Top papal aide says Vatican ‘worried’ about Trump’s refugee order

[_Abyssinia]

Kuwait has recently banned visas from five majority Muslim countries: moroccoworldnews.com/2017/02/207227/kuwait-proclaims-visa-bans-for-five-muslim-countries/

Genuinely, has the Vatican released a statement about what Kuwait has done?
Kuwait is presumably doing this, like the reasons the US is, because both countries believe it is in the best interests of their people in regards to taking a security measure, when they are dealing with particular countries which have questionable vetting procedures and security risks? Is this unreasonable in the world we currently we live in and the threats that are faced?

I understand the Vatican concern for refugees in these countries, and it’s right and good to be concerned about the welfare of refugees, but if the vetting procedures are not stringent enough in these countries or need to be reviewed and tightened, that could well end up helping refugees who end up in the USA.

As for the border wall on the Southern/US border, having a wall could help to decrease the huge number of drugs that are coming across that border. Many lives could be saved. There is also illegal immigration, and countless people have died trying to cross that border and illegal immigrants get exploited through cheap labour. If you have a wall that is deemed to be extremely tough to get through, that could end up saving lives by deterring people from trying to get into the USA illegally, and also a country has a right to protect its borders. Also if there is a porous border, that is a terrorism risk. Israel saw a massive decrease in illegal immigration after the Israel-Egypt Barrier was built.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I understand the Vatican concern for refugees in these countries, and it’s right and good to be concerned about the welfare of refugees, but if the vetting procedures are not stringent enough in these countries or need to be reviewed and tightened…

That might be true if there were any evidence that the vetting procedures for immigrants is not stringent enough already. Do you know of any such evidence?

 

[seekerz]

That might be true if there were any evidence that the vetting procedures for immigrants is not stringent enough already. Do you know of any such evidence?

That is the question I would dearly love to see answered in a logical, factual way by either side.

I’m back from a long sojourn from this board. I have been following the discussions but not posting, perhaps because at this time I"m more concerned about listening and learning how others feel, than in sharing my own views.

So my question is the same as LeafByNiggle’s, but a little more detailed:

• is there a vetting process now?
• what exactly (as in steps) does that process entail for the people affected by this EO?
• has the current vetting process - if it exists - been analyzed and found to be deficient?
• what is the criteria for vetting to be considered adequate?

Any numbers, charts, graphs or official documents in the public domain would make this discussion more about facts and less about opinions of opinions of the facts.

If the Pope has his aide make a statement of this sort, I would think that gives the matter sufficient importance to merit a discussion based on the facts.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed light on my queries.

 

[graciew]

That might be true if there were any evidence that the vetting procedures for immigrants is not stringent enough already. Do you know of any such evidence?

I can share our new visa procedures as from Jan 27.for Argentina.
You do not need an interview at the Consulate if you are under 14 or older than 79. Until then it was going to be modified below 16 and over 66 you could work it out through the mail ( but it didn t happen in the light of new instructions Jan 27)
And no interview now if your visa has expired within 12 months and not 4 years .
As usual first time visa requires interview.
This will increase the waiting time for visa issuing.
This is where I live. It isn t much of a change.for most frequent travellers keep their visas renewed timely.
If you change the visa type,say you had a tourist and now you need an L type,as usual a new interview is required with all documentation.
Now if you " use" our country as a means into US,you will certainly have to face the usual tough and shrewd persons at the Consulate who make the interview.( this was my conclusion,it may be wrong)
I do not know who has or hasn’t t interviews in other countries.
Anyway,the ban on 7/countries was lifted. What I wonder is why it was 3 months ban for everyone for what it was a week or less here I don t know.
I am simply sharing how visa issuing was toughened here as an example for you to have an idea. The interview has always been tough and people knew what they were doing or looking for.
We look for info in your Homeland Security web site.

 

[jesucated]

That is the question I would dearly love to see answered in a logical, factual way by either side.

Here’s a quick look at the extant US vetting process for refugees: nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

 

[_Abyssinia]

That might be true if there were any evidence that the vetting procedures for immigrants is not stringent enough already. Do you know of any such evidence?

This in regards to Syria:

In 2015 the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) confirmed that individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria tried to gain entry to the U.S. through the refugee program and that the program is “vulnerable to exploitation from extremist groups seeking to send operatives to the West.” Before that the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Matthew Emrich, admitted during a congressional hearing that there’s no way to adequately screen Syrian refugees because the Syrian government doesn’t have an intelligence database to run checks against. Additionally, FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach conceded that the U.S. government has no system to properly screen Syrian refugees.

google.co.uk/amp/www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/01/feds-blame-lapse-vetting-admitting-syrian-refugees-terrorist-ties-u-s/amp/?client=safari

 

[abucs]

I think whenever Catholic officials speak on the moral acceptability of forcing Americans to pay for Muslim third world mass migration to its own nation it needs to divulge how much of that American money is finding its way into their own coffers.

 

[abucs]

Trump is a Catholic friendly President in such a long time. I hope he get to do what he wanted to do as pledged in his campaign promises.

I hope so too. I think he has started very bravely and honourably.

 

[Reuben_J]

I hope so too. I think he has started very bravely and honourably.

And it is not easy for him. When we start to stand for God, the minions of the Evil One will start to arise.

Be like Obama, they would just sit back and enjoy the fall of God’s institution one by one.

 

[abucs]

And it is not easy for him. When we start to stand for God, the minions of the Evil One will start to arise.

Be like Obama, they would just sit back and enjoy the fall of God’s institution one by one.

Yeah, I think there are so many that are ‘crazily’ against Trump but he is holding firm so he is bound to be faithful to those who support him. This is a great chance for Christianity, which has been sidelined in so many western countries for political correctness.

I think Trump is the best chance in a long time to stand up for a Christian culture. This of course is not what was expected, but I think it is where we are.

One question for Catholics will be how many of them give their first allegiance to the political correct religion which will continue to see Trump as against their interests and dominance.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Profaning the Holy
6 “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

So you are taking a verse out of context to compare refugees fleeing a Hell WE created to be swine…
Says a lot about your lack of character.
At least have the decency to amend your signature.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yeah, I think there are so many that are ‘crazily’ against Trump but he is holding firm so he is bound to be faithful to those who support him. This is a great chance for Christianity, which has been sidelined in so many western countries for political correctness.

I think Trump is the best chance in a long time to stand up for a Christian culture. This of course is not what was expected, but I think it is where we are.

One question for Catholics will be how many of them give their first allegiance to the political correct religion which will continue to see Trump as against their interests and dominance.

Agreed. The majority of Catholics, and I am very sure of that, Trump is a God sent. I am sure God will use him to fight against the unGodly culture where much of the population do not believe in God anymore.

In a strange way, there are some Catholics, a small minority of them though, who do not want Trump’s policy but rather root for the culture of death as espoused by the other Presidential candidate and former President. It is defying logic but not surprising as we cannot under estimate the influence of the enemy to oppose God’s ways.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Agreed. The majority of Catholics, and I am very sure of that, Trump is a God sent. I am sure God will use him to fight against the unGodly culture where much of the population do not believe in God anymore.

In a strange way, there are some Catholics, a small minority of them though, who do not want Trump’s policy but rather root for the culture of death as espoused by the other Presidential candidate and former President. It is defying logic but not surprising as we cannot under estimate the influence of the enemy to oppose God’s ways.

So in opposing the Glorious Leader, we “small minority” of Catholics “root for the culture of death” and are against the “God sent” One.
Seriously?
Does your head spin doing such mental gymnastics?

 

[josh987654321]

So you are taking a verse out of context to compare refugees fleeing a Hell WE created to be swine…

I mentioned in my other post who I was referring to.

Also, Obama’s administration did help to create it, so why would I trust the man who helped create it in the first place to properly vet people from that region seeking admission into the US?

Says a lot about your lack of character.

Ouch.

At least have the decency to amend your signature.

I don’t see anything to amend in those quotes.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I mentioned in my other post who I was referring to.

Also, Obama’s administration did help to create it, so why would I trust the man who helped create it in the first place to properly vet people from that region seeking admission into the US?

Typical Trumpster.
They either cry ABORTION or OBAMA, as if somehow that makes their words and the Glorious Leader’s policies okay.
I wasn’t a supporter of either.
I choose not to worship in the First Church of the Personality Cult of the Glorious Leader who people think he was ordained by God to do His work.

 

[josh987654321]

Typical Trumpster.

lol

They either cry ABORTION or OBAMA, as if somehow that makes their words and the Glorious Leader’s policies okay.

Because you only had 1 other alternative in the final stages of US election, which was Clinton, basically a succession of Obama who was even more radical in her ideology including on abortion.

If you want to give Trump, his administration and supporters such a hard time, then what was your alternative?

Like I have said, I don’t mind criticism (Which there is, e.g. waterboarding which is torture and wrong) but I do mind unfair criticism, exaggeration and deceptive reporting by the main stream media.

I wasn’t a supporter of either.

And yet it was still going to be either Clinton or Trump.

I choose not to worship in the First Church of the Personality Cult of the Glorious Leader who people think he was ordained by God to do His work.

Because that’s exactly what I have been saying lol.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Son_of_Niall]

lol

Because you only had 1 other alternative in the final stages of US election, which was Clinton, basically a succession of Obama who was even more radical in her ideology including on abortion.

If you want to give Trump, his administration and supporters such a hard time, then what was your alternative?

Like I have said, I don’t mind criticism (Which there is, e.g. waterboarding which is torture and wrong) but I do mind unfair criticism, exaggeration and deceptive reporting by the main stream media.

And yet it was still going to be either Clinton or Trump.

Because that’s exactly what I have been saying lol.

Trump Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

Third parties were the alternative.

 

[josh987654321]

Third parties were the alternative.

Third parties by that stage simply took votes away from Trump & Pence and tipped the scale more in Clinton’s favor. The time for choosing a third candidate had unfortunately been and gone when the republicans and democrats picked their candidates, you can only work with what’s been given.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Third parties by that stage simply took votes away from Trump & Pence and tipped the scale more in Clinton’s favor. The time for choosing a third candidate had unfortunately been and gone when the republicans and democrats picked their candidates, you can only work with what’s been given.

I hope this has helped

Trump Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

Baloney.
I’ll stick with the guy in Rome.

 

[josh987654321]

.

Also noticed the word you changed in my post, sly. Please change it back, or take it out of the quote section, it’s one thing for you to say that of me, but it’s another thing for you to claim I said that in a quotation. I didn’t say that so it’s unfair to have it in a quotation of mine. Also you could get in trouble from the moderators for doing stuff like that (I won’t report you though, please correct it).

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh