Obama Directs Administration to Accept 10,000 Syrian Refugees

WASHINGTON — President Obama, under increasing pressure to demonstrate that the United States is joining European nations in the effort to resettle Syrian refugees, has told his administration to take in at least 10,000 displaced Syrians over the next year.

At a briefing at the White House on Thursday, the press secretary, Josh Earnest, said the United States would “accept at least 10,000 refugees in the next fiscal year,” which begins Oct. 1.

NY Times source article

Brace yourselves, Syrians are coming!

Where are they going?

And don't we have enough incoming uncontrolled as is that we need to add ten thousand more?

I suppose that's a drop in the bucket though compared to what's coming in through our southern border, so why not, eh?

ETA:

What will the demographics be of this 10,000? Women and children or will it primarily be men aged 18-30?



ETA, also:

"has told his administration to take in at least 10,000 displaced Syrians over the next year." By this does he mean himself and everyone who works for him will personally house, clothe, and feed any of the incoming thousands?

Thought not.

They are fleeing civil war and are therefore legitimate refugees (in my eyes.)
The USA is a civilized country.
Sounds reasonable to me.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The State Department said yesterday that it usually takes 18 to 24 months for the Department of Homeland Security to determine if a refugee is eligible to be resettled here, after conducting checks of possible criminal or terrorist backgrounds. Since the beginning of the conflict in Syria more than four years ago the United States has taken only 1,300 refugees.

Think this should be mentioned as well, we are not about to get 10k just on our door step come 1 Oct.

why so few?that's way less than the numbers arriving to europe in just one day!

sounds like lip service to sound a bit diplomatic meanwhile he (well his puppetmasters) r working on the underlying agenda:

a reply to: Sremmos80

Oh, I know how glacially anything government related is as far as timelines go.

Regardless, the plan has been articulated and is in the works.

What if, as many other govt. initiatives, it grows beyond the original scope?

a reply to: Elton

If this is the case, then why is it that so many of fighting age are among those who are fleeing?

Should they not be the ones staying behind and sending their women and children to the safety of the host countries rather than leave them there to face whatever horrors may be visited upon them?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It might, it says so in article and the admin is being up front about it.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Women and children would be targets on the trip there too, kind of a catch 22 for them IMO.
Much more likely the man makes it unharmed then the woman and children.

UK accepted our part in this mess.

We are takei g 20,0000

10,000 least you can do.

WE, our two countrys gave arms and training to the monsters over running the area and both our country turned libya into a lawless state.

What ironic its those that preach personal responsibility will bitch and moan when there countrys forced to take responsibility for some of the mayhem thats going on.


Dont get me wrong, im still 100% illegal immigration.

But im not going to moan about helping some refugees from a place my country helped trash.
So long as its all done sensiblely with regulation and background checks.

There are also other concerns:

"Congress would need to make a significant financial commitment to ramping up," he said, noting the additional background checks and processing would require greater staffing.

"I do feel confident in telling you that the president will not sign off on a process that cuts corners when it comes to the basic safety and security of the American people and the U.S. homeland," Earnest also said.

White House says U.S. security top concern regarding refugees

Another question I would pose, is would this not also open up the possibility of a black market in identities to prove refugee status?

I doubt the areas of the world where the refugees are coming from have anything resembling records control and retention policies in place.

How in the name of Hades can we verify backgrounds of someone from a region where such chaos has reigned for so long a time?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical



If the US does what the UK does they wont just pick at random.

They will take only from the refugee camps with women and children first and only those with solid backgrounds.


Germany are the ones doing it the stupid way.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

No, I imagine they don't want to die in a war. Why would they stay behind?

a reply to: crazyewok

I'm with you insofar as my our countries' responsibility for the general discord that plagues the middle east right now. We've got our noses in too many places as far as I am concerned and the entire world would be much better of if we backed of in many places.

That isn't going to happen any time soon because people with much bigger houses than you or I will ever have are the ones who decide who gets invaded and where the invadees end up.

This is politics, nothing more. Not a serious attempt to address an issue which is older than our country or your country, or indeed any nations currently or ever extant upon earth and goes to the heart of mankind.

The desire for power over others and a lack of scruples which would prevent anything from stopping certain people from amassing as much of that power as possible.

I don't see a problem. There's 320,000,000+ people in the US right now. We won't even notice another 10,000.

a reply to: crazyewok

They will take only from the refugee camps with women and children first and only those with solid backgrounds.

I hope you're right, but you and I both know how much an oxymoron "government organization" is.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

What if, say, 1% of them mean us ill will and are sleeper agents?

Do you think we would notice 100 people committing the kind of terrorist acts we see in places they are fleeing?

sounds fair because without US intervention in that region there would be no IS and no mass exodus, imo.

on the other hand i fear there will be jihadi warriors among them.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: crazyewok

They will take only from the refugee camps with women and children first and only those with solid backgrounds.

I hope you're right, but you and I both know how much an oxymoron "government organization" is.

Actually you have a point.

The government could not organise a piss up in a brewery!

10,000 more people to be supported by government handouts.

originally posted by: anticitizen
sounds fair because without US intervention in that region there would be no IS and no mass exodus, imo.

on the other hand i fear there will be jihadi warriors among them.

I guess its a case of living with our own consequences.

Hopefully though if its just women, children and families and the leave the single angry men behind it will minimise the risk.