It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Paris attacks: US states halt taking Syrian refugees

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:37 PM
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Yep, this thing's getting real ugly....real fast!

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:42 PM
a reply to: Kali74

the governors do have a few options as well which would further muddle the waters ians/

So what can a concerned governor do? Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) wrote in a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that his understanding was that his state "does not have the authority to prevent the federal government from funding the relocation of these Syrian refugees to Florida" -- an opinion that's apparently at odds with the Republican governors of other states. But it appears that Scott is correct. Sources at several refugee agencies confirmed to The Post that states lack authority, as did Leopold. "The governor has no right to block anyone from coming," he said. "Resettlement is determined by the Department of State, and immigration is a completely federal matter." (In 2012, the Supreme Court reaffirmed federal jurisdiction over immigration.) Since state governments usually act as pass-throughs for federal relief money that ends up going to refugee programs, Leopold said, it's possible states could exert some leverage there -- but it's tricky. Blocking only support for Syrians, for example, could result in charges of discrimination.
confirms the refugee act of your post
but they can still complicate the process and slow it down (isn't bureaucracy great)

and in second larger quote and what i think would ruffle the most feathers while ironically appearing to be the most legal of the governors options they could attempt to only accept refugees from certain religions that could claim persecution (the article cites hindu and christian as examples )

On Monday, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee asked President Obama to suspend the admission of Syrian refugees at the federal level. If Obama doesn't do so, he will likely continue to face political pressure. But there's not much worry at this point about being able to shelter the refugees: DHS has identified 180 cities and towns across the country that are willing to accept them. (For what it's worth, the agency also plans to focus on women and children, those with medical conditions, and survivors of violence and torture.) Interestingly, it might not be impossible to implement the proposal from Bush and Cruz to accept only Christian refugees. Leopold noted that religious faith can already be a reason for an applicant to seek refugee status in places where certain religions are persecuted. "If someone claims persecution on account of being a Hindu in a Muslim country or something like that," he said, "they are tested in terms of their knowledge of their own religion. That's one of the tests of truthfulness and veracity." The USCIS has techniques of trying to suss out how honest an applicant is being in identifying his religion (or, for that matter, his political beliefs) meaning that adding a religious test, for all of the political questions, could be possible. "What you can do is ask for details and circumstances to create a composite of somebody and make a determination as to whether or not they are telling the truth when they say they of a certain faith or religion."
so it seems even homeland securty may even want to stop immigration for the time being (didnt see this confirmed so not sure yet) but if state governors decide to drag their feet or use as many options as they can to delay/complicate this it could at least slow it down tell closer to the election

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:47 PM
a reply to: TonyS

yeah and see thats the thing i think that is exactly what isis wants! more hostility twords muslims so they can get more followers to their extreme branch of islam.and barring that if it wont get them converts if this continues they may end up being sent right back into isis arms for execution .

which would be a political cluster F for every one,imagine if one of the groups of refugees was sent back to syria promptly marched off the boat and publicly and dramatically executed to the last man woman and child,such a thing could split any coalitions forming to fight isis ,and cause a huge moral dillemma issue for a good deal of politicians .

either way i think this situation is far from over and gonan get alot more complex before it even gets close to calming down

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link seems France and a good deal of europe is favoring the barbed wire and fences approach

'Isil strike will bring return of walls and barbed wire to Europe unless we gain control of borders' says Francois Hollande in historic speech. But raid to arrest Salah Abdeslam in Molenbeek ends in failure auto play video at link so be forwarned. but obama seems to still be opposed to boots on the ground in syria

President Barack Obama said Monday that sending troops into Syria to fight ISIS would be a "mistake," but not allowing Syrian refugees into the United States would betray American values. "Not because our military could not march into ... Raqqa and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we've seen before," he said in a speech at the G-20 meeting in Turkey. "If you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, then they resurface." "Let's assume we send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there is a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there?"

it seemed he was getting more hardball questions then he expected to get at the g20 conference

“We have the right strategy and we’re going to see it through,” Mr. Obama told reporters before heading to the Philippines and Malaysia for summit meetings there. He said he planned to intensify his current approach but not fundamentally alter it. “What I do not do is take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough or make me look tough.” seems africa does not want them either and refused billion dollar aid packages to take in refugees

The European Union has been forced to drop controversial plans to deport failed asylum seekers who do not have passports after African countries blocked the move. European leaders offered more than £1billion aid in a bid to persuade their African counterparts to take back tens of thousands of illegal migrants. But a migration summit in Valletta, Malta, descended into farce after the Africans rejected the EU plan to expel those who do not qualify for asylum using special papers. Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:58 PM
Refugees shouldn't be forced on any state. If there are states that are okay with these people coming to their state then put them there. This doesn't need to be political or acrimonious except I am sure the idiots In DC are going to make it that way.

If no state wants them let Obama set up a tent city for them on the Whitehouse lawn. Obama shouldn't have any problem with living next door to these people since they have all been through his rigorous vetting process.
edit on 2015/11/16 by Metallicus because: Fixed

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:01 PM
So we have the attack in Paris. Then we have weapons stolen from armory in Boston. And ISIS threatens DC.

And we can see from our map that indeed, refugees have been settled into the area ... right along with the community that gave rise to the Tsaerneavs, who were refugees themselves ...

But I'm sure that there is no risk at tall for DC before Christmas.

I’ve got a few good contacts in Middle Eastern and European intelligence and anti-terror police services and have been in contact with them the past day or so. The situation is still developing and information probably will continue to come in for analysis for some time.

Two things stood out for me. One was that the attacks in Paris were coordinated by a cell operating from a neighboring country. The attackers were divided into two groups, one that was assigned to suicide missions and one that was assigned to escape. That’s not the normal M.O. and the cops are asking why the change. Several did escape. At least one got to a neighboring country. The logical conclusion is that the escapees were being saved for “the next big thing.” The high profile attacks, one at the Eiffel Tower and one at the stadium, both failed.

Two, IS has aspirations to strike Western targets between now and Christmas: airports, seaports, and large, crowded venues in the Christmas commercial period preferred. The European intelligence people are trying to figure out whether these intentions are aspirational or operational at this point. IS would like to hit the US and/or the UK. The million dollar question is, do they have the capability to do it here on their Christmas timetable?

It’s really not a question of if anymore, it’s a question of where and when, I think.

But I guess we shouldn't worry about closing the barn door. I've already laid a case for the horse already being out, haven't I?

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:11 PM
The interesting part for me is armys fight armies. here we have fend for you self. rules of engagement are off the table. They have forced non combatants to o the table. We are soldiers. .com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dp733z6aKwMA&usg=AFQjCNGKoVgNzyy-tnrR-pFBZ_BczmEv_w&bvm=bv.107467506,bs.1,d.eWE
edit on 16-11-2015 by ttropia because: (no reason given)

my link is broken because the site is broen. I copied and pasted just fine.
edit on 16-11-2015 by ttropia because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:31 PM
a reply to: Martin75

I didn't see California on that list. They will take anyone for money!

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:33 PM
a reply to: darkbake

Screen them to 100% certainty how?

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:37 PM

edit on 11/16/2015 by whatnext21 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:38 PM
Our PM in Canada is already stirring the pot. He's all hot and ready to bring in 25,000 refugees by year end.

At least Saskatchewan's Premier Brad Wall is thinking clearly:

“I understand that the overwhelming majority of refugees are fleeing violence and bloodshed and pose no threat to anyone.
However, if even a small number of individuals who wish to do harm to our country are able to enter Canada as a result of a rushed refugee resettlement process, the results could be devastating.”

I share the same logic in his thinking. What's the sense in rushing something like this?
Hopefully they are made to stay on army barracks with security watching over them 24/7.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: Martin75

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: Martin75

send them to the WH, and other places of residences where Mr. Obama stays. If he wants us to be under threat by refugee, he should be first.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:52 PM
a reply to: purplemer

We're not blaming them for it. We're blaming the terrorists for it, but it is also dangerously blind to ignore that the terrorists will use the refugees as Trojan horses to embed themselves.

A true refugee is not a problem, but the terrorist using that refugee as a human camouflage to enter a country and become a guerilla fighter is.

Until we have a reliable means of separating the two, we need to put on the brakes.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 05:39 PM
More silliness. Fear wins again. America the brave...lmao.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 05:47 PM
a reply to: superman2012

It's not brave to let them in freely.

It is brave to stand up against the bullies that say we must give them the world and ask first for the said refugees to prove they deserve it.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 05:52 PM

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: superman2012

It's not brave to let them in freely.

It is brave to stand up against the bullies that say we must give them the world and ask first for the said refugees to prove they deserve it.

Have they ever let them in freely without a check?!? Again, more silliness which proves that the average person has NO idea how this process works.
VER Y quick google search for an easily understandable post

Edit: I wonder how many stars your fear based post is going to get? lol I love watching that on ATS.

edit on 16-11-2015 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 06:05 PM
a reply to: NewzNose

You are bang on! Obama should put up a handful in the WH. Set the example rather than just dump a bunch of refugees into neighbourhoods that are already plagued with low income and high crime rates.

Sickens me to think people who come from half way around the world are going to be treated better in our countries than our own born and raised.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 06:12 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko
Until we can verify who we're taking in, it's only common sense.

ISIS is most likely recruiting followers in Mexico too. We're not stopping them from crossing the U.S. border. Maybe it's time for Donald Trump as President.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 06:47 PM
The States may have a court battle ahead to determine legality of being forced to assume risk to their respective populations.

In the meantime they can withhold any state expenditures helping the effort.

The federal government by its own admission has no real way to vet these people.

If only 1% are radicals then we have 2000 potential terrorists invited in.

Not good.
edit on 16-11-2015 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in