Cato Institute: Syrian Refugees Don't Pose a Serious Security Threat

[AUUSN 823]

Oh and Mr. Salty, the State Department has spoken to 15,000 Syrians who said that would very much like to come to the US. I'd say that's a lot more than Ben Carson, huh?

"As of mid-2015, UNHCR had referred more than 15,000 Syrian refugees to the United States for resettlement, who are being screened to determine their eligibility. The usual vetting time for Syrian refugees is 18 to 24 months, according to the State Department."

I will take Dr. Carson's word over our DOS and Kerry's political stuff any day. Surely you don't believe much of what the U.N. propogates. In any event if it takes 18-24 months to do the vetting it will all be irrevelant.

What word is there to take? The numbers dont lie, unlike Dr. 'Westpoint' Carson.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Surely you jest. These numbers are about as credible as those put out by the WH on Obamacare. I have lots of respect for Dr. Carson. You are free to decide who you wish to believe. You throw out numbers without knowing who came up with them. They may be Gruber numbers.

[AUUSN 823]

Surely you jest. These numbers are about as credible as those put out by the WH on Obamacare. I have lots of respect for Dr. Carson. You are free to decide who you wish to believe. You throw out numbers without knowing who came up with them. They may be Gruber numbers.

Oh I know where they came from.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states

So then you'll post your numbers to refute mine? I'll wait.

[Guest NC1406]

These people should be going to other countries in the ME. Nome of the 5 wealthiest countries there have taken in any of them. That's where we should be applying pressure on. They share the same language and culture.

They are going to those countries. Turkey has 2.2 million refugees and has assimilated hundreds of thousands permanently. Lebanon has over 1.1 million refugees and are assimilating tens of thousands. Same for Jordan (630,000 refugees), Egypt and Iraq (tens of thousands). Saudi Arabia and UAE have both taken in hundreds of thousands, but don't classify them as refugees under the UN definitions.

This meme that somehow the ME countries aren't doing their part is bogus.

These people amaze me. When it comes to waging war, we should be everywhere but when it comes to humanitarian issues, we should let other countries handle it...

IMO our country needs to be more selective on both fronts. Every action has unintended consequences whether it be waging war or attempts at humanitarian relief.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Surely you jest. These numbers are about as credible as those put out by the WH on Obamacare. I have lots of respect for Dr. Carson. You are free to decide who you wish to believe. You throw out numbers without knowing who came up with them. They may be Gruber numbers.

Oh I know where they came from.

http://www.migration...s-united-states

So then you'll post your numbers to refute mine? I'll wait.

To bad you spent so much time. The article says NOTHING about current Syrian refugees wanting to come to the U.S. as you originally claimed so I stand by Dr. Carson's report. But just so you feel better....I' watching the Browns -Raven game and tweeted Johnny Football to ask his opinion. He said he agrees with you and you were welcome to join him on the pine. Good night......Rather watch the game rather than wasting my tome in this endless discussion.

[AUUSN 823]

Surely you jest. These numbers are about as credible as those put out by the WH on Obamacare. I have lots of respect for Dr. Carson. You are free to decide who you wish to believe. You throw out numbers without knowing who came up with them. They may be Gruber numbers.

Oh I know where they came from.

http://www.migration...s-united-states

So then you'll post your numbers to refute mine? I'll wait.

To bad you spent so much time. The article says NOTHING about current Syrian refugees wanting to come to the U.S. as you originally claimed so I stand by Dr. Carson's report. But just so you feel better....I' watching the Browns -Raven game and tweeted Johnny Football to ask his opinion. He said he agrees with you and you were welcome to join him on the pine. Good night......Rather watch the game rather than wasting my tome in this endless discussion.

15000 Syrians seeking refugee status = 15000 Syrians who want to come to America.

[AUUSN 823]

These people should be going to other countries in the ME. Nome of the 5 wealthiest countries there have taken in any of them. That's where we should be applying pressure on. They share the same language and culture.

They are going to those countries. Turkey has 2.2 million refugees and has assimilated hundreds of thousands permanently. Lebanon has over 1.1 million refugees and are assimilating tens of thousands. Same for Jordan (630,000 refugees), Egypt and Iraq (tens of thousands). Saudi Arabia and UAE have both taken in hundreds of thousands, but don't classify them as refugees under the UN definitions.

This meme that somehow the ME countries aren't doing their part is bogus.

These people amaze me. When it comes to waging war, we should be everywhere but when it comes to humanitarian issues, we should let other countries handle it...

IMO our country needs to be more selective on both fronts. Every action has unintended consequences whether it be waging war or attempts at humanitarian relief.

From Adam Smith's wealth of nations...

[quietfan 233]

As I posted in another thread. Please watch.

https://www.facebook...53055728726682/

I'm sure his visuals affected some, but his logic and self-consistency are pretty weak:

1. He says us taking in a million or two makes no significant humanitarian difference anyway, so it's foolish to try. Well sure, it's only a small drop in a very large bucket when measured against the billions in need, but it makes a huge difference, perhaps a life-or-death difference, to those we do welcome. When you help a million people, I'd say that's a significant humanitarian difference worth applauding and continuing! Are we to not try at all, or reject all humanitarian efforts, simply because we'll can't help everyone? "We can't fix all the problems, so let's quit trying to fix anyone's?" "There aren't enough lifeboats on the Titanic to save all of us, so let's not let anyone into the boats."

2. "That million is too small to be significant and won't make a dent in the problem" he implies. But then accuses us of hurting their home economies by taking away a million potential hard workers that might help them. He can't have it both ways: Is that million a significant number or not?

3. He lets the gumballs in the U.S. glass lie there as if they remain a separate entity, presumably a burden. The story of immigration in this country for its 200+yr history has overwhelming been that most immigrants (and not just from European countries) do assimilate. This country was built on the hard work of immigrants who came to be part of the American Dream, who assimilated, and ultimately contributed: immigrants who wanted to be in America and become American because it's a land of opportunity where they have a chance to be successful, not because they wanted to become parasites in a continuing morass of poverty. If he claims bringing them here creates a drain on the labor/talent of their homelands, he has to concede that same labor/talent can be an asset to ours.

Sure, not every immigrant assimilates or contributes, but those are the minority. Not every native-born resident of this land assimilates or contributes either, but most do. Generally speaking, legal immigrants have even more motivation to fit in, to prove their value, and to be accepted in their new home. (And let's not confuse remembering one's roots, loving the songs and customs of one's childhood, or treasuring the foods and traditions in which one was raised with 'not assimilating' or 'not contributing'. How many of us would be celebrating Christmas or speaking English if we or our ancestors had abandoned all our native culture upon arriving on these shores?)

4. He laments population growth in poor countries and throws it into the argument that "we can't make a difference anyway". Population growth is absolutely a problem for our planet. But isn't it more likely that those who immigrate here are less likely to reproduce here, in a land where contraception is cheap, legally/readily available, and culturally acceptable, where women have a greater voice in their own lives, where one can secure one's future through one's own work rather than hoping to have enough children that at least one will care for you in old age, than in countries where none of that is available?

- - - - - - -

Aside from the Gumball video:

Yes, we are a secular nation, and government policy cannot be based on purely religious doctrine, even charitable/humanitarian policy or doctrine. But caring for 'the tired, the poor, the wretched refuse" is both a Christian and an American value (as well as a tenant of every major religion). Even atheists practice charity. Speaking for myself, I couldn't call myself a Christian or an American if I didn't care or try to help.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

[TitanTiger 20,516]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

Because it's a false dilemma. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand to put two things in opposition to one another that simply aren't. If you want homeless vets taken care of, work for that. It is not tied to the refugee issue at all.

[AURaptor 1,127]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

Good question.

I can guess the answer.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

Because it's a false dilemma. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand to put two things in opposition to one another that simply aren't. If you want homeless vets taken care of, work for that. It is not tied to the refugee issue at all.

Thanks for your opinon. I disagree.

[TitanTiger 20,516]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

Because it's a false dilemma. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand to put two things in opposition to one another that simply aren't. If you want homeless vets taken care of, work for that. It is not tied to the refugee issue at all.

Thanks for your opinon. I disagree.

Disagree all you want. Doesn't change the fact that one is not dependent upon the other.

[AUUSN 823]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

Start a thread on Vet homelessness and stop trying to derail this one.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

Because it's a false dilemma. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand to put two things in opposition to one another that simply aren't. If you want homeless vets taken care of, work for that. It is not tied to the refugee issue at all.

Thanks for your opinon. I disagree.

Disagree all you want. Doesn't change the fact that one is not dependent upon the other.

Thank you for giving me that permission. I graciously accept and still disagree.

[TitanTiger 20,516]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

Because it's a false dilemma. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand to put two things in opposition to one another that simply aren't. If you want homeless vets taken care of, work for that. It is not tied to the refugee issue at all.

Thanks for your opinon. I disagree.

Disagree all you want. Doesn't change the fact that one is not dependent upon the other.

Thank you for giving me that permission. I graciously accept and still disagree.

You may as well disagree that the sky being blue is not dependent upon whether or not you showered today. We can take care of homeless vets AND take in refugees. We can do neither. One has zilch to do with the other. That is fact.

Do we honestly need to have remedial courses here on the difference between fact and opinion?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Again I say I respect your opinion. But I still disagree. All I'm saying is let's make helping our 60,000 homeless vets a top priority. Do you think we currently are. The issue is priority and it's a little narcissistic to tell me your opinion is fact.

[TitanTiger 20,516]

Again I say I respect your opinion. But I still disagree. All I'm saying is let's make helping our 60,000 homeless vets a top priority. Do you think we currently are. The issue is priority and it's a little narcissistic to tell me your opinion is fact.

It is a fact. It is a factual statement that taking care of homeless vets is not dependent upon whether or not we take in 10,000 refugees next year. It's not a zero sum game.

That's not an opinion, nor is it narcissistic to point this out to you.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Again I say I respect your opinion. But I still disagree. All I'm saying is let's make helping our 60,000 homeless vets a top priority. Do you think we currently are. The issue is priority and it's a little narcissistic to tell me your opinion is fact.

It is a fact. It is a factual statement that taking care of homeless vets is not dependent upon whether or not we take in 10,000 refugees next year. It's not a zero sum game.

That's not an opinion, nor is it narcissistic to point this out to you.

OK so let's say they are separate. What is the priority, refugees or homeless vets? If you say vets, tell me what we are doing and where is all the symphathy such as is being given/expressed about the refugees.

[homersapien 11,455]

No one seems to want to touch the question.......why don't we help our almost 60,000 homeless vets before we take in thousands of refugees?

Because it's a false dilemma. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand to put two things in opposition to one another that simply aren't. If you want homeless vets taken care of, work for that. It is not tied to the refugee issue at all.

Thanks for your opinon. I disagree.

Disagree all you want. Doesn't change the fact that one is not dependent upon the other.

Thank you for giving me that permission. I graciously accept and still disagree.

You may as well disagree that the sky being blue is not dependent upon whether or not you showered today. We can take care of homeless vets AND take in refugees. We can do neither. One has zilch to do with the other. That is fact.

Do we honestly need to have remedial courses here on the difference between fact and opinion?

Are you kidding? The whole country could use such a course - if not the world.

It's a built-in flaw that comes with being human. An evolutionary "spandrel" that's not benign (as Gould would put it).

[homersapien 11,455]

Again I say I respect your opinion. But I still disagree. All I'm saying is let's make helping our 60,000 homeless vets a top priority. Do you think we currently are. The issue is priority and it's a little narcissistic to tell me your opinion is fact.

It is a fact. It is a factual statement that taking care of homeless vets is not dependent upon whether or not we take in 10,000 refugees next year. It's not a zero sum game.

That's not an opinion, nor is it narcissistic to point this out to you.

OK so let's say they are separate. What is the priority, refugees or homeless vets? If you say vets, tell me what we are doing and where is all the symphathy such as is being given/expressed about the refugees.

[TitanTiger 20,516]

OK so let's say they are separate. What is the priority, refugees or homeless vets? If you say vets, tell me what we are doing and where is all the symphathy such as is being given/expressed about the refugees.

You're still pitting two things against each other as if we can't do both. But since you asked...

In 2010, the Administration released Opening Doors, the nation’s first-ever strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. Among other things, this plan set forward an aggressive strategy to end Veteran homelessness.

Since that time, through focused collaboration with governors, mayors, private sector and philanthropic partners, Congress, and others, we have made tremendous strides in reducing Veteran homelessness. Cities across the country – from New Orleans and Houston to Mobile and Winston-Salem – have already announced that they have put an end to Veteran homelessness. The overall Veteran homelessness has decreased by 36 percent since 2010, and unsheltered homelessness has decreased by nearly 50 percent, resulting in tens of thousands fewer Veterans on the streets and without a place to stay. And the VA is serving more Veterans than ever before with specialized homelessness or at-risk services.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/veterans/ending-homelessness

That one-third number struck us. Does Obama have the facts to back it up?

One independent agency dedicated to fighting homelessness thinks so. On the "Veterans" page of the National Alliance to End Homelessness’ website, it reads, "In 2009, the Obama Administration committed to ending veteran homelessness in the U.S. by the end of 2015. Since 2010, there has been a 33 percent decrease in the number of homeless veterans."

Nan Roman, the CEO and president of the Alliance, said the 33 percent decrease is backed by the yearly "point in time," called PIT, count of homeless veterans.

Every year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) releases a detailed report about the state of homelessness in the United States to Congress, called the Annual Homeless Assessment Report. The 2014 report reported 49,933 homeless veterans according to the point in time count, a 32.57 percent decrease from the 2009 count of 74,050.

The 2015 numbers are not yet available, but Roman said she expects further decreases.

National "point in time" counts were first conducted in 2009, during the peak of the recession, so it is possible that the decline in homelessness among veterans has been symptomatic of the larger national economic recovery. But the count has been largely consistent since then.

But what is a "point in time" count, and what do other metrics say about veteran homelessness?

According to Dennis Culhane, a professor who studies homelessness at the University of Pennsylvania, the PIT count is conducted around the same time every year by individual cities. The number is supposed to reflect the total number of homeless people, "sheltered" and "unsheltered," on a given night in a given city. Cities must do a count if they are to receive HUD funding.

The "sheltered" count is easy. When homeless people stay in temporary, government-sponsored housing, they have to register with city officials. It’s the "unsheltered" population, the people living on the street, who pose a counting challenge

According to Culhane, not every city counts the same way. Some literally count by hand the number of homeless people living on the street. Some estimate based on how likely it is to find a homeless person in a given area of a city. And some even change their counting methodology from year to year, forcing revised estimates that can change the national number.

Despite some inevitable discrepancies, Roman said the PIT numbers are consistent.

"They may be imperfect, but they’re imperfect in the same way every single year," Roman said.

Further complicating things, it can be difficult to ascertain whether certain unsheltered homeless people are veterans. Sometimes, those who have served do not identify as such, or, on the flip side, people exaggerate their service.

The PIT count also isn’t the only statistic for counting the homeless veteran population. Brian Sullivan, the supervisory public affairs specialist at HUD, pointed us to both the PIT number and the one-year estimate of sheltered veterans, a different metric. That number isn’t limited by the small time frame of the PIT count. It uses an entire year’s worth of data.

The one-year estimate of sheltered veterans does not support the 33 percent number Obama offered. According to the most recent data, there were just 6.5 percent fewer homeless veterans from 2009 to 2013.

But Roman and Culhane say the PIT number is preferred over the one-year estimate because the PIT takes into account both sheltered and unsheltered veterans.

"I would use the PIT count. Annual data would be strong, if they included all veterans (i.e., unsheltered as well as sheltered)," Roman wrote in an email. "Over one-third of the homeless veteran population is unsheltered on a given night. That is a large percentage of the population to ignore."

Culhane said the biggest drop in the homeless veteran population has been among the unsheltered, so ignoring that slice of the population would be counterintuitive.

The only reason to be skeptical of the Annual Homeless Assessment Report numbers, Roman said, would be because they are pretty much the only numbers available.

"It’s the administration reporting on the administration’s data, and we don’t have any verification of it," Roman said.

Culhane, who helps with the count as the director of research for the VA’s National Center for Homelessness Among Veterans, said there were multiple reasons to believe the numbers.

For one, he pointed out, individual communities conduct the counts.

For another, Obama and Congress together have thrown a lot of money at this problem in recent years.

"In 2009, the federal budget for veteran homelessness was $400 million and that paid for a transitional housing program that was basically a fancy shelter," he said. "Now the budget is $1.5 billion."

Roman agreed. "There’s a lot of work going on in communities to find every veteran, and there’s a lot of money being spent to get them into housing," she said. She pointed to the Supportive Services for Veterans Families and HUD-VA Supportive Housing programs, which have both cut down significantly on the cost of housing for homeless veterans.

Our ruling

Obama said, "Let’s take something like homelessness among veterans. So we’ve cut that by a third." According to the most recent, best available data, he’s right. During his tenure, homelessness among veterans has decreased 32.57 percent. However, that number is based on estimates that have an element of uncertainty. Also, funding to end homelessness among veterans has received bipartisan support in Congress. Still, Obama’s point is largely accurate, and we rate his statement Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/28/barack-obama/obama-says-veteran-homelessness-has-been-cut-third/

In effort to end veteran homelessness by 2015, this $270 million doesn’t hurt

The Washington Post

By Emily Wax-Thibodeaux

The Obama administration has announced a new round of funding to help meet its goal of ending veteran homelessness by 2015, pumping nearly $270 million into programs aimed at addressing the problem.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs on Wednesday said they would dedicate $62 million toward a rental-assistance program that could bring more than 9,000 chronically homeless veterans off the streets.

The move came one day after VA Secretary Robert McDonald announced an additional $207 million in funding for rapid-assistance grants to help up to 70,000 veterans and their families keep their homes or return to permanent housing.

http://www.endveteranhomelessness.org/news/effort-end-veteran-homelessness-2015-270-million-doesn%E2%80%99t-hurt

First lady Michelle Obama has a proposition for any landlord eager to unload vacant space.

FLOTUS recently called on landlords and property owners around the U.S. to consider opening up units to homeless veterans, a move she considers a “smart thing to do for your business.”

Through her Mayor’s Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness, Obama is working to end chronic veteran homelessness this year. And while she, together with the Department of Veteran Affairs, and participating government leaders have made significant inroads, Obama sees an untapped resource in landlords across the U.S.

In a taped statement, Obama urged more landlords to consider getting involved with the Supportive Services for Veteran Families program, an initiative that provides grants to nonprofits and consumer cooperatives on behalf of vets in need and to be more receptive to accepting HUD-VASH vouchers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michelle-obama-urges-landlords-to-take-in-homeless-veterans_56463bd6e4b08cda3488b101

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Good to see. It needs more attention. Do you know who is administering the effort? I hope it's not the VA. we know how effective they are.

[AUUSN 823]

Good to see. It needs more attention.

Things that make you go hmm.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Good to see. It needs more attention.

Things that make you go hmm.

Constipated, or just your usual valuable contribution?