It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paris attacks: US states halt taking Syrian refugees

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan said he was suspending the acceptance of new refugees until a security review could be completed.

Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana and Massachusetts issued similar statements on Monday.
In the wake of Friday's Paris attacks, it seems that Governors are stopping Syrian Refugees from coming to America.
BBC



While the state of Alabama has not accepted any Syrian refugees so far, the southern state's governor has said that he "will not place Alabamians at even the slightest possible risk of an attack on our people".




In Michigan, where it has been reported that 200 Syrians have been resettled in the past year, Governor Snyder has said he will suspend the acceptance of new refugees until the US Department of Homeland Security "completes a full review of security clearances and procedures".


I think we need to be safe when accepting refugees. I understand the problems that they are facing but we can't just accept them with open arms. We need to be careful. We can still be helpful and be safe.



+10 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

The US should halt it's support for ISIS and the destruction of Syria. That would eliminate the refugee problem.


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Good for those states. I think that enough of these so called refugees just part of an army that is being let into the country and waiting for their orders to attack.
And when it happens here just like it did in Paris, people will wonder how this could happen.
Our government is letting it happen.


+12 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

I would take it one step further and stop all from coming into this country until we solve our problems first.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I hope that they increase the security and continue accepting refugees. They could screen them for terrorism, ISIS involvement, etc.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Well....

If the world does nothing, ISIS wins.

Ban immigration from Islamic nations and forget about Assad, (we're bombing the same people he is) Work with Russia and put boots on the ground to crush this deadly evil .
edit on 16-11-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Until we can verify who we're taking in, it's only common sense.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

Every governor of every other state needs to follow suit, and also demand that full clearance paperwork be shown for all "refugees" that have already entered, upon pain of having them removed if there is no compliance. A close look at all non-citizens wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

It's surreal that our government wants to collect data on citizens, for no reason at all, claiming to do so in order to "prevent crime", but they don't want anyone having any data on non-citizens. One might start to wonder if there wasn't some plan in progress there...



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have to agree if you want to enter my country you show me all your paperwork or go home



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

"In the wake of Friday's Paris attacks, it seems that Governors are stopping Syrian Refugees from coming to America. "

CORRECTION, the governors of a few states are talking as though they will try to stop the Federales from locating Syrian refugees in their states. That doesn't stop the Federales from admitting the refugees into the "Country", it only delays processing into certain states and I say "delays" because the courts will probably rule against the recalcitrant states.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Tony so they aren't giving the states a say?



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

The states can refuse refugees but its possible the federal government intervenes and forces them to take some in, which i don't think will happen. Its only about 10k refugees so its not really a big number seems more like a political move to appease their base.

I do agree to a point that all of these refugees should be screened and put under surveillance but to be honest the damage is already done. We have a Muslim population already if they wanted guns and to carry out an attack it wouldn't be very difficult.

If some nerdy kid can shoot up a school I'm sure home grown Muslims wouldn't have an issue.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I am cold hearten. Not here. Rattlesnake flag is your first clue. Our government has no chice because the folks here have their own idea. Sone jerkoff in a suit on TV has zero say in who is welcome here. Just the way it is.
edit on 16-11-2015 by ttropia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

not just us, Hungary,Poland,Austria Czechoslovakia even Sweden ,france is working on it

abcnews.go.com... more states like ohio
www.wcpo.com...

CINCINNATI – Add Ohio to the growing list of states refusing to take in Syrian refugees amid heightened security concerns following Friday's terrorist attacks in Paris. Michigan and Alabama were the first states in the country to refuse relocating Syrian refugees on Sunday. They were later joined by Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, Arizona, North Carolina and Mississippi.


www.huffingtonpost.com... from September 9th even before the attacks nations were allready starting to secure their borders id expect more to follow suit in the next few days and if there is any kind of new attack i expect that some nations will start sending the refugees right back to isis



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
i can see it now. 10k immigrants just in time for deer season.
unless said immigrant likes beer and horse shoes. At that point they are family and leave them alone!
edit on 16-11-2015 by ttropia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Martin75

I would take it one step further and stop all from coming into this country until we solve our problems first.



This!

I'm a firm believer that we should take care of our own first, then worry about everyone else. Feed our hungry, house our homeless. There are plenty here in the US that could use the help.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

Except for my liberal governor of Pennsylvania. Philly can't even control it's current population. So much for keeping us safe.

"Tom Wolf's administration will continue working with the federal government to resettle Syrian refugees in Pennsylvania following the Paris terrorist attacks."
www.wpxi.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

The US is still taking them, Governors may be stating that they will refuse to admit them to their states but that is illegal.


The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.[1] The act was completed on March 3, 1980, was signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980 and became effective on April 1, 1980. This was the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy.[2] The main objectives of the act were to create a new definition of refugee based on the one created at the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, raise the limitation from 17,400 to 50,000 refugees admitted each fiscal year, provide emergency procedures for when that number exceeds 50,000, and to establish the Office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Most importantly, it established explicit procedures on how to deal with refugees in the U.S. by creating a uniform and effective resettlement and absorption policy.[3]


wikipedia



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I have an extra room for an immigrant and extra amo for a terrorist. Would love to house and love a Muslim. would love to purchase a terrorist tag to be legal about the kill. Who is who? We need a git to know a Muslim day.
edit on 16-11-2015 by ttropia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: TonyS

Tony so they aren't giving the states a say?


I honestly doubt it. Immigration law has, to the best of my knowledge, long been the purview of the Federal Government, kind of like the individual States can't set up Embassies in Foreign countries and conduct their own Foreign affairs.

The "States" can possibly slow it down through the Courts systems, but I seriously doubt they can for long stop the lawful exercise of Federal authority over matters relating to Immigration/Granting of Refugee status and such. Worse, when you look deeper into this, the Federal Gov't contracts with loads of private entities to do the actual "work" of processing and resettlement. So, somehow, the States would have to track those organizations and get Court Ordered Injunctions against them doing their resettlements into those particular states.

It is as usual, a mess.

But.......this does point up the ever growing divide between the wishes of the Federal Government and those of the individual States and its just another factor that's propelling greater and greater interest in securing more and more authority to the States and enforcing "States Rights" which said rights were stripped from them during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join