Des I did not heard about that, but if this is true, your state, need to show that the Republic and its laws shall prevail among anything else. Weak states will likely fall if they do not show their strength against fanatism. But not only Islamic fatanism, Im also talking about any fanatism, some are also Christians (sects or even recognized movements, such as the Mormons).

In France it is totally forbidden to preach in public, try to convert people (proselythism), or make any political party according to a religion, I heard there were a "Parti Islam" in Belgium now planning to make official the Sharia Law there, or the Islamic Political Party in Britain. Sometimes to guaratee freedom you nevertheless need to ban some excesses and abuses. I have my opinion about religions, nd I believe they should never meet the political sphere. Hence the importance of a secular state (I am not sure the US are truly secular, thats perhaps why as you told Des, that people can do what they want and initiate Sharia law in some cities/states).

Um, it's completely false that Dearborn, Michigan has Sharia law.

cf. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/02/dearborn-mi-where-muslims-are-americans.html

Relevant quote from the above article:

Debunking Dearborn myths takes a lot of the mayor’s time: When Jones first came to town, [Mayor] O’Reilly says, he received 6,000 emails. He responded to each; several hundred wrote back thanking him. After Angle’s faux pas, O’Reilly sent a letter inviting her to visit.

“The people who perpetuate it use it for their own gain,” O’Reilly said. “There are certain sites and individuals who like to perpetuate fear of Muslims—the people who like to suggest Muslims shouldn’t remain in the U.S.”

Edited 11/20/2015 14:42:19

What is disgusting is that by random chance each of the Republican governor's individually came up to their opinion that Syrian refugees should not be permitted in their states.

But alas, that's not what happened. Somehow, the plight of refugees has become a political bargaining chip to further separate the country between red and blue states.

That is actually more disgusting.

Edited 11/20/2015 14:50:57

plight:
plīt
noun
a dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation.

@The Goblin, a nice try, or just proper use of English.

Next time you try to troll, don't make yourself look so ignorant.

What is a vetting process? Anyhow, the process can be changed to something better, that solves that problem.

investigate (someone) thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.

In this case, vetting is the process of investigating refugees' backgrounds.

I can't see this process being improved. The best we could do to improve it is... I don't know. Ask more questions? We don't have much information to confirm the truth of many answers.

what do you expect from the party of fear mongering?

here's a cold logical reason for allowing in refugees:

breaking the cycle of terror recruitment

our islamaphobia is a great recruitment tool for isis. and when we shun moderate muslims who are fleeing crisis those moderates will be killed or converted to extremism.

the big reason europe opened it's doors to refugees (and btw, france is still taking refugees) is because those refugees were going to be in europe anyway. if strong countries like france and germany refused them then they would just go to places like greece and spain, who don't have the resources to keep them out and are at greater risk of becoming destabilized because of them.

also, keeping out refugees in no way makes us safer. terrorists are more likely to recruit american citizens or travel here from "safe" countries. they are not dummies. they know we will be paying more attention to syrian refugees than our own citizens or well-to-do muslim tourists.

Albeit true or false, its still a serious thing that its even considered.

Des - it is considered only by people willing to believe things that are easily shown to be false. In this case, Sharia law in Dearborn was first reported by nationalreport.net, a satirical newspaper:
http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/

http://nationalreport.net/disclaimer/

National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.

Indeed, this is the first link on Google that comes up if you search for the story.

That's right - it's satire, a trick story meant to make Republicans look stupid.

I think it's working.


Edit: if you have any doubt that the story was designed specifically to make fun of Republicans, you should check other stories on the front page of the National Review:

Sarah Palin Will Teach American English College Course

‘A Kindler, Gentler Sharia': John Kasich Explains His Proposed Department of Christianity

Leftists Secretly Gathering for History Book Conference

etc.

Edited 11/20/2015 18:33:06

The poster above me is an idiotic troll

Edited 11/20/2015 22:08:58

here's a cold logical reason for allowing in refugees:

breaking the cycle of terror recruitment

our islamaphobia is a great recruitment tool for isis. and when we shun moderate muslims who are fleeing crisis those moderates will be killed or converted to extremism.

THIS.

+1

investigate (someone) thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.

In this case, vetting is the process of investigating refugees' backgrounds.

I can't see this process being improved. The best we could do to improve it is... I don't know. Ask more questions? We don't have much information to confirm the truth of many answers.

There are folk whose jobs are to come up with these processes, their whole jobs. The CIA, for example, can't have faulty "vetting".

I simply don't understand what the vetting process entails. Most of these migrants do not have official paperwork to check so what does the UN/FBI/EU do to check if these migrants may harbor terrorist/jihadi sympathies or loyalties. Moreover just checking official documents is not much of a vetting process...they have to interview their friends and families all or most of which could be dead from the Syrian Civil War. Moreover, there is a big difference between an economic migrant (simply looking for a better life with better opportunities) and a refugee (fears their life is in danger). There is a bigger moral/human rights argument to make for wealthy countries taking in refugees. I refute entirely the idea of taking economic migrants. There are 100s of millions of poor people who would like to live in the West due to their social welfare policies, better standards of living, and safer cities. That being said I also think the acceptance of migrants is too risky and poses an overwhelming security risk, mainly because their is no effective way I imagine of having a 100% correct vetting process. Lastly I would argue that the leaders of every nation, when they swore their oath of office, pledged no responsibility to the citizens of other countries. Politicians must protect their citizen's and their interests before the interests of the world or of foreigners. That is the simple truth. That is how nationhood and sovereignty work.

The hardest way to enter the U.S.? As a refugee
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/politics/paris-attack-refugee-visa-waiver/index.html

A worth read for all of you. The article explains 'vetting' among other things.

From the CNN article posted above: "The screening process generally includes multiple interviews, background checks and an extensive cross-referencing process"

This is extremely vague: who are they interviewing? How do we know family and friends close to the refugee in question are not lying? What document/paperwork do most poor and displaced refugees have access to? How can we determine the difference between external statements and sentiments and internal thoughts and opinions (i.e. We'll pretend to be refugees but in our brain we know we are members of ISIS who will launch attacks once we've been resettled). I'm not saying that the vetting process doesn't work. I'm saying that it can never be 100% effective and correct. Thus politicians must protect the larger public by completely blocking their entry.

Whoever said that there are things which would be terrorism if Muslims did it...NO. Terrorism is used as a means to an end, to subjugate others (in this case, force them to become Muslim). It is not just a senseless act of violence. It has purpose.

@JaiBharat909 Literally all of your questions are covered in the article.

TBH if you only take 10000 you aren't really making a difference...that's how many arrive in Munich every day. The only sane reason for allowing them in (as you wouldn't be making a significant humanitarian difference) would be a)to allow Moslem culture to propagate in America or b) to allow terrorists in.

somehow you are not making any sense, generalpe.

here's a cold logical reason for allowing in refugees:

breaking the cycle of terror recruitment

our islamaphobia is a great recruitment tool for isis. and when we shun moderate muslims who are fleeing crisis those moderates will be killed or converted to extremism.

^ this. it's like some of you WANT to pick a fight with everyone else, or something.

Edited 11/22/2015 20:41:20

The United States of America should definitely be taking refugees. Canada is taking in 25,000 by the end of THIS year, thats in just over a month. Germany has promised to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees. Where is the USA in this? The country with the highest capabilities and capacity to do this?

...for shame...

Edited 11/23/2015 01:54:38

^ it IS rather shameful. we have far more Muslims on our side, than against us, yet America is reverting to WorldWar2 mentality, with the Japanese internment camps. Instead of Japanese, it is the Muslim population though.