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.

 

27 States and counting...

page: 1
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
As of the morning of 11/17/15, this is the list of U.S. states whose governors will not accept Syrian refugees:
-- Alabama
-- Arizona
-- Arkansas
-- Florida
-- Georgia
-- Idaho
-- Illinois
-- Indiana
-- Iowa
-- Kansas
-- Louisiana
-- Maine
-- Massachusetts
-- Michigan
-- Mississippi
-- Nebraska
-- Nevada
-- New Hampshire
-- New Jersey
-- New Mexico
-- North Carolina
-- Ohio
-- Oklahoma
-- South Carolina
-- Tennessee
-- Texas
-- Wisconsin
Note - Kentucky will be added to this list when Governor Bevin takes office

When federal government fails to protect and defend this nation and its people it becomes the responsibility of the state.

It is a shame that the governments of states must unite against the United States government to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for their citizens.




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

It would be interesting to know how many on that list refused to take Jews who where fleeing Nazi Germany ?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I wonder how many of those states already have them. I can see two on the list without any kind of research already.

As I said in a previous thread, the children that were recently placed in my area are very terrifying whenever they're on tv. I'm very glad somebody is willing to step up and keep these six year old girls out of state. I'll sleep better at night now.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

i'm not sure what i think about this.
but i do understand wanting to be on the side of caution.
we'll see how this pans out.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I am seeing articles (mostly liberal sites) that say that it is Unconstitutional for States to refuse the refugees.
thinkprogress.org

The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way. As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.


My personal opinion.... States Rights have been trampled that we are at this point. If a Democrat POTUS wants to fill a Red state with immigrants from wherever... he can and there is nothing they can do about it?
edit on b000000302015-11-17T08:14:50-06:0008America/ChicagoTue, 17 Nov 2015 08:14:50 -0600800000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I welcome the women and children to Texas. The men need to stay home and take care of business.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

That would have been Roosevelt and the Federal government.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
The borders, like Social Security, are something that the US citizens have paid for in money and restrictions. US citizens should get the benefit of the border.

Although, there wouldn't be any Syrian refugees if the US had not conquered Iraq.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You should probably go a lot further back in history. The French and British colonized that region. Not saying the us goV didn't continue the problems with regime changes, etc. But let's not be ignorant of history.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.


The Democratic Mayor of Cincinnati has also said we will not be taking in any of these refugees. Does he also have an anti-Obama agenda or maybe he is trying to do the right thing to protect his constituency? It is sheer stupidity to let these people into our country and is part of a larger NWO agenda to destroy cultures and breakdown international borders. THAT is the truth and what we are up against.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.

I would rather trust a Governor that errs on the side of caution than trust our POTUS. The POTUS that says we don't dare look at a military adventure as something the US should 'win'. The POTUS that did such a fine job of setting up a website for Obamacare. I'll trust him vetting 'refugees' from a country where you can get a fake passport for $825 all day long..... NOT!
edit on b000000302015-11-17T08:43:06-06:0008America/ChicagoTue, 17 Nov 2015 08:43:06 -0600800000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.


There is one Democratically held state on that list as well, I would wager there will be more added/



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I bet there are at least 10,000 households who voted for Obama and support taking more refugees in.

Send all the refugees to those households. let people put their money where their mouth is.

Meanwhile I'll keep doing charity for homeless vets and homeless American kids.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

All the niceties of the great melting pot and all the fuzzy
feeling talk that comes with it. Completely ignores the fact that
when you put certain peoples together, the warmth of that
intended melting pot. Turns to a cold blooded murderous blood
bath.

Or am I racist.
edit on Ram111715v30201500000033 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Huck huck , yepperz, the right to work state missoura is accepting them with open arms...



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Vroomfondel

It would be interesting to know how many on that list refused to take Jews who where fleeing Nazi Germany ?



I would say that is apples and oranges...but really its apples and washing machines.

Jews fleeing nazi Germany weren't beheading infidels or stoning women to death for heinous crime of being raped... I think there is a difference there you might be missing.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus



Does he also have an anti-Obama agenda or maybe he is trying to do the right thing to protect his constituency?


I don't know. It has been my experience that this anti-refugee nonsense is a cause of the right. But I suppose I should not speak in absolutes.



is part of a larger NWO agenda to destroy cultures and breakdown international borders. THAT is the truth and what we are up against.


Conspiratorial garbage. You can't even prove there is a NWO agenda, let alone claim it is some truth.

a reply to: butcherguy

You're reply is is irrelevant and seems to be an emotional knee-jerk.

Obamacare?

Spare me the drama.


originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.


There is one Democratically held state on that list as well, I would wager there will be more added/


That could very well be true.

a reply to: SonOfThor



I bet there are at least 10,000 households who voted for Obama and support taking more refugees in.

Send all the refugees to those households. let people put their money where their mouth is.


Ignorant response. How do I respond to such silliness?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I wonder how many of those states already have them. I can see two on the list without any kind of research already.

As I said in a previous thread, the children that were recently placed in my area are very terrifying whenever they're on tv. I'm very glad somebody is willing to step up and keep these six year old girls out of state. I'll sleep better at night now.


And for every six year old girl there are a hundred military aged men with fake documents and suspect intentions... Sleep well.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.


I disagree with you entirely. I couldn't care less about the politics. I don't want potential terrorists next door. Period. Its not just republicans talking. They aren't fooling me or anyone else. They are doing what their constituents want them to do, unlike obama.




top topics



 
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join