Kaptur supports GOP safe screening bill for Syrian refugees

According to Cleveland.com Marcy is one of the supporters of the safe screening proposal by House Republicans.


Northeast Ohio Democrats Tim Ryan and Marcy Kaptur were among 47 Democrats who joined with the majority of House Republicans on Thursday to pass a controversial bill that would increase government background checks done before Syrian or Iraqi refugees are admitted to the United States.



Marcy's statement:

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-9) issued the following statement today after voting in favor of H.R. 4083, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015. Rep. Kaptur was one of 47 Democrats to support the bill, which passed by a vote of 289 to 137.

“The first sworn duty of Congress is to protect the American people against all enemies foreign and domestic. In view of the heightened global threat level due to the terrorist attacks in Paris, we must ensure that our migration screening systems are as rigorous and lock tight as possible. Europe faces unique difficulties in protecting its borders and rooting out terrorists, whether homegrown or from beyond their borders,even attempting to transit our borders through Europe‎ as occurred leading up to the attacks on September 11th 2001. It is therefore vital that the U.S. work in concert with its allies to assure a rigorous, seamless system of identity verification while maintaining our heritage as an open, compassionate society for freedom loving people, especially those fleeing from danger.

“Strengthening our screening process with an additional check valve does not diminish our resolve to help those refugees who have been driven from their homeland by war and instability. It provides an additional level of assurance as we proceed with efforts to help shelter the victims of our enemies. It will be important now for the agencies involved to coordinate to ensure that we continue to be able to provide shelter to those refugees who do satisfy the refugee requirements.”

No votes yet

The "safe screening" process is really a SMOKE-screening process. The information from the Paris attacks show that Muslims can easily be homebrewed terrorists, inspired by ISIS and other such foreign militants. The reality is that Muslims never actually assimilate.

Islam is the religion of the poorest, dumbest people on Earth. It's the perfect launchpad for terrorism. Inviting it into your nation is foolhardy.

So, it appears you want more federal government screening; bigger government with more bureaucracy; more evidence of the fact that you are NOT a true libertarian. You are, in fact, a typical conservative Republican. You want a bigger government, but only for those purposes you deem as necessary. And, like most conservative Republicans, you do NOT believe in the protections of all religions as are specifically stated in the Constitution itself, and in the Bill of Rights.

Chicken Little -- If the current vetting process is so bad, why is it that the United States has had ZERO major attacks from terrorist immigrants since 9/11? That's over 14 years now!

Of course, factual evidence doesn't really matter to most of the conservative Republicans, like you, Mr. Empty Glass. You NEVER allow truth to get in the way of your emotions. And you NEVER allow facts to get in the way of your vacuous opinions!

Why are you Liberals such retards about these things?

I just SAID that Islam is the religion of the poorest, dumbest people on Earth. I've also said that you should NOT import poverty into your nation. Therefore there's a simple screening process that requires 1% of the previous government screening apparatus: Don't let in these people. Turn people from "Syria" away. Turn all Muslims away.

The Paris attacks well illustrate that even from 'good' Muslim families, the young men in the equation turn to terrorism very easily. We have the same sort of thing going on with Blacks; young Black males are most of the race problem (the remaining being stupid Liberals like you, Dale).

By permitting Muslim immigration, we're taking the cultural equivalent of injecting cancer cells into our body politic. Islam is the religion of the poorest, dumbest people on Earth... and poor, dumb people produce a culture of violence, like the ape zoo we keep along Dorr Street.

ISIS terror. If the United States does not take in Syrian refugees using what has been a successful vetting process, where will these people go? The answer is, many will be forced to stay in dangerous places, perhaps within areas near those controlled by ISIS. These refugee encampments will become fertile recruiting grounds for more ISIS fighters. After all, ISIS will be able to state factually that the United States is closed to Muslims. That validates much of what ISIS has been stating in propaganda. Especially the youngest refugees would be far more likely to be future ISIS fighters, or at least ISIS supporters, if the United States refuses them entrance as legitimate refugees fleeing terrorism. Not only has President Obama warned us about this very real probability, his immediate predecessor, Bush #43, has done so in a similar fashion.

So far, I know of none of the leading 2016 Republican candidates for POTUS who are taking any other position than saying no to these Syrian victims of terror. It is anti-American; it is cowardly; it is inhumane; and it is handing ISIS a great recruiting tool to refuse these Syrian refugees entry.

This is such a passive policy and it's very indicative of the President's own failed foreign policy. ISIS did not grow because we failed to bring in refugees. ISIS will continue to expand whether we take in refugees or not.

Now I, and most Republicans, are for bringing in refugees but only after they are screened for terrorism. That is why I support the current bill that passed the US House that even 74 Democrats crossed lines to support. However, the President does not support this. He wants to continue accepting refugees without assuring the American people that these refugees are not terrorists.

Accepting refugees is a very small part of the ISIS foreign policy. The problem is the President's policy is incoherent. He lacks leadership on this issue and that is why Dems are not standing by him on the refugee issue. So let's really speak the truth here.

The President is scared to fight ISIS.


has endured from terrorist immigrants since 9/11. Hmmm... the current policy, which is also bipartisan since it is same as that used under W, seems to be keeping us as safe as is possible in an extremely violent world.

BTW -- there is a very good reason why those Democrats voted with the Republicans on this bill. It's called, getting re-elected. People are frightened. And the Republicans are exploiting those fears. As I have stated before, the Republicans are playing the political game very, very well. However, the harder the U.S. makes it for refugees to leave terror, the better it is for ISIS. This bill is helping ISIS. The Republicans have to live with that reality!

The only appropriate thing to do is stop importing poverty. Syrians need to fix their nation. They can't do that if they flee. The humane thing is to enforce national sovereignty. Anything that Syria produces if it collapses can be handled using our military.

Liberals are the anti-American elements here. They want to import poverty so that their nation is destroyed. Liberals don't believe in borders or laws (unless your skin is White).

in higher taxes to hire all of those government employees to secure our borders? How much are you willing to pay these folks to protect us?

If poverty were the main reason for the Syrians to come here, what has taken them so long? THE SYRIANS ARE TRYING TO ESCAPE TERRORISTS!!

And, who created the power vacuum by killing off Saddam Hussein -- against his father's best advice -- which allowed ISIS to grab hold in this complex part of the globe?
And, remind me again, who had Osama Bin Laden killed?

You may have any opinion you like, Mr. Empty Glass. But, when you make fallacious statements as if they are facts, you are just plain wrong!

We've 1.5 million people in our military, Dale. They should be guarding our borders. That would probably save on our taxes due to the much shorter supply lines. Net change to taxes: LESS.

We real Libertarians have long been against having a huge military that does little but attack other nations and then try to occupy them.


What's the matter, Dale? Looks like you have a confused expression on your face since your stupid argument was outed in a few milliseconds.

And Syrians need to stay in Syria. That's what it means to have national sovereignty.

The Liberal need to import poverty and enemies, is destroying this nation.

GZ aka Chicken Little...with all of those, by your statements, poverty-stricken people trying to get to paradise here in America, you really think 1.5 million people are enough? The estimates are that it would cost well over $20,000,000,000 just to build a fence along the nearly 2000 mile Mexican border. Then, there's maintenance. The border with Canada is over 5000 miles long. Let's see, should be an up-front cost of about $50,000,000,000 or so to build, and who knows how much to maintain. These employees are IN ADDITION to the military and/or border patrol needed to guard the fences! And, are we not going to properly defend Alaska and/or Hawaii?
Welcome to Egypt, Mr. Empty Glass!

And, BTW Chicken Little, I am at a loss as to why anyone would come to what you believe is a disaster of a country teetering on the brink of economic ruin anyway!

Finally, once again, these are REFUGEES FROM TERRORISM! They have been happy to stay in their nations of origin for CENTURIES living in what you assume is abject poverty. But, that's OK. Don't live up to Ronald Reagan's image of the U.S. being the ultimate example to the world of the "shining city upon the hill." Here's a quote from Reagan's farewell address in 1988: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."
Just keep living in Egypt, Mr. Empty Glass!

Yes, of course 1.5 million people are enough. They're intensive overkill. We can easily use barriers and surveillance technology to greatly expand the effective zone of each soldier.

The lengths you'll go to avoid admitting you were wrong, are mind boggling. No wonder we view modern Liberalism as being a mental illness. IT IS.

And the refugees from terrorism still don't overcome national sovereignty. And they only bring their terrorism-breeding culture here. The shit nations are shit because their cultures are shit. They want to come to White nations since (other than Liberalism) our culture isn't shit. Islam is a spreading stain across the world. Only demented people (i.e. Liberals) believe that such a cancer should be injected and such poverty should be imported.

you're a xenophobic, white supremacist!
And you have the nerve to label others as being "demented?"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.