Syrian Refugee, A Review.

My fellow classmate Nicole Arnold, posted an article on her blog, Hello Government 2305!, concerning the controversial topic of Syrian refugees entering the United States. In my previous article, I also discussed the same topic, however our views appear to be diametrically opposed. I do not agree that everyone has the “right” to come to the U.S. for asylum. In war torn countries, individuals should still be subjected to the process of background checks, interviews, etc.

The problem is no longer simply about aiding refugees in need of asylum. It’s about protecting the American people who are subjected to harm from offering asylum to Syrian refugees, in the chance that a terrorist might slip through. It is devastating to see the effects of war, and what the refugees endure on a daily basis, however women and children cannot be discounted as a potential threat. ISIS has been using women and children for years to commit violent acts.

Furthermore, I think that it is out of context to say that the governors, who are voicing out their concerns of having refugees relocated in their states, are condemning all refugees as terrorists. That is simply not the case; their concern is not for the refugees as a whole, but the individuals who make it past all of the screenings that are indeed gaining entry to cause harm. Even with the strict processes a refugee must go through in order to seek asylum in the United States, it is still highly possible for an “unknown” member of ISIS to enter as a wolf among sheep.

Nation Founded on Immigrants, Fearful of Terrorist

As the country of Syria is continually devastated by a civil war, incited by the Nations own President Bashar al-Assad, and infested by the terrorist regime of ISIS, millions of Syrian refugees are fleeing their country. These refugees are finding asylum in other nations such as Turkey, Lebanon, and France. After the deadly attacks on Paris in mid November, many Americans have a heightened sense of fear that allowing Syrian refugees into the United States will condemn our Nation the same fate.

Amongst the fear, there also seems to be a confusion of how the vetting processes for these refugees will take place. The confusion isn’t just from the average American citizen; it also is shared by some members holding political office. Just this past week, the House of Representatives passed a bill 289 – 137, requiring tougher screening procedures for refugees entering the United States. The current procedure is as follows: First, a refugee must submit an application to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The UNHC will then collect documents and conduct baseline interviews. After that application is accepted the State departments begin their vetting processes. More info is collected, security screenings are conducted by the National Counter Terrorism Center, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security. Syrians in particular have an additional screening called the Syrian Enhanced Review, which includes further vetting by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fraud Detection and National Security Directors. After those interviews, refugees are then finger printed and cross-referenced through the FBI, Homeland Security, and Department of Defense databases.  Then health screenings are conducted. After all of these processes, the refugees are enrolled into cultural integration classes, while their backgrounds are continuously being checked for any new or missed information. All of this occurs before they are admitted onto United States soil. This current process takes up to 18-24 months. The House bill that passed on November 19^th will require the FBI director, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to sign off on each and every refugee.

We can all agree that this process is to date, the most rigorous screening we have to be admitted into the U.S.  Even this rigorous process isn’t enough to guarantee that a terrorist will not slip in amongst the refugees. Over two-dozen governors have stated that they will attempt to stop refugees from entering their states if the U.S government grants them asylum. I don’t believe there is an easy answer to this situation. On one hand America is a nation founded on immigrants, a nation that sees itself as a “guardian” of the world, but on the other it has suffered greatly from devastating terrorist acts.  I don’t believe that the American people are ready to take this burden onto their own soil. Extending aid and military forces into war-ridden countries is one thing, but I do not foresee citizens welcoming even the slightest prospect of a single terrorist slip through. For the American people this may be the case of one bad apple spoiling the bunch.

More Reviews of Obamacare...

My fellow classmate Jason Figg, posted an article on his blog Ranting of a reformed hippy, concerning the effects on the average citizen without health insurance. In a previous article, I also discussed the same topic, and as a individual who can relate to Mr. Figg's view, I couldn't agree more. Why should an individual without health care be forced to pay a yearly penalty? When the reason for not having health insurance, is that it is unaffordable to the "average" working American citizens, that do not qualify for subsides. I full heartedly agree that Obamacare favors big insurance companies. This will eventually lead to a demise of the small privatized insurance companies. I concur with Mr. Figg's statement that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

U.S. Makes Lackluster Stance In Syria

Whether you support the involvement of the U.S. Government in the Syria crisis or not, it is clear that something needs to be done. Just today it was announced, that the U.S. would be deploying fifty members of U.S. Special Operations Forces into Syria. These Operators will be deployed to the northern region of Syria to train and in some cases, with the approval of Washington, fight alongside Syrian rebel forces. The president also ordered A10 and F15 fighters to near by Turkey.

With these actions, it is discernable that the White House was beginning to feel the pressure of the Syrian conflict. Sending the operators and fighter planes has been the most significant effort by the U.S. to date. The White House has stated that its strategy in Syria has not changed. Is there a strategy? Does not having a strategy, classify as having a strategy? Is this gesture by the U.S. too little, too late? I would argue that it is indeed far too little and far too late.  With Russia’s behavior seemingly to be aiding Assad’s power rather than fighting ISIS, and its suspicious bombing patterns in Syria, the U.S. needs to make a bigger move. Fifty operators are just not enough to put a significant stop to ISIS. The U.S. government needs to come up with a more encompassing plan, one that includes more troops than just a mere fifty operators. ISIS is a global threat, growing larger in numbers and destructive capabilities by the day.

In my opinion these actions, or lack of actions make our President seem weak in the eyes of our enemy. It reinforces the idea that the President has no intention of eliminating ISIS, and is simply riding the clock out.  Lacking an effective plan for eradicating ISIS also demonstrates to our allies that the United States of America is unreliable.

Thanks Obama... Care

Since 2014, as an American citizen, it is required by law under the Affordable Care Act, that you acquire health insurance. If you do not obtain health insurance, you are subjected to a yearly fee added onto your taxes. After the Affordable Care Act was implemented, the fee percentage increases each consecutive year. The act isn’t completely black and white. Many Americans that could benefit from a policy such as this are not eligible to register in the market place. Even a full time college student who makes less than $15,000 a year would not be eligible for insurance under this act.

In a recent article titled “Obama lied, my health plan died…twice!” by Michelle Malkin (a nationally syndicated columnist), describes her own nightmare dealing with the Affordable Care Act and its effect on private health insurance companies. Malkin chronicles the events leading to, two separate instance’s where “action was required” or her Obama care insurance plan would be canceled.  She claims in her article that individual market PPO’s are being evaporated. Malkin also states that private practices are disappearing as doctors relocate into big hospital wagons. She also argues that "only a handful of critics predicted in 2010 that one consequence of Obama Care would be the return of HMOs. But, in retrospect, no one should be surprised."

In my opinion, I agree with Malkins overall assessment, and that the program is flawed. I have dealt with its loop-holes of disqualifying individuals who should be eligible to enroll. I also agree that the PPO’s are being evaporated. Private insurances cannot compete when the market is being subsidized.  Her statement that doctors are leaving private practices for large hospitals is also true. Private practices cannot keep up with the cheaper pay percentages from the insurance companies provided by the open market place, and their practice most often goes under. Maybe a fresh look at the program in the next year can solve this debacle. 

Obama, Putin, Syria

As continuous turmoil rages in the Middle East, the U.S. has welcomed Russian prominence in the effort to relieve Syria. Even among the urgency to clear radicals from Syria, the United States plan of action for dealing with Syria seems to be largely unclear. Now that Russia has a strong and welcomed foot into the door, it could become problematic for U.S. operations.

In an article from the Washington Post, titled, “Obama’s Syria debacle”, the author Charles Krauthammer (a Pulitzer Prize winner), argues that President Obama had been “out maneuvered” by the Russians, claiming the administration should feel humiliated. He also goes on to say that Putin is acting so expeditiously because he sees President Obama as an “open door” with his “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” approach. He also argued that the President was blind to the fact that conflict and coercion have not become an old way of the past. Krauthammer contended that the Presidents administration blamed Russia for the late announced airstrike campaign against anti-Assad allies, determining the fault to the “unprofessional behavior of Russia”.

In my opinion, Charles Krauthammer’s article was extremely honest and astute. The U.S. administration was absolutely out maneuvered by Putin. Weeks before the President welcomed Russia into the Syria effort, he contended Russia’s efforts would be a “doomed failure”. Russia already had disdain for the U.S. before the Syrian conflict, after such actions, who could believe that they would be fully accommodating for the U.S? When the Russians launched their airstrike, giving the U.S. a mere 48 hours to clear their efforts, that action gave wind to how things would be forthcoming. I do agree that Putin sees the President as a leader who is slow to intervene, and that he is taking advantage of the time he has left in office.