Still Waters Posted November 16, 2015 #1 Share Posted November 16, 2015 More than a dozen US states say Syrian refugees are no longer welcome due to security fears after the Paris attacks. Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan said he was suspending the acceptance of new arrivals until after a review. Alabama, Texas and several other states issued similar statements but a State Department spokesman said the legality of this action was still unclear. President Barack Obama has urged the US to "step up and do its part" to help those fleeing the civil war. "Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values," he said. http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-34835353 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEHC Posted November 16, 2015 #2 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) The Islamic State Wants You To Hate Refugees: https://www.washingt...50758&tid=ss_tw -Sam Edited November 16, 2015 by Sam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawbone Posted November 16, 2015 #3 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I'll take prudence and caution over......"we must permit entry or they win" mantra...LOL It's being reported multiple refugees were among those participating in the Paris Attacks. Our government is a convoluted mess, and too large to manage. I certainly don't trust our government to monitor the intake of tens of thousand of Syrian refugees, most of which appear to be fighting age men. F that! Last time we were attacked, a couple of the terrorist were on visas, and lags at the state dept. contributed to the other being able to stay in our country under the radar. Click for Link 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Yamato Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post #4 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Bombing them over there and letting them come over here. Dumb x Dumb = Dumb2 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Grey Posted November 16, 2015 #5 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Expect the pendulum to swing the other way now: right wing parties will be getting a lot of votes. Could you imagine if the elections were held the day after the Paris attack? Trump would win by a landslide just as Bush did after 9/11 - and for similar reasons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubblykiss Posted November 16, 2015 #6 Share Posted November 16, 2015 The Islamic State Wants You To Hate Refugees: https://www.washingt...50758&tid=ss_tw -Sam The Texas shooters came from here. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/04/police-shooting-at-muhammad-cartoon-contest-in-texas/ http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/30529985/ducey-seeks-to-stop-flow-of-syrian-refugees-into-state 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A rather obscure Bassoon Posted November 16, 2015 #7 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) One wonders how you can do security checks on refugee's coming from a country who's infrastructure has been heavily damaged.I honestly think caution is prudent here as it would be quite easy to hide terrorist cells amongst the masses. Obama seems to be wearing Blinkers over this one. Edited November 16, 2015 by A rather obscure Bassoon 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted November 16, 2015 #8 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Expect the pendulum to swing the other way now: right wing parties will be getting a lot of votes. Could you imagine if the elections were held the day after the Paris attack? Trump would win by a landslide just as Bush did after 9/11 - and for similar reasons. Bush had been in office less than eight months on 9/11. That's one of the main reasons I always laugh at people when they say if someone else had been in office 9/11 would have never happened. It had been planned for at least a year and during Clinton's reign. It would not have mattered one bit who was elected after Clinton. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted November 16, 2015 #9 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Bush had been in office less than eight months on 9/11. That's one of the main reasons I always laugh at people when they say if someone else had been in office 9/11 would have never happened. It had been planned for at least a year and during Clinton's reign. It would not have mattered one bit who was elected after Clinton. All political BS. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormalcy Posted November 16, 2015 #10 Share Posted November 16, 2015 From my understanding, the US Supreme Court has clarified this refusal is nonsense. There has been an executive order for the US to receive refugees. If any state is instructed to take in refugees - it will. There is no countermanding this. Not one person or state can break this federal order. Texas, Alabama and anyone else WILL be taking in refugees if told to do so. They can file complaints and plan impeachments and everything else, but what they WON'T be doing: refusing to take in refugees. Whether this is good or bad will depend on your view, but I think this is important for EVERYONE to note. You can be on any side of an issue, but a full federal executive order leaves NO room for debate or altnerative. You follow it. Period. My questions is: why don't these happen on OTHER important matters? That are "obvious", whether it's to Democrats or Republicans. I'm sure there are GOP orders that are "no-brainers" which I would rail against, and Democrat decisions that GOPers would rail at (perhaps like this one) -- so where IS the line between "we need to let the US solve this stuff" and "Nope, no time, you're doing this now, deal with it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post .ZZ. Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post #11 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) From my understanding, the US Supreme Court has clarified this refusal is nonsense. There has been an executive order for the US to receive refugees. If any state is instructed to take in refugees - it will. There is no countermanding this. Not one person or state can break this federal order. Texas, Alabama and anyone else WILL be taking in refugees if told to do so. They can file complaints and plan impeachments and everything else, but what they WON'T be doing: refusing to take in refugees. Really? Just watch us... Edited November 16, 2015 by ZZ430 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A rather obscure Bassoon Posted November 16, 2015 #12 Share Posted November 16, 2015 other news...... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/saskatchewan-premier-wants-trudeau-to-suspend-refugee-plan/article27277205/ Saskatchewan are now asking Trudeau to suspend Refugee influx. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted November 16, 2015 #13 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Put a dome over America......Seal it for at least 100 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormalcy Posted November 16, 2015 #14 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Really? Just watch us... This should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHunter Posted November 16, 2015 #15 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I ain't very familiar with this particular area of law but is there anything stopping these states from putting these Syrian refugees in internment camps until the state does a background check that they are comfortable with. If not I can see this happening to the refugees. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted November 17, 2015 #16 Share Posted November 17, 2015 From my understanding, the US Supreme Court has clarified this refusal is nonsense. There has been an executive order for the US to receive refugees. If any state is instructed to take in refugees - it will. There is no countermanding this. Not one person or state can break this federal order. Texas, Alabama and anyone else WILL be taking in refugees if told to do so. They can file complaints and plan impeachments and everything else, but what they WON'T be doing: refusing to take in refugees. It's not just your understanding, it's the way it is. These idiots are completely and utterly clueless. It's a wonder how they even got elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawbone Posted November 17, 2015 #17 Share Posted November 17, 2015 So the final number is supposed to be near 100,000 that we are taking in over here? I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around this. At this point Obama has either completely lost all connection with reality or he is the most stubborn, bull headed, malignant narcisscist in history. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted November 17, 2015 #18 Share Posted November 17, 2015 So the final number is supposed to be near 100,000 that we are taking in over here? I'm seriously trying to wrap my head around this. At this point Obama has either completely lost all connection with reality or he is the most stubborn, bull headed, malignant narcisscist in history. Since all the PARIS terrorists were from EUROPE, I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawbone Posted November 17, 2015 #19 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Since all the PARIS terrorists were from EUROPE, I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything. http://www.cnn.com/2...acks-passports/ It's called infiltration. There is the opportunity for it, and there is the execution of it. It doesn't take a genius to see the risk in welcoming 100,000 Syrian refugees into your country. Whether you fail to see it or not is irrelevant. Edited November 17, 2015 by Rawbone 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted November 17, 2015 #20 Share Posted November 17, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2...acks-passports/ It's called infiltration. There is the opportunity for it, and there is the execution of it. It doesn't take a genius to see the risk in welcoming 100,000 Syrian refugees into your country. Whether you fail to see it or not is irrelevant. Rawbone, if you knew who you were talking to you would not bother. No democrat can possibly do any wrong in any way in the eyes of ninjadude. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawbone Posted November 17, 2015 #21 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) LOL...Thanks Oversword. I've noticed that some posters here who will flat out admit they are biased, as if that doesn't destroy their own arguments. It's wishful thinking. Bias doesn't make you look honest, it dilutes your argument by making you look.....well.......biased. Edited November 17, 2015 by Rawbone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormalcy Posted November 17, 2015 #22 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Well, the US has one huge advantage over Paris, when it comes to this. We already have a lot of crazy, evil, religious fanatics killing people for their religion and to spread fear. We grow them ourselves just to keep in practice, apparently. We're like "Pfft, ISIS. Weak sauce, guys. Our police kill more of our own citizens in broad daylight in their cars than you can manage in ten years." Edited November 17, 2015 by Paranormalcy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted November 17, 2015 #23 Share Posted November 17, 2015 YES!!! One of them is the State I live in If I had 10 grapes, and told you 2 of them were poisonous, would you take them all? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawbone Posted November 17, 2015 #24 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Well, the US has one huge advantage over Paris, when it comes to this. We already have a lot of crazy, evil, religious fanatics killing people for their religion and to spread fear. We grow them ourselves just to keep in practice, apparently. We're like "Pfft, ISIS. Weak sauce, guys. Our police kill more of our own citizens in broad daylight in their cars than you can manage in ten years." This is quite possibly the most non-sensical post I've ever seen on these forums. Please provide references for your statements, or some evidence of what you are saying. Edited November 17, 2015 by Rawbone 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted November 17, 2015 #25 Share Posted November 17, 2015 This is quite possibly the most non-sensical post I've ever seen on these forums. Please provide references for your statements, or some evidence of what you are saying. Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now