27 States and counting...

originally posted by: gwynnhwyfar
How does it not violate the Constitution to disallow refugees on the basis of their religion?

I am not Ted Cruz... I do not support bringing Muslim or Christian Syrian refugees into the US. I also have not once veered from a blunt statement of placing a halt on all immigration into the USA. This isn't about religion for me, it's about national protectionism.

originally posted by: Swills

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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.

How ridiculous. Are you saying that all refugees are beheading infidels, stoning women, and everything associated with ISIL? That's quite ignorant.

Of course no one wants another Paris attack. Do you really think America is just gonna let anyone in without investigating them? We have already given up so much freedom in the name of security so if anyone fleeing the death trap that is Syria isn't vetted, well that blame lies on the authorities.

Bottom line, we have innocent men, women, and children running away from being raped and murdered by the hands of people who very closely resemble the Nazi's. Apples to oranges my...

Do I think all refugees are xxx? No. I never said "all" and I do not intend to. But I do think some of them would commit acts of terror and unless someone can tell me which ones, I am not willing to take the chance.

Do I really think America is just gonna let anyone in without investigating them? Have you even seen a television in the last twenty years or listened to a radio or read a newspaper? We have one of the most commonly crossed borders on earth and although most of the legal citizens of this nation would prefer otherwise, the truth is we have no idea who is walking in to this country this very moment. The only thing we know for sure: someone is.

Our wonderful leader, king obama, wants as many illegal aliens in this country as he can possibly get. As long as he keeps throwing our tax dollars at them and letting them run wild they will keep voting democrat, which is ultimately what he wants. Do you really think this country isn't capable of closing that border? For less money than importing savages and building shelters for them would ever cost us we could build homes along the border for our homeless veterans and pay them to guard our border. A job I think they would enjoy doing and do quite well.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: InfamousJLZ

You do realize that it's possible for a Muslim who is a legal citizen of the U.S. to convert to extremism at any time? How would you stop that? Kick all Muslims out just to be safe?

You do realize that every time someone buys a gun, there is a chance they could shoot up a bunch of innocent people in a mall, movie theater or school? How do you stop that? Ban all gun sales, just to be safe?

I was waiting for someone to try this tactic. Sorry, but its not going to work.

An individual who, for whatever reason, decides to run amok and shoot people is just that - an individual. You deal with individuals individually. One at a time.

Where muslim extremists are concerned, there is a vast network involved and a history spanning thousands of years. They make a conscious effort to indoctrinate their own children, and any other child willing to listen, in the methods and means of exterminating the infidels of the evil west. They raise their sons to believe that raping women is perfectly acceptable behavior. That young girls are fit for marriage and can be purchased whenever the mood strikes. That women are second class citizens at best. That as muslim men it is their duty to stone women to death...for being raped...by them...

You respond to an act by an individual by responding to the individual. You respond to acts committed by masses by responding to the masses. It is disingenuous and dangerous to even consider otherwise.

WOW. CNN has done a complete flipflop on their presentations of the refugees since the governors spoke up today.
Now all of the picts are women and children, in water, in mud, crying, injured. The talking heads are giving stats on how few terrorists there are.

Clearly they have been 'advised' by someone to change their position.

The government manipulates the hell out of us through the media. It' sickening.

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: SonOfThor

I wonder how many refugees the WH would hold? Camp David, Martha's Vineyard, and the private homes for Obama's entire cabinet.

Proove to us they are safe...

I was thinking that FEMA camps would be a much nicer place than the trash dump, re the Japanese-Americans in N Idaho

No, actually. I want to be able to vet the refugees we do bring here to be vetted enough that we can be reasonably certain that we aren't importing a ratio of 1 ISIS:10 refugees or something. I'd like the ISIS load to be low enough to keep the contagion from taking hold.

Then, we wouldn't have to deal with the nastiness of people having to discuss camps because I surely don't want that issue spilling over onto our native, Americanized, peaceful Muslims. They didn't ask for that, and they surely didn't ask for that to be sparked by the actions of a government that is supposed to protect them as much as you and me.

Beshear said yesterday that he won't refuse Syrian refugees in Kentucky. Thankfully, he got voted out and Bevin is against accepting any refugees from Syria.

This is one of those times I hope that the individual states tell the federal government to shove it.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I didn't say they were relocated there....only that they should be relocated to the homes of those lawmakers and Obama admin's homes...including the WH.

The wave is getting bigger still...and its not just US states refusing to accept potential terrorists. Merkel's open door just got slammed in her face, by her own party.

Chancellor Angela Merkel became the willkommenskultur queen a couple of months ago when she suspended restrictions on refugees seeking asylum. But branding the country refugee-friendly made some Germans queasy. Even before the Friday the 13th attack on Paris, many wondered whether the newcomers might include members of ISIS’s covert operatives. Hostility to her open refugee policy grew, most notably within her own party and last week her interior ministry re-imposed the very restrictions Ms. Merkel had so auspiciously lifted.

link

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: SonOfThor

I wonder how many refugees the WH would hold? Camp David, Martha's Vineyard, and the private homes for Obama's entire cabinet.

Proove to us they are safe...

I was thinking that FEMA camps would be a much nicer place than the trash dump, re the Japanese-Americans in N Idaho

No, actually. I want to be able to vet the refugees we do bring here to be vetted enough that we can be reasonably certain that we aren't importing a ratio of 1 ISIS:10 refugees or something. I'd like the ISIS load to be low enough to keep the contagion from taking hold.

Then, we wouldn't have to deal with the nastiness of people having to discuss camps because I surely don't want that issue spilling over onto our native, Americanized, peaceful Muslims. They didn't ask for that, and they surely didn't ask for that to be sparked by the actions of a government that is supposed to protect them as much as you and me.

I was being a smart ass, but for as many as they are speaking of allowing in, there has to be a way to vet... and that isnt done over night. There has to be a holding place to vet them... one that is secure. However, when our Southern border is open... security is sort of a moot point. We have "FEMA CAMPS" in every state, those states who are assigned whatever number of refugees already have a holding or staging area in place. Native or naturalized Muslims would have no reason to be REvetted unless intel leads one to believe they need to be further scrutinized. With the Japanese there was no way to centralize intel as we have now.. so all were interred.
Considering there are warning signs on our Southern border in Farsi among the amount of visa skippers and etc... Id say the cow ( or refujihadis) is already out of the barn. Anything else from this point is pacification of the fears of the citizens of the US. The only way IMO that security without intrusion on Citizen rights could be done is a period of isolationism. NO refugees allowed in.

Like Ollie said to Stan... we're certainly in a mess THIS time...

a reply to: Advantage

The US stopped immigration for about 40 years once before. It might be time to do so again.

Give us time to assimilate all our current load of new Americans.

Of course, such a thing is out of the question with our current open borders crowd.

originally posted by: angeldoll
WOW. CNN has done a complete flipflop on their presentations of the refugees since the governors spoke up today.
Now all of the picts are women and children, in water, in mud, crying, injured. The talking heads are giving stats on how few terrorists there are.

Clearly they have been 'advised' by someone to change their position.

The government manipulates the hell out of us through the media. It' sickening.

More than half the nation publicly stood in opposition to king obama. You can bet your bottom dollar his hounds are working the media full force right now...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Advantage

The US stopped immigration for about 40 years once before. It might be time to do so again.

Give us time to assimilate all our current load of new Americans.

Of course, such a thing is out of the question with our current open borders crowd.

Well said.

More than**** 150,000**** Syrians already live in the United States, according to census figures, and refugees who have relatives in the country are likely to be resettled with or near them

Syrians made up about 2 percent of the 70,000 refugees admitted during the last fiscal year. The three largest refugee groups were from Myanmar, Iraq and Somalia.


The United States has also admitted far larger numbers in the past. In 1979, it provided sanctuary to 111,000 Vietnamese refugees, and in 1980, it added another 207,000. Around the same time, the country took in more than 120,000 Cuban refugees during the Mariel boatlift, including around 80,000 in one month

So many people are trying to draw parallels...Jews fleeing Nazi German?? The difference? Jews wouldn't throw you off a building for being gay. Jews wouldn't rape women because they aren't covered head to toe and being led around by their man. Jews wouldn't behead you because you don't subscribe to THEIR religion and beliefs.
It's been pointed out thousands of times, mostly what's coming from Syria are 18 to 20 something males. This will end bad, you can take that to the bank. Even the touchy-feely countries that took them in are having having great concerns *to put it gently*. Say whatever you like, these people are just 1000 years behind in social/civil development.

a reply to: madenusa

The United States has also admitted far larger numbers in the past. In 1979, it provided sanctuary to 111,000 Vietnamese refugees, and in 1980, it added another 207,000. Around the same time, the country took in more than 120,000 Cuban refugees during the Mariel boatlift, including around 80,000 in one month.

Were the Viet Cong embedding themselves among those refugees in order to create havoc in the countries those refugees went to?

Were the communist allies of Che and Castro embedding themselves in the refugees saved by the boatlift?

If not, them those are really not at all comparable.

Are there any polls out that give a feel for how the American public stands on this matter?
I think this has the potential to blow up in Obama's face, if the majority of the people are uncomfortable with having these Syrians brought here.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Are there any polls out that give a feel for how the American public stands on this matter?
I think this has the potential to blow up in Obama's face, if the majority of the people are uncomfortable with having these Syrians brought here.

Resulting in food riots, violence, panic and despair but not anything greater than other generations have faced. the lifeline, will be the states and the rise of their power again
building from the ground up, eliminating entire levels of local government in order to just survive.

The spontaneous organization of people at the ground level to look not to government but to look to their neighbors, their church, their temple, secure their family and then see who needs help.
Once stability is restored the economy will start again but
not with imports from foreign lands because their collapse will be far greater, far more violent, far more starvation as they are ripped from the American tit of consumption.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

More than half the nation publicly stood in opposition to king obama. You can bet your bottom dollar his hounds are working the media full force right now...

I'd rather not believe this, but I have no choice. His work is done.

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 ?

Jews didn't declare war on the entire western civilization where they were fleeing to. Big difference.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: madenusa

The United States has also admitted far larger numbers in the past. In 1979, it provided sanctuary to 111,000 Vietnamese refugees, and in 1980, it added another 207,000. Around the same time, the country took in more than 120,000 Cuban refugees during the Mariel boatlift, including around 80,000 in one month.

Were the Viet Cong embedding themselves among those refugees in order to create havoc in the countries those refugees went to?

Were the communist allies of Che and Castro embedding themselves in the refugees saved by the boatlift?

If not, them those are really not at all comparable.

For embedded Cong, see 'Apocalypse Now' again. That's for real...
even locally. As for just my state, the governor has said no to
Syrian refugees. We've so far absorbed about 160 Syrians since
2005.
On the other hand, our largest (sanctuary) city has estimated 160
Central and South American walkers every WEEK. Oh the irony...
and some of these guys have more tattoos than the whole side show.
Each. Specifically to address the 'refugees'...
can we afford to take tham? Probably Hell no. Is it a completely
flipped out priority to take care of them before our own veterans?
I'm not even bothering to ask less than a week after Veteran's Day.
One politician's multiculturalism is another's balkanization... but I'm
one of the guys that will still capitalize the important things.