Obama Blocking Syrian Christians Admittance To USA In Favor Of Sunni Muslims.

a reply to: Liquesence

Sadly with such amount of refugees is bound to open the opportunity for radical terrorist to slip through the cracks of the fast screening.

a reply to: tommo39

So aside from the breakdown of the demographic of the refugees, which pretty much is in proportion to the Syrian population and would make sense, where's the "blocking" part?

There are some good reasons for some conspiracy theories to exist. People with low reading comprehension and reasoning skills isn't one of them.

Yet another embarrassing ATS thread premise with the usual suspects all piling onto the molehill of manure to take it off topic. Well done.

originally posted by: imod02

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: TerryMcGuire Americans bow to no king, nor any other man, But Barack sure did. We saw it. He bowed to a muslim saudi king. I think that was a sunni, wasnt it. That is an act of " I am below you, and I serve you, I show you honor, I will do as you ask. It was disgusting.

True but who voted him into power TWICE

A bunch of dummies

a reply to: tommo39

I'm not familiar with your source, so I did a little more looking around and found an article from Breitbart -- Record Number of Syrian Refugees Accepted in June, But Almost No Christians -- and another from The Hill -- UN: Critics wrong on Christian Syrian refugees
. Both confirm that the number of Christian refugees is extremely low and disproportionate to the Syrian Christian population. From The Hill:

According to data from the State Department, just 62 of the 2,550 Syrian refugees that have been resettled in the U.S. since the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011 are some denomination of Christian. That 2.4 percent is much lower than the roughly 10 percent of pre-war Syria that was believed to have been Christian.

But apparently we just don't understand because of how complicated it all is -- at least per Jana Mason, UNHCR's senior adviser for government relations and external affairs:

“The details of resettlement are so detailed and so precise that only a few people in Washington ever care about it,” said Jana Mason, UNHCR's senior adviser for government relations and external affairs. “Now all of a sudden, everybody on the morning news, the evening news, cable news are talking about it. And because it is so complicated and so multi-step, people get it wrong.”

So she knows people are getting "it wrong," but she doesn't even know better:

Why the discrepancy?

“We don’t know,” she said. “We don’t want to speculate.”

I think they do know. They just don't want us to know. If their intentions were truly noble and honorable, everyone would know all the whys and wherefores and whereofs. If there were nothing to hide, nothing would be hidden, and we would have the "transparency" Obama promised.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Liquesence

Sadly with such amount of refugees is bound to open the opportunity for radical terrorist to slip through the cracks of the fast screening.

What does that have to do with whether or not Christians should be prioritized and more quickly processed/vetted?

Some might slip through regardless of how thorough the screening is, which is pretty thorough.

“Of all the categories of persons entering the U.S., these refugees are the single most heavily screened and vetted,” explains Jana Mason, a senior adviser to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Our government performs its own intensive screening, a process that includes consultation from nine different government agencies. They meet weekly to review a refugee’s case file and, if appropriate, determine where in the U.S. the individual should be placed. When choosing where to place a refugee, officials consider factors such as existing family in the U.S., employment possibilities and special factors like access to needed medical treatment.

Time
Heritage.org

The total processing time varies depending on an applicant’s location and other circumstances, but the average time from the initial UNHCR referral to arrival as a refugee in the United States is about 18-24 months

State.gov
Whitehouse.gov

How long should the screening process take, if that's too quickly and not thorough enough for your tastes?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: tommo39
WTF are you people even discussing anything proposed by them anyway???
.

Gotta hate Obama, doesn't matter who said it, doesn't matter how hypocritical it is. If it justifies their hate for Obama, it's the gods honest truth.

a reply to: Liquesence

Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday that in response to the ever-worsening international migrant crisis, the U.S. will raise the annual number of refugees it accepts over the next few years. The Wall Street Journal reports that under the new plan, the U.S. will take on 85,000 refugees in the fiscal year 2016, which starts in October, and 100,000 in 2017, up from a current annual total of 70,000. The 2016 total would include the 10,000 Syrian refugees the Obama administration has already said it would like to admit, and more Syrians in 2017 as well.

Do you still believe that the old screening will remain in place? two years 85,000 thousand refugees?

New plan for the acceptance of refugees in the US.

www.nbcnews.com...

The migrants would be referred by the United Nations, screened by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resettled around America.

All this within two years, with the record of incidents that the EU is having with middle eastern immigrants we can not trust the this new plan.

Interestingly is not just the UN doing the screeing of Syrians but “surge operation” is coming from Amman, Jordan, so they will do all this within 3 months before they are shipped to the US.

“The administration — whether it's Homeland Security or the FBI, cannot tell us that they can adequately screen people. There isn't really a Syria to talk to on that end of the equation to vet people, so it is a problem,” Ryan told reporters.

The State Department says it has fallen behind schedule in meting Obama’s goal partly due to a lack of personnel available to interview refugees.

It is now doing a “surge operation” in Amman, Jordan, that is designed to process the rest of the Syrian refugees in as little as three months and leave them enough time to get to the U.S. before September.

This is to were to be done by April 28 and the refugees to be in the US by September.

a reply to: marg6043

All this within two years, with the record of incidents that the EU is having with middle eastern immigrants we can not trust the this new plan.

The EU is not the US. Different laws and processes.

Those two years are in line with the 18-24 month screening process.

Since the Syrian War has been going on for 5 years now, I'd say there's a line of people who have gone or are going through that 18-24 month screening process, so it's not a "fast track," but letting more people enter who have been properly screened.

by significantly increasing the number of worldwide refugees it will take in over the next two years.

Sounds like the screening process remains pretty much the same, all they are doing in increasing the allowable number.

Yes, I do think the process will stay pretty much the same.

a reply to: Liquesence

No, let see the math of the speed up screening process, thanks to Center from immigration Studies that also find outs that most of the Syrians comes from Jordan.

First, 600 interviews a day sounds a bit extreme (to say the least). Even speed-dating doesn't have such aspirations. How can a "rigorous security process" be respected under such conditions? Furthermore, why the urgency? We understand that refugees face desperate conditions, but such security and judgment compromises seem irresponsible.

Let's put security issues to the side for now and do the math. Six hundred interviews a day for three months (February 1 to April 28), with a five-day work week, comes to a total of 36,000 interviews. It doesn't add up, unless out of 36,000 interviews only 10,000 are chosen – which equates to a 28 percent approval rate. Perhaps UNHCR staff is not doing such a great referral job after all. Or is it the ceiling that is getting higher as we speak?

Also, why Syrian refugees being resettled from Jordan only? Isn't that discriminating against those in neighboring countries?

There's another puzzling matter. Resettled refugees, as we are often reminded, are the ones who are the most vulnerable, such as victims of torture or extreme trauma, or those in need of special care they cannot find in their country of refuge. Perhaps we missed something, but how does this apply to Al-Abbouds? Why were they selected and not others from the millions of Syrians outside their country who are also suffering from unemployment, destitution, and despair?

cis.org...

Now I did found out that Jordan is holding 620,000 Syrian refugees since 2014 but interestingly They also have 30,000 other Iraqi refugees mostly Christians but US is only taking the Syrian refuges in Jordan.

The more I dig out the more interesting this is becoming.

Christians of Mosul Find Haven in Jordan

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: marg6043

most of the Syrians comes from Jordan.

So what?

thanks to Center from immigration Studies

A biased organization that is for immigration reduction, defeating the DREAM act, and fudging numbers to support its anti-immigrant agenda? Yeah, that one.

John Tanton is responsible for creating a network of anti-immigrant organizations, including Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and Numbers USA.

Tanton is a strict a nativist who once wrote a paper titled “The Case for Passive Eugenics.” He has openly professed his preference for white people, and once said, “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” Later in his life, Tanton tried to start an organization called the Society for Genetic Education.

Link

Sounds like a winner.

Inside The Center For Immigration Studies, The Immigration False-Fact Think Tank (Daily Beast)
Center for Immigration Studies Report Exaggerates Immigrant Welfare Use (CATO)
Why is the Center for Immigration Studies publishing an “alt right” racist? (REDSTATE)

a reply to: Liquesence

You can attack the source but you can not bash the information that happen to be truth and found in many other sources in the net.

US Obama administration have a deal with Jordan that is why the administration is taking only Syrian muslim in Jordan and chrisitans numbers are almost none existant

This plan and bill to fund visas for 300 thousand Syrians muslims was passed amid the surge of refugees to be taking into the US by this year.

Congress Votes To Fund Nearly 300,000 Visas For Muslim Migrants In One Year

The House passed Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, negotiated with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) A majority of House Republicans voted for the measure, which fully funds Obama's refugee resettlement operation, all Mideast immigration programs, Sanctuary Cities, Obama's continued executive amnesty for DREAMers, and the resettlement of illegal aliens within the U.S. interior.

conservativeread.com...

According to the Jordanian Economic and Social Council, the cost of housing Syrian refugees alone could reach as high as $4.2 billion in 2016.

"They will have a strong partner in the United States and we will make sure that our money is where our mouth is," Obama said.

The United States has provided $4.5 billion in aid since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, more than any other country. "No country other than the United States has given us so much," Abdullah said.

So hey we tax payers are already feeding these refugees we as well bring them all and give them house, education, social programs and welfare.

And then people complain why America is not longer for the American Dreamer.

www.bloomberg.com...

Christians Syrians and Iraqis are no welcome

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Liquesence

Sadly with such amount of refugees is bound to open the opportunity for radical terrorist to slip through the cracks of the fast screening.

There is no fast screening. At least in the US. It was a long slow process to begin with but, additional screenings have been added to anyone coming from Syria. It is a staggering slow methodical process which is why the US will not able to reach the 10,000 number the agreed to accept by October. So far we have gotten half done and with only 3 months left we are just going to miss what we thought we could do. The problem being that things in Syria are very fluid and villages exchange hands all the time and if a village ends up occupied by ISIS or another radical group and the refugee still has any family left they their have to re investigate them in case somebody in their family no has contact with ISIS even if they are being occupied by force.

I find it interesting that Obama's Initials are B.O.

His Dog's name is Sunny

His other Dog's name 'the black and white one is called BO.

People have speculated about him being an Islamic Muslim.

is all this code for B.O. is a Sunni Muslim?

Could be...

a reply to: marg6043

Yes, I will criticize a source that is known to fudge numbers to support its bias.

Christians Syrians and Iraqis are no welcome.

Syria has approximately 90% Muslims, and 10% Christian. It makes sense, logically, that there would be significantly more (9x as much) Muslim refugees than Christian refugees.

Muslim 87% (official; includes Sunni 74% and Alawi, Ismaili, and Shia 13%), Christian 10% (includes Orthodox, Uniate, and Nestorian), Druze 3%, Jewish (few remaining in Damascus and Aleppo)

CIA.gov

Back to my original question.

So, should Christians get fast-tracked (less screening) and prioritized over Muslims?

Similar proportions are seen in the number of Syrian refugees having arrived in the U.S. since the start of fiscal year 2016: 2,773 in total, comprising 12 (0.4 percent) Christians, 2,703 (97.4 percent) Sunnis, 17 (0.6 percent) Shi’a, 30 (1.1 percent) other Muslims and 10 (0.3 percent) Yazidis.

And since the conflict erupted, of a total of 4,646 Syrian refugees admitted, 60 (1.3 percent) are Christians; 4,422 (95.1 percent) are Sunni Muslims. The remaining 163 include Shi’a, other Muslims, Zoroastrians, Baha’i, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Yazidi, and refugees identified as “other religion” or as having “no religion.”

[url=http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/1037-syrian-refugees-admitted-may-two-christians-1035-muslims]cnsnews[/ur l]

Yes, it could be a little more proportionate (closer to 10% rather than 1%), but considering the percentages of the religions of those in the country of origin, it's not obscenely disproportionate.

a reply to: MrSpad

US as long as it keeps the funding for the Syrian refuges in Jordan at a pace of $4.5 billion in aid they will keep holding them in Jordan until the process is done, still the biggest issue with all the promised number of the administration refugees that will take In is that it seems Christians are not part of the number.

For some reason Obama and Hilary are of the believe that we are at fault for the crisis in the middle east with the Muslim community and we are to take as many as we can to repopulate America.

Obama on the call to bring more Christian Syrian refuges and from other middle countries like Iraq also.

President Obama said Monday that calls from some quarters for the U.S. to admit only Christian refugees from Syria were “shameful,” yet the reality is that today’s refugee system discriminates, not against Syrian Muslims, but against Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.

Critics say this is because the federal government relies on the United Nations in the refugee application process – and since Syrian Christians are often afraid to register with the U.N., they and other non-Muslims are left out.

Fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other jihadist groups, Syrian Christians generally avoid U.N. refugee camps because they are targeted there too.

www.cnsnews.com...

it sounds like an agenda to me, to repopulate America with one ground of particular religious refugees only.

U.S. policy regarding refugee resettlement would shock most Americans if they only knew. The United Nations picks who gets to come to the U.S. as a refugee. The mandate of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is to determine which of the world’s huddled masses comes to the U.S. as humanitarian refugees. And predictably, this U.N. body is favoring Muslims. Christians from Muslim lands are being refused refugee status.


This is occurring despite the fact that in their home countries, under the Shariah, Christians face persecution and many times certain death for their religious beliefs. At the same time, whole Muslim communities are entering the U.S. by the tens of thousands per month, despite the fact that in their home countries they face no religious persecution.

This is no accident. We know that the U.N. is driven largely by its largest bloc of countries, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It is a religious and political organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”

It is horrifying but true that Afghan Christians are being refused refugee status by the U.N. and many Western nations, including Great Britain. The U.N. claims that Afghan Christians do not meet the criteria for refugee status that is stipulated in Statute 6B of the UNHCR, which requires refugees to have “a well founded fear of persecution by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion.”

Read more at www.wnd.com...

What a shameful way to discriminate base on religion.

I am no blind I know exactly what is going on with the influx of refugees in this nation since Obama is been in power.

The (UNHCR) is a bias discriminatory entity

Anybody that are for the reformation of America will find nothing wrong with all this crap.

a reply to: Liquesence

Sadly it is the Obama administration the one accepting the recommendations of the (UNHCR), they have been discriminating against Christians refugees, but their excuse is that no too many Christians are settling down in the UN refugee camps to be processed for relocation, the reason is that with a majority Muslim refuges in the camps Christians are persecuted, women raped and children killed, that is why Christians opt to go into safe haven but the screening processes is nullify.

Jordan in the other hand have a big group of Syrian and Iraqi Christians refugees but still their priority are only for the Muslim Syrians.

a reply to: marg6043

Again, I ask:

Should Christian refugees be singled out, prioritized, and fast-tracked (less screening) over Muslims?

Very Simple Question.

a reply to: Liquesence

Taking into consideration that is refugees from the middle east that happen to be Christians, you know, Iraqis, Lybian, Syrian and more, including other minority religions, that are persecuted and killed by Islamic fundamentalist groups that target them for been Christians, I think we as a nation with majority Christian community own them a change for a better life.

We have taken since US started to bring refugees under quota in 1965 millions of Muslims, I personally think we have enough already, so let give a break to the Syrian Christians now

After all is plenty of rich Muslim countries that have not taken barely any of their fellow religious counterparts of brothers and sisters they need to stand up and do something.

When you have a president that openly discriminate base on religion when it comes to refugees you most wonder as why.

Is not equality so far, Christians refugees has been left out.

That is the truth.