Can someone explain Rand Paul's plan to monitor Syrian refugees? I am considering withdrawing my support of his candidacy.
Ok, withdraw it. You're from Indiana, like me, what difference do you think you'll make? I'm sure you'll make some scathing facebook post no one will care about. Thank you for your service!
The new media talking point is that libertarians hate his immigration bill to make our vetting process stricter for people from certain places that we are at war with calling it basically racist. Most people that are libertarians are more informed about the middle east and don't believe the media narratives. They know that there is no way to even verify that these people are even coming from Syria. They know that some "refugees" have already gotten through our application process and they end up finding out that they were "refugees" after they commit terrorism or get convicted of conspiracy for doing shady terrorist like activities. They know that some of these people persecute and kill people just for being a different religion. They know that some of these people are economic migrants and if we are going to turn people away and deport people at the southern border for being economic migrants then we should turn them away elsewhere.
If you're dumb enough to withdraw your support because Rand isn't going to just let tons of welfare brats from the Middle East (most of them young men) in here to sap all of our resources and a few of them maybe blowing some stuff up or shooting people, you don't belong supporting his candidacy. Seriously, do your research or just get the fudge out of here. Get over yourself and knockoff the theatrics and melodrama.Originally Posted by givemeliberty2010
I have to agree here. I am all for Libertarian ideals, but you need to have common sense as well. Instead of just blindly thinking every situation in Life demands the same response, you need to make a rational decision based on the facts.
As much as i feel bad for the true refugees fleeing persecution, their is no way to know who is lying and who is not. As HC said, does it not seem odd that most are young men who are wanting to come over. I could more have trust if they were all women children and the elderly.This attitude that we need to help them is the same attitude that we should be the policemen of the world. As nice as it would be to help everyone in need, the safety of American citizens comes first.
Terrorists are sneaking into western countries with refugees. This is a known proven fact. Vetting who is who and keeping tabs on them just makes common sense.
Am I the only one who remembers Paul being against the government monitoring people?
Let's just monitor everybody. We are all terrorists of some sort.
The current vetting system has at least 14 layers and takes about two years to get through. About half get rejected (and most of those were not terrorists). Germany has had half a million enter their country just this year. We have suggested taking 10,000 over a decade. Odds are we won't be getting terrorists among them. (noting that terrorists like those on 9/11 can more easily enter the country other ways- like getting a tourist visa).
I think it's a pretty valid question. If you guys can't answer it instead of saying "SCRAM!" then it is rather telling.
So can anyone explain HOW the monitoring will take place?
Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.
False that is the media spin, Rand has always fought for American's fourth amendment rights, this is about vetting people better that come here before they get here so they do not need to monitor everybody here.. this is his argument against the other candidates that are purposing more government surveillance.
No, his own website says after they are admitted they are to be monitored.
//
Last edited by Yieu; 11-26-2015 at 01:38 AM.
No, it is false because they are not American Citizens and they do not get American rights like we do. Especially because we are at war with the crazy people that they are fleeing from. How hard would it be for a radical Islamist to hold on to an innocent refugee's little girl or son and black mail them into doing their bidding when they get here?
This is like what we heard from Sens. Lieberman and McCain about suspected terrorists being detained indefinitely, except these people are not even suspected.
Let me get this straight. You are considering withdrawing support from the man that has done the most to try to stop the failed policies that have helped create the environment where these refugees exist; because you don't like his proposal to deal with this no win situation that he had no hand in creating? A proposal in which he tries to protect both the liberty and security for the American citizens he is sworn to serve by limiting the movement of foreign nationals in which he has no duty towards? huh?
I'm pretty sure Randal knows that the next time one of these "refugees" or any foreign nationals successfully pulls off a terrorist attack in the united states you can say goodbye permanently to any rights you think you might have. I think his plan is pretty much common sense really and can only see people that don't believe in national borders having a problem with it.
//
Last edited by Yieu; 11-26-2015 at 01:38 AM.
I really couldn't care less. It's obvious why Rand is saying this. Preventing your withdrawal of support is not worth an automatic game-over for the campaign.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
Whats wrong with monitoring Aliens? One could even argue that you should monitor Aliens because they are more likely to commit Islamic terrorism then you know people who do not follow that religion. This is his argument against the other candidates purposing blanket increases in using government surveillance to monitor American citizens.
//
Last edited by Yieu; 11-26-2015 at 01:38 AM.
No he prefers that if there must be government spying then it should be on aliens and not Americans.
//
Last edited by Yieu; 11-26-2015 at 01:38 AM.
Excuse me, I seem to have forgotten where I was. I thought I was talking mostly to people who were outraged when big-government Republicans started to say constitutional rights only applied to U.S. citizens.
When did big-government Republicans say that?
R∃VO˩UTION
I've never heard Rand say anything about spying on anyone; he has said that we need a better way of tracking people who come here on visas or as refugees, and that we need more stricter screening procedures for admitting refugees from countries with significant jihadist movements.
R∃VO˩UTION
Maybe I should have said the defenders of big-government Republicans. I do not know (although I suspect) that John McCain said rights only were for citizens, but their defenders said their ideas were all right at least as long as the ideas, like indefinite detention, did not affect citizens.
//
Last edited by Yieu; 11-26-2015 at 01:38 AM.
Rand Paul of all people should know what the word "monitor" can include.
Well yeah, I guess if you take it out of the context of the foreign policy and privacy discussion society is having in post PARIS-GATE 2015. I guess that is honest, it just seems like you are making a terrible argument that i should instead vote for any other candidate that is purposing for more war and more spying on Americans.
There is nothing to answer, these people are not American citizens, they are not entitled to all the damned free welfare money that they will gobble up (frankly, I don't think anybody should be getting welfare without doing some sort of work), and frankly they are not our $#@!ing problem. If you want to play Santa Claus with tax money, you belong with the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us