervention) the liberty movement will be majorly setback if just a single terrorist slips through the crack.

It isn't the "liberty movement" if the movement isn't supporting human liberty.

[ds21089]

It isn't the "liberty movement" if the movement isn't supporting human liberty.

That'd be like saying Rand using an executive order to get rid of executive orders previously made isn't for liberty because he's using an executive order in a manner which it wasn't intended. Is it not supporting liberty by ensuring the safety of citizens here to prevent another attack / false flag when the "refugees" come here? It's quite obvious that attack would be used as a means to destroy the remaining freedoms we have here just as how Paris is doing this right now. Enhanced surveillance, Martial Law, etc. So either the few in suspicion can be double checked or the entire nation can plummet deeper into an Orwellian world. Which would you choose?

[Feeding the Abscess]

We are one terrorist attack away from a full blown Neocon revival. Paul is proposing a moratorium contingent on more stringent screening. Its a good call. While I sympathize with those caught between local terrorism and western bombing (intervention) the liberty movement will be majorly setback if just a single terrorist slips through the crack.

What happens if Rand's proposal passes, and one of the dozens of millions of visitors the US receives every year commits an act of terrorism? Ban all tourism and travel?