It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CIS study: UN is choosing who will be NEW Americans!

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Our military is a big government failure??





posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SLAYER69
Yeah. Let them stinky refugees rot. Especially the Syrians. Right?
Not our problem.



Putting words in my mouth eh?

So unlike you. The point being is that's a lot of cheese to fork over for only about 2,000 peeps .


That's what they want you to think. That money helps fund UNHCR that does work in over a hundred countries helping millions of refugees.

If we said the nearly trillion dollar military budget is only for those few people we bombed it would be an equivalent statement to what they are making.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

How does their combined GNP compare to ours?


So you're saying other countries shouldn't foot more of the bill.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69



So you're saying other countries shouldn't foot more of the bill.

No.
Nor am I say that the US should contribute less than it is.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Phage
Um. Why do you make it sound like US authorities play no role? Never mind. It's a rhetorical question.

From the actual report:

Out of the four million-plus registered Syrian refugees in the region, UNHCR has so far submitted 22,427 cases to the United States for resettlement consideration. Of those, about 2,000 were accepted last year.

cis.org...



UNHCR lists two preconditions for resettlement consideration: First, the applicant should be determined by UNHCR to be a refugee. Second, resettlement should be identified as the most appropriate solution after all durable solutions are assessed.

The UNHCR provides an initial determination that applicants have refugee status. US authorities take it from there.


So basically the U.S. is paying an NGO group 4.5 BILLION, to assess people and give us 2,000 new 'citizens'?

...........WHY?




We should all feel warm inside. We are paying for their party vetting.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
So a terrorist has to go through the UN to get into the US.

Can we blame the UN when one gets through and goes boom killing US citizens on US soil?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP


So a terrorist has to go through the UN to get into the US.
No.


Can we blame the UN when one gets through and goes boom killing US citizens on US soil?
No. Because the final call is in the hands of US authorities.

In any case, it is more likely that terrorists would use other means of entry than refugee status.


edit on 1/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP


So a terrorist has to go through the UN to get into the US.
No.


Can we blame the UN when one gets through and goes boom killing US citizens on US soil?
No. Because the final call is in the hands of US authorities.


The terrorist gets selected by the UN to ever even see those US authorities. If you blame the US authorities for one getting through, how come you have no blame for the UN for letting one through, spending our own money doing so in a sick twist besides?
edit on 17-1-2016 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

how come you have no blame for the UN for letting one through,
Because the limitations of the UNCHR screening process are known and taken into account before a refugee is admitted.

It is an initial screening. It is not the only screening.

edit on 1/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
What a weird thread. Everyone is ganging up on the only sane voice of reason.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: MrSpad



I'd like to see a higher yield of refugees, not just 2,000. I'm glad we are helping people but like all things done through the UN there seems to be a lot of pork.

I'd love to see a real world break down of money spent vs objectives achieved.


ETA: A bigger bang for my buck.




^THIS, Slayer.
Where are we at for cost per head, 2.5 mil? That's a lot
of bacon and peanut butters on toast for an Arkansas
consolation/hangover party.
We the People are getting toasted, and I'm out of peanut
butter again. In fact, I can't think of enough dry goods in
the interim that would cost half as much for a lifetime supply:
except enough 7.62x39s to make me feel comfortable.
Molon Later



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: derfreebie




Where are we at for cost per head, 2.5 mil? T

No. There are actually millions of refugees in more than 100 countries who have been and are being helped.

edit on 1/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Um. Why do you make it sound like US authorities play no role? Never mind. It's a rhetorical question.


True the US did play a role.

Refugees it created by it's asinine foreign policies.

Kinda like the 'war on drugs' and the epic falure of NAFTA.

The more unstable a region is the current administration's party gets instant voters.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join