US states halt taking Syrian refugees

[Paranormalcy]

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin Calls for Halt to Accepting Refugees

(Surprisingly, she presents the argument fairly reasonably, about thorough checks before allowing people in)

I guess a broken watch is still right twice a day.

Just for the record - she is still a horrible governor and person.

http://www.tulsaworl...441129eab3.html

[.ZZ.]

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."

Pfft.

Harry Reid? Is that you?

[Rawbone]

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

These days it's hard to tell.

[Gromdor]

Looking at where the terrorists were from, I would say forget stopping Syrians and bar Belgians and Frenchmen from coming over. (or at least add them to the list)

[Rawbone]

Looking at where the terrorists were from, I would say forget stopping Syrians and bar Belgians and Frenchmen from coming over. (or at least add them to the list)

Did you read the linked article? It specifically ties one of the terrorists to a Syrian passport. Can you please link the info you have on Belgians and Frenchmen? I hadn't read that info yet. Thanks.

Please click here for CNN article

Edited November 17, 2015 by Rawbone

[Rawbone]

I found an article and you are right Gromdor. Many of them were French and Belgians, but had gone off to fight with ISIS in Syria. It looks like at least one of them sneaked in the country as a Syrian refugee.

Click Here

[F3SS]

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.

Says the left wing authoritarian. Given that we have no constitutional obligation to take people in I cannot see how states do not have the right to refuse. And what if they do?

Are you really so willing to gamble on your friends and family's lives by taking a chance that everybody entering are well intended? They cannot be positively identified. There is no way to know who's who. Heck, how do you even know if they're Syrian or not?

[Paranormalcy]

I am not for or against this, I'm just stating what's going on and my understanding of what is currently happening. This is something that honestly, I'm not sure anyone knows, strategically, with any REAL certainty, what the right thing to do is. Morally, FOR the refugees, they HAVE to get asylum somewhere. Morally for the people IN those places (like the US), that might be endangered by hidden terrorists, that has to NOT happen.

My estimation is that this is going to be a "good of the many" situation and the refugees will be allowed with little hindrance, if there is no other answer, because while it is, from one perspective, unconscionable to just let foreigners in with essentially no guarantee they're not dangerous, it is more unconscionable to let mass thousands of almost all innocent refugees die - even if it means there is a known likelihood of at least a few terrorists being in the refugees, that WILL likely cause the deaths of Americans. There is no good, satisfactory answer that makes everybody feel good.

If the actual federal executive decision has been made, then from the little research I've done and articles I've read, there is no defying it, unless the federal government decides to allow it to turn into a legal battle that allows states to tie it up. That way, they're not "refusing" them, but they're not letting them enter, because the issue is pending - I don't know if that will happen or not, but if it's possible, I imagine that's what they will do. I also suspect that "volunteer states" will be receiving refugees first, so the opposing states don't have to be messed with, if not absolutely necessary. I don't know what's going to happen if any of them have some logistical or other vitally necessary criteria that forces the issue.

For the record, though I've stated this enough on my own in various places I don't need to repeat it, I'm no fan of authoritarianism, by the GOP, the Dems, right-winger conservatives or left-wing liberals. I believe there are some issues or decisions that sometimes have to be enforced or implemented even against opposition, such as racial integration and gay rights and non-discrimination, and this may be one of those times.

Sometimes in hindsight, it appears wrong and is eventually repealed or canceled, like Prohibition, though in honestly, alcohol is responsible for more deaths and injuries than any other drug, by a significant margin, so there is still even argument to be had over that. Similarly, smoking is eventually going to come to the forefront, and while I don't smoke and it does bother me, physically (not just because eww I don't like it) and I believe injunction against it has some innate evidence, due to it being proven toxic and medically harmful and a non-necessity (not food, not drink, no cultural contrubution, etc), very much of this same argument can be used against many foods, including things like bacon and cheeseburgers, etc. Though, the food aspect has a built-in level of defense against serious criticism currently - but when/if we develop routine and effective ways to create or produce "harmless" food (whether it's 3D printed chicken legs or what), then this too will come up.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Paranormalcy

[Tatetopa]

This argument is based more on fear than fact. We are getting pretty good at vetting refugees. There may be some questionable ones that would be refused entry. That is logical. It is sad for humans to be so driven to senseless action by fear that is whipped up by ambitious men and women who want to lead us.To put it into perspective, every year in the US something over 10,000 people are killed by drunk drivers, roughly 10% of the number are from 0 to 14 years of age. Every year over 7000 children are wounded or killed by firearms. Nobody seems to be very outraged or fearful about these numbers. We deal with it and try to improve our capability to reduce the possibility. I think terrorism is not at the root of this. I think many people dislike dirty poor different people who will take their jobs and suck their welfare system dry.

[EEHC]

This argument is based more on fear than fact. We are getting pretty good at vetting refugees. There may be some questionable ones that would be refused entry. That is logical. It is sad for humans to be so driven to senseless action by fear that is whipped up by ambitious men and women who want to lead us.To put it into perspective, every year in the US something over 10,000 people are killed by drunk drivers, roughly 10% of the number are from 0 to 14 years of age. Every year over 7000 children are wounded or killed by firearms. Nobody seems to be very outraged or fearful about these numbers. We deal with it and try to improve our capability to reduce the possibility. I think terrorism is not at the root of this. I think many people dislike dirty poor different people who will take their jobs and suck their welfare system dry.

Exactly. I believe Western countries must take all the time they need to conduct background checks on each Syrian refugee before they come in. This is a matter of security. However, I can't help but notice that some people are using the security aspect as an excuse, a pretext to push their xenophobic agenda.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Sam.

[F3SS]

By all means people, take them all to your country or fill the rooms of your home with them. Every last one of you who want to push them on everybody else wouldn't have them in your own homes. If 10,000 bleeding heart liberals invited them to live within the walls of their homes and paid for them out of their own pockets then maybe I'd be a little more positive. Not one of you would consider doing what you dictate to others.

[Sakari]

Let's worry about the over 50,000 homeless Vets ?

[Paranormalcy]

Well that's the point isn't it. The third wayers and corporatists don't have any desire to help anyone, whether it's our own veterans or refugees. If there is an executive order, it will happen no matter what they think. That's certainly it's own argument. Why isn't there an executive order to help veterans? Another good question.

To the point, they're not PLACING refugees in people's homes, so that analogy is dead on arrival and laughably ridiculous, so weeeeeeeeeeeee!

America has no room or right to crow about being exceptional at ANYTHING if they don't help people that need it, whether it's veterans or refugees, but that hasn't stopped the greedy warmongers so far. This is when the chickens come home to roost - unfortunately for the rest of us. So thank the corporate warhawk masters on both sides of the aisle for this one. The most dangerous religion at work HERE is the cult of the dollar.

[+OverSword]

[Sweetpumper]

Good. We're out.

[Dark_Grey]

Compare that map to the EU - the spark of independence that founded this country is still there and still shining

[Paranormalcy]

Mmmmmm hm. Well, like I said. This is going to be interesting.

Although I was making a neutral observation earlier, for me PERSONALLY - we have to take in refugees. That is how America works. That is how humanity works. They're still going to be mostly homeless street people, is the downside. This is why our country VITALLY needs to address this - the living conditions, etc. of our citizens, to deal with this issue. The universe doesn't wait til a country is ready to move forward, and this is one example where this issue is forced. What the US does with this challenge is going to send a clear signal to others and to our own citizens, and show where our politicians' morals and heads are at.

[FLOMBIE]

Compare that map to the EU - the spark of independence that founded this country is still there and still shining

I actually think that this is against what the USA stands for. You used to be admired for helping and taking in the persecuted - heck, that was how your country came into existence.

Edited November 17, 2015 by FLOMBIE

[Sweetpumper]

That was when charities and churches took care of immigrants, not a welfare state.

[Dark_Grey]

I actually think that this is against what the USA stands for. You used to be admired for helping and taking in the persecuted - heck, that was how your country came into existence.

Generally speaking, yes. But I think after the Paris attacks, "the persecuted" aren't looking so innocent and helpless any more. I don't really need to spell out why that is...there are 60+ pages in the main thread that cover it. Why any one would still endorse an open-door policy now is beyond me. France tried to show the world how to be accommodating to people that hurt you in the past - that compassion got them nothing but a large drain on their economy and a massive black eye from ISIS.

[FLOMBIE]

I actually think that this is against what the USA stands for. You used to be admired for helping and taking in the persecuted - heck, that was how your country came into existence.

Please elaborate.

Generally speaking, yes. But I think after the Paris attacks, "the persecuted" aren't looking so innocent and helpless any more. I don't really need to spell out why that is...there are 60+ pages in the main thread that cover it. Why any one would still endorse an open-door policy now is beyond me. France tried to show the world how to be accommodating to people that hurt you in the past - that compassion got them nothing but a large drain on their economy and a massive black eye from ISIS.

They don't? the attackers were French citizens. The attacks also did not happen because of the intake of refugees. If that would be the case, they would have attacked my country, Germany.

Edited November 17, 2015 by FLOMBIE

[Dark_Grey]

Mmmmmm hm. Well, like I said. This is going to be interesting.

Although I was making a neutral observation earlier, for me PERSONALLY - we have to take in refugees. That is how America works. That is how humanity works. They're still going to be mostly homeless street people, is the downside. This is why our country VITALLY needs to address this - the living conditions, etc. of our citizens, to deal with this issue. The universe doesn't wait til a country is ready to move forward, and this is one example where this issue is forced. What the US does with this challenge is going to send a clear signal to others and to our own citizens, and show where our politicians' morals and heads are at.

First world countries do take in refugees, but a lot of people seem to over look the type of refugees we take. We pick from a small pool of the more wealthy, educated 3rd world people (the people that need our help the least, but with the most to offer). Some people seem genuinely confused when they learn it's not a free-for-all. The migrant crisis in the EU pretty much sums up why..

[FLOMBIE]

First world countries do take in refugees, but a lot of people seem to over look the type of refugees we take. We pick from a small pool of the more wealthy, educated 3rd world people (the people that need our help the least, but with the most to offer). Some people seem genuinely confused when they learn it's not a free-for-all. The migrant crisis in the EU pretty much sums up why..

Give me some arguments. Tell me about the problems we have in Germany with the new refugees.

There is a country in Syrian and Iraq that hurts everybody, including the more well off. Sometimes especially them, since DAESH does not really like rich people.

[Dark_Grey]

They don't? the attackers were French citizens. The attacks also did not happen because of the intake of refugees. If that would be the case, they would have attacked my country, Germany.

Let me ask you this - if you were the French president for a day, how would you handle things going forward? I get the impression that you would keep the doors wide open and your fingers crossed behind your back for good luck

[ellapenella]

I actually think that this is against what the USA stands for. You used to be admired for helping and taking in the persecuted - heck, that was how your country came into existence.

Yeah but , we in our country are seen as targets, they're saying soft targets. It's not a matter of not wanting to take the refugees in. I'm conflicted on this situation because of the terror units that will want to infiltrate , move within the refugees . We are guilty by association because we are Americans. Our allies too are guilty by association. I don't know exactly when bitter feelings came into effect about us & our allies. I'm guessing maybe it was when Israel made a deal with I think Rothschild & the bank of England for Palestine.