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

[gracepoole]

1. It was a mix of good and bad, but basically the Administration ignored its own intelligence officials one too many times.

I asked for an explanation of the former vetting process. This doesn’t fulfill that request.

1. The Boston Marathon bombing showed us we have a failed migration movement policy.

And yet Chechnya isn’t on the banned list.

1. That is debatable and those odds come down anyways if we admit people from high-risk areas.

Please provide credible evidence countering the statistic I noted.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=gracepoole;14454298]I asked for an explanation of the former vetting process. This doesn’t fulfill that request.

Intelligence should help set the role for the vetting process. It tracks.

And yet Chechnya isn’t on the banned list.

So let me get this straight: We should now expand the list? What about all this talk about keeping people out and how they are all dying?

Please provide credible evidence countering the statistic I noted.

I’ve already asked for the methodology on this. We can do better than just tossing around stats that favour a particular political position without a more thorough examination.

 

[gracepoole]

Intelligence should help set the role for the vetting process. It tracks.

So let me get this straight: We should now expand the list? What about all this talk about keeping people out and how they are all dying?

It’s either possible to explain the previous administration’s vetting process and why it was so flawed that the ban is necessary or it isn’t. Referring to intelligence, as you have here, or “officials,” as others have, doesn’t respond to the question. There was a vetting process in place – a quite rigorous one – and yet those here who champion the ban can’t seem to explain it. It shouldn’t be that difficult.

As for whether the list should be expanded, the list is farcical in many respects. One would think a country like Chechnya should be on it given the example you cited – and yet it’s not. Saudia Arabia isn’t. These gaps don’t raise your eyebrows? If there is to be a ban, let it be rational. The one proposed by Trump certainly isn’t.

I’ve already asked for the methodology on this.

Sorry, did you ask me for the methodology? Here’s the study:

cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis

 

[FollowChrist34]

The ban is in place while the Department of Homeland Security determines the "information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.” It could, however, be extended or expanded depending on whether countries are capable of providing the requested information. The ban, however, contains an important exception: “Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.” In other words, the secretaries can make exceptions — a provision that would, one hopes, fully allow interpreters and other proven allies to enter the U.S. during the 90-day period.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

It sounds to me like this is an analysis and overhaul of US vetting procedures in the seven countries specified. The goal be to establish better assessment of the identity of an individuals, connections to terrorist organizations, etc. The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump’s executive order on immigration were initially identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration. Trump is basing his action in this order on this previous classification. I think it is just a starting point really - that could be part of the hold / analyze approach here. How to secure the nation from potential terrorist attack; how are the terrorists coming in, from where, etc. etc. For all I know he plans to keep much of our present vetting process, enhance it.

 

[seekerz]

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

Thank you for the information. That sheds some light on the issue at hand.

*Refugees Entering the U.S. Already
Face a Rigorous Vetting Process
By HAEYOUN PARK and LARRY BUCHANAN JAN. 29, 2017

President Trump has suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, and he has barred Syrian refugees indefinitely. The current screening process for all refugees involves many layers of security checks before entry into the country, and Syrians were subject to an additional layer of checks. Sometimes, the process, shown below, takes up to two years.

1. Registration with the United Nations.
2. Interview with the United Nations.
3. Refugee status granted by the United Nations.
4. Referral for resettlement in the United States.
   The United Nations decides if the person fits the definition of a refugee and whether to refer the person to the United States or to another country for resettlement. Only the most vulnerable are referred, accounting for less than than 1 percent of refugees worldwide. Some people spend years waiting in refugee camps.

1. Interview with State Department contractors.

1. First background check.
2. Higher-level background check for some.
3. Another background check.
   The refugee’s name is run through law enforcement and intelligence databases for terrorist or criminal history. Some go through a higher-level clearance before they can continue. A third background check was introduced in 2008 for Iraqis but has since been expanded to all refugees ages 14 to 65.

1. First fingerprint screening; photo taken.
2. Second fingerprint screening.
3. Third fingerprint screening.
   The refugee’s fingerprints are screened against F.B.I. and Homeland Security databases, which contain watch list information and past immigration encounters, including if the refugee previously applied for a visa at a United States embassy. Fingerprints are also checked against those collected by the Defense Department during operations in Iraq.

1. Case reviewed at United States immigration headquarters.
2. Some cases referred for additional review.
   Syrian applicants must undergo these two additional steps. Each is reviewed by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services refugee specialist. Cases with “national security indicators” are given to the Homeland Security Department’s fraud detection unit.

1. Extensive, in-person interview with Homeland Security officer.
   Most of the interviews with Syrians have been done in Jordan and Turkey.

1. Homeland Security approval is required.
2. Screening for contagious diseases.
3. Cultural orientation class.
4. Matched with an American resettlement agency.
5. Multi-agency security check before leaving for the United States.
   Because of the long amount of time between the initial screening and departure, officials conduct a final check before the refugee leaves for the United States.

1. Final security check at an American airport*.

Source

As to the rest of my questions: was this process analyzed and was it found to be deficient, what qualifies as adequate vetting…etc., I would be very interested*** in learning those facts too***.

Edit: to be honest, I have a hard time understanding why these facts are not much more in the forefront of this passionate debate. Personally, one of the things I love about my Church is that it teaches us to use head and heart in examining any issue. If facts, are lacking, then what’s a head to do?

 

[adv]

Hi, Son of Niall; Speaking as a member of the Knights of Columbus, I too have an undying support for our Holy Priest and Holy Father.

While our faith paves the path to practice Christian morality and maintain the apostolic faith in Jesus Christ. We cannot allow secular or worldly views to infect or shake our Rock of faith.

I won’t preach to you about following our biblical principles to pray and obey those having secular authority over us.

Speaking for myself; I do not mix my faith with secular politics, nor does the Pope of today. This is a fine line. When Caesar or the President Trump’s of the world, take action to protect the people he was elected to govern, by implementing new temporal orders, in order to establish a sound effort to an unforgiving effort in place, that has the potential of killing many more innocent American victims.

This temporal action never speaks of alienating refugees or banning people of religion such as Muslims from seeking refuge in a safe country such as the U.S.

That said; The Pope does not have the authority to dictate policy to any secular power seeking to protect it’s own citizens from a professed religious group seeking to harm American citizens.

The moral ground, from which the Pope speaks, to protect refugees is not hindered in any way by the present administration.

The present temporal ban is to pause the influx of un-properly vetted refugees, so that order can be put in place in order to separate the sheep from the wolves. This is a biblical principle being practiced at best.

What we hear from media outlets do not address the real issues here. What we are hearing are false reports under a false political pretense, which the Holy Father and or our faith has no consequences in entering under such false pretenses.

As far as President Trump goes, He has no authority over any refugee seeking safety. President Trump’s only position is to protect citizens of the U.S from being harmed or killed by wolves posing as refugees in order to enter the U.S.

Let us work to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.
Knowing this simple Truth from the Master, we have nothing to fear. And I do not allow neither the right or left political views of power to over take my Catholic faith which I hold dear in practice.

Peace be with you/QUOTE

Absolutely Agree with you. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I wish others could understand this.

 

[lmachine]

1. It was a mix of good and bad, but basically the Administration ignored its own intelligence officials one too many times.

Which times?

1. The Boston Marathon bombing showed us we have a failed migration movement policy.

The bombers were not subject to the current refugee vetting process.

1. That is debatable and those odds come down anyways if we admit people from high-risk areas.

How many Americans have been killed by refugees from the countries Trump targeted with the executive order?

 

[seekerz]

Gabriel of 12;14451620:

Hi, Son of Niall; Speaking as a member of the Knights of Columbus, I too have an undying support for our Holy Priest and Holy Father.

While our faith paves the path to practice Christian morality and maintain the apostolic faith in Jesus Christ. We cannot allow secular or worldly views to infect or shake our Rock of faith.

I won’t preach to you about following our biblical principles to pray and obey those having secular authority over us.

Speaking for myself; I do not mix my faith with secular politics, nor does the Pope of today. This is a fine line. When Caesar or the President Trump’s of the world, take action to protect the people he was elected to govern, by implementing new temporal orders, in order to establish a sound effort to an unforgiving effort in place, that has the potential of killing many more innocent American victims.

This temporal action never speaks of alienating refugees or banning people of religion such as Muslims from seeking refuge in a safe country such as the U.S.

That said; The Pope does not have the authority to dictate policy to any secular power seeking to protect it’s own citizens from a professed religious group seeking to harm American citizens.

The moral ground, from which the Pope speaks, to protect refugees is not hindered in any way by the present administration.

The present temporal ban is to pause the influx of un-properly vetted refugees, so that order can be put in place in order to separate the sheep from the wolves. This is a biblical principle being practiced at best.

What we hear from media outlets do not address the real issues here. What we are hearing are false reports under a false political pretense, which the Holy Father and or our faith has no consequences in entering under such false pretenses.

As far as President Trump goes, He has no authority over any refugee seeking safety. President Trump’s only position is to protect citizens of the U.S from being harmed or killed by wolves posing as refugees in order to enter the U.S.

Let us work to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.
Knowing this simple Truth from the Master, we have nothing to fear. And I do not allow neither the right or left political views of power to over take my Catholic faith which I hold dear in practice.

Peace be with you

I’m trying to understand why my posts in another thread ended up on this one…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, that brings up an interesting point. I disagree with the Church on some issues, as any search of my posting history will show. But in the many years I have been posting here I have never 1) claimed the Pope lacks authority to speak for the Church, 2) claimed the bishops’ teachings were merely “personal opinions” not worthy of respect or weight or 3) suggested the Pope and bishops were taking stances for financial gain. None of those arguments would have been tolerated here, nor should they be. But all are on full display by those that disagree with the Church’s stance on immigration, refugees, care for the poor, health care, and other issues. Disagreeing, and expressing disagreement is everyone’s right. But claiming any of the three above crosses an important line.

The disagreements are about policies on how to help provide healthcare, help the poor and refugees, ect. It’s not an even game either----some ideas are better than others.

I have posted several solutions multiple times on here.

 

[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.

One poster has chased me on a different thread in a totally uncharitable way, interrupting a discussion to demand an explanation to my post and having read some of the implicit accusations I am amazed.

It is basic transparent practice when discussing programs in which you have multi-billion dollar interests to declare them.

If you think this makes the pope a crook (to declare an interest) then I am ashamed of you all and if you keep up such an implicit unfounded accusations that this is what I have said then I will also be reporting your posts.

 

[TMC]

The disagreements are about policies on how to help provide healthcare, help the poor and refugees, ect. It’s not an even game either----some ideas are better than others.

I have posted several solutions multiple times on here.

There has been some discussion of policy. But not all of the disagreements are about policy. This thread and others also include assertions that the Pope is outside his lane, that his and the bishops’ teachings are not on morals and therefore not worthy of respect, and even by accusations that they are financially motivated. Discussing policy is one thing. Attacking the very authority of the Church to speak in these areas, and accusing the Church of corruption are another.

The Church’s authority to speak in these areas is not less than its authority to speak on marriage, sexuality and other issues.

 

[pnewton]

No, it is accurate. The Pope has indicated that too many refugees interfere with human dignity.

Thanks for the link. here is the source link.

press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2016/11/01/0789/01764.html#en

First of all, as an Argentinean and South American, I am deeply grateful to Sweden for its openness, because during the period of the military dictatorships many Argentineans, Chileans and Uruguayans found a welcome in Sweden. Sweden has a long tradition of welcoming others. Not only accepting them, but integrating them, finding them housing, schools, employment… integrating them into the population. I was told the number – I may be mistaken, I am not certain – (aside) how many inhabitants are there in Sweden? Nine million? Of these 9 million – I was told – 850,000 would be “new Swedes”, that is, immigrants or refugees or their children.

Thanks again for the link. I am not a fan of agenda news sites, but kudos to this writer for including his source material.

Yes, when large numbers of refugees are integrated too quickly, ghettoization is a concern. I think taking in 8-9 percent of your population a year is too many, even for Sweden, though in a crisis, it might be worth extraordinary measures.

 

[JustaServant]

One poster has chased me on a different thread in a totally uncharitable way, interrupting a discussion to demand an explanation to my post and having read some of the implicit accusations I am amazed.

It is basic transparent practice when discussing programs in which you have multi-billion dollar interests to declare them.

If you think this makes the pope a crook (to declare an interest) then I am ashamed of you all and if you keep up such an implicit unfounded accusations that this is what I have said then I will also be reporting your posts.

To accuse Catholic officials of 'filling their coffers", is pretty despicable.
Agreeing with Trump on refugees is one thing, attacking the clergy is quite another.

 

[abucs]

The money is finding its way into the church coffers.

I did not speak in the personal sense of any pope or bishop ‘filling’ his own coffers.

A coffer is a drawer or chest and is used in the figurative sense to refer to bank accounts.

In this figurative sense it cannot ever be ‘filled’ and as far as I know the bishops and pope don’t have their own bank accounts.

Now if you want examples of church corruption I can give you plenty of examples with my family and myself being involved in several Catholic organisations but forum rules I believe prevent this.

I did not accuse the pope or any bishop of being corrupt. It is certainly a good thing for the church to declare its interest in receiving billions of tax dollars for the very programs they are directly discussing and wishing to increase. That is basic financial honesty and I am wondering why so many posters appear to be against such a basic accepted norm.

 

[abucs]

Question to moderators - I am assuming we cannot start such a thread regarding personal experiences of Catholic corruption as I think it would be very enlightening, especially for us Catholics who are disgusted by the way certain Catholic officials have ‘used’ tax dollars and who would like to see such attitudes and practices removed from the church.

My personal (family) examples would include Sisters who run an aged care home (where my mother worked) use of tax vouchers at the local St Vincent De Paul branch (where my father is treasurer), local Catholic Schools (where I have taught), Catholic Universities (which I have attended) and the local parish church which has given parishioner and tax dollars to indigenous groups in a totally unaccountable way and certain local parish priests ‘using’ parishioner money in the Philippines where I spend most of my time these days.

Can I start such a thread?

I really think one needs to be started in the interests of transparency and bettering the church. Then we can be much more open about what we want to say and the righteousness in demanding transparency and the dangers of opposing financial transparency.

 

[JustaServant]

abucs, help me out here.
The subject of the thread is the Vatican’s concern over Trump’s refugee order.
Your response was:

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.

Now you say:

I did not accuse the pope or any bishop of being corrupt.

The contradiction is very plain in my view. We’re not talking about a local Catholic school or a local Catholic Charities not being honest with the books. As long as humans are around there will be corruption.
You are saying very plainly that the Vatican (Catholic officials) are being corrupt in regard to refugees. A view, if that is what you wish to believe, I give only this answer:
Where is the proof? Do you have evidence of this?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Question to moderators - I am assuming we cannot start such a thread regarding personal experiences of Catholic corruption as I think it would be very enlightening, especially for us Catholics who are disgusted by the way certain Catholic officials have ‘used’ tax dollars and who would like to see such attitudes and practices removed from the church.

My personal (family) examples would include Sisters who run an aged care home (where my mother worked) use of tax vouchers at the local St Vincent De Paul branch (where my father is treasurer), local Catholic Schools (where I have taught), Catholic Universities (which I have attended) and the local parish church which has given parishioner and tax dollars to indigenous groups in a totally unaccountable way and certain local parish priests ‘using’ parishioner money in the Philippines where I spend most of my time these days.

Can I start such a thread?

I really think one needs to be started in the interests of transparency and bettering the church. Then we can be much more open about what we want to say and the righteousness in demanding transparency and the dangers of opposing financial transparency.

You want to start an anti-Catholic thread on a Catholic forum?
This just gets more bizarre with time.

 

[abucs]

Glad to help you out.

Firstly the mention of schools, aged care etc was for the moderators in asking whether a new thread was possible under forum rules. Such a request refers to a broader question of corruption which I think needs to be spoken about. It was a question to the moderators and it was about a broader question of corruption. Corruption was raised by posters here with incorrect accusations as the one below as well as indirectly when I suggested transparent procedures which diminish the possibility and/or appearance of corruption and should be practised by church officials.

Regarding your accusation

You are saying very plainly that the Vatican (Catholic officials) are being corrupt in regard to refugees. A view, if that is what you wish to believe, I give only this answer:
Where is the proof? Do you have evidence of this?

You are wrong in your original assertion so no proof is applicable and by the way just in case you didn’t know, such a thing, if actually true would probably be against forum rules. I am saying that officials should declare an interest in receiving billions of dollars when speaking about such issues. That is standard practice. A financial adviser declaring he has an interest in a certain company when speaking about it alerts everyone to the connection. It is an honest and transparent practice and allows people to be more at ease in understanding the relationship.

Because the financial planner has an interest in a company doesn’t mean that he is spruiking it for his own gain (corruption) but alerts the audience to that connection. If the audience/customers find out later, without declaration that he has an interest then some of those will be quite justly angered that such a financial connection was not made, as good honest trustworthiness demands.

The church should seek to be both good and trustworthy. Don’t you agree?

If so. I’ll put you down on my side for being for a disclaimer. I’m sure we will get much support for such a move. Who would be against financial transparency?

 

[FollowChrist34]

You want to start an anti-Catholic thread on a Catholic forum?
This just gets more bizarre with time.

I personally would never start the proposed thread on CAF because I think it is overstepping the mark a bit. But remember even the recent history of the scandals. That whole thing sickened me for years - and kept me far from the Church. The Church hushed that up and transferred priests here and there for years. How you can reconcile that with setting yourself up as the original Church of the Apostles boggles the mind. Whole dioceses went down with settlement payments. (money from parishioners) Just recent history - I leave the rest of the far back history of the Church alone here out of mercy. In sum, I agree with staying watchful. But not sniping. Two different approaches. And, yes, staying watchful should always be allowed in open dialogue/debate on a Catholic forum - better there than a Protestant or atheist one. Why should CAF have to censor / clean up Catholics talking about the Church? Think about that one a while before you answer. Pray on it.

 

[abucs]

I’m sorry Son of Niall but the forum moderators advised me to block your messages so that I wouldn’t see your annoying and uncharitable posts anymore. I wasn’t sure whether I at first wanted to block you but I think I will be more and more thankful for the moderators help and suggestion as time goes on.