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: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No, the migration for a better life should never be stopped. People should not be forced to stay in a war riddled community fearing for their lives.

My reasoning was similar to yours only from a different perspective. I see the war zone as the unsafe area to quickly remove your family from. I have been in unsafe, albeit wilderness, situations with my family. Typically it is me who removes the children from harms way while my husband secures the situation. Maybe it is just a cultural difference. I meant no disrespect.




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
NOTE TO PEOPLE RESPONDING TO THIS THREAD:

I will not allow this thread to be derailed of subjugated by those who are attempting to use it as a platform to try to convince others that so-called syrian refugees are in fact peaceful women and children fleeing a war torn country.

It has been documented and proven repeatedly that the majority of these so-called syrian refugees are not even from syria. They are militants and economic opportunists far more than women and children seeking safe harbor from war.

Several months ago there were multiple news articles regarding the influx of muslims in Germany which stated very clearly that certain terrorist organisations were using false documentation to sneak terrorists into pre-selected target countries in Europe under the guise of syrian refugees. This is fact and was clearly reported as such. Some of the fake refugees were caught and the fake documents seized.

There are numerous links and quotes from a multitude of sources in the thread: Germany in a state of siege.

If you believe the majority of refugees are syrian women and children, good for you. Do not attack this thread or the people posting here for knowing the truth you choose to ignore.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

so - you a hater, bro?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yea I know. That was more of a rhetorical question lol. This is why I always get so sad whenever another (infrequent) Muslim terrorist attack occurs. I always dread all the coming flood of ignorant opinions that are going to be spouted about the religion. Conservative media is like the best member of ISIS with the way they spread a message that helps further ISIS' recruitment goals...



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Where is Hillary on the issue of accepting the Syrian refugees?

My guess is her spit-covered finger is still up in the wind.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

If you actually bothered to read my posts correctly, I'm not contesting that most of the refugees are mostly men. I'm contesting your assertions that they are all suspicious and have fake passports.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
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?


Funny...I don't see anything in the constitution that says anything about refugees.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Sadly, national security has become a partisan issue like everything else. Decisions about our immigration and refugee policy are now falling along party lines, just like every other issue.

Look at the list of states, its not surprising given the current attitudes among the GOP/Republican voters:



A survey last week from Public Policy Polling found that 40 percent of Republican voters in North Carolina believe the practice of Islam should be made illegal.

Only 40 percent of GOP voters believe Islam should definitely be legal, and the other 20 percent said they weren’t sure.

The findings are not unique to North Carolina, Mr. Jensen said, as PPP found similar results in Iowa last month.

Washington Times

Given that such a large percentage of Republicans want to actually make the entire Islamic faith illegal, its not surprising that Republican governors are quick to hop on the "no refugee" bandwagon. This whole thing is just a ploy to play on people's fear and win re-election rights.

ISIS is a bigger threat to Muslims than Westerners, and those who caused the Paris attacks had fake passports and weren't even from Syria. The fear mongering is insane and the people are gobbling it up. Now somehow Snowden is responsible or had a hand in it? What? We couldn't stop terror attacks or catch Bin Laden before Snowden, so clearly our invasive intelligence gathering wasn't doing so hot then either.




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:55 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 ?



Why?

Were the jews terrorists?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
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.


Imperialism was playing with fire, morally wrong, and socialistic. The West decided what was in other people's best interest.

Ann Coulter would say that the US should still be in Iraq. That would have prevented the refugee disaster as well.

“The older I get the more I admire and crave competence, just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology.”

― H.L. Mencken www.goodreads.com...

No refugees would have been chased out if Saddam was still in power either.

The refugees are all on the US or the NWO.
edit on 17-11-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodsmom
a reply to: Annee

No, the migration for a better life should never be stopped. People should not be forced to stay in a war riddled community fearing for their lives.

My reasoning was similar to yours only from a different perspective. I see the war zone as the unsafe area to quickly remove your family from. I have been in unsafe, albeit wilderness, situations with my family. Typically it is me who removes the children from harms way while my husband secures the situation. Maybe it is just a cultural difference. I meant no disrespect.


It works ALL ways. Depends on circumstances.

But, seeing a group of men without women and children - - probably means they are the ones given the task of trying to secure a better life for the family. And "family" in some cultures means anyone related.

I had a friend from communist Hungary. She had to leave her daughter with relatives when her and her husband went on "vacation" (never to return). It took them 7 years to get their daughter out of Hungary.

I was born and raised in Los Angeles in 1946. I have seen a lot of change over the years.

I am now in a very mixed neighborhood, and love it. The all white Christian neighborhood I grew up in was - - so "sterile" - - - "fake" - - - and unrealistic.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
There's already a thread about this.

Why'd we need another? To dilute and segregate the comments?

And, again, some of you, including these clearly confused or ignorant governors, are acting as if rhe refugees are just waltzing right in unchecked and unfettered.

Unbelievable gullibility.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

That list should be all 50 states, plus DC, plus US held territories. It also should have my state of Alaska on it.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:05 PM
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 ?



Anyone remember the MS St. Louis?



The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 908 Jewish refugees from Germany, after they were denied entry to Cuba, the United States and Canada, until finally accepted in various European countries, which were later engulfed in World War II. Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in concentration camps.


That's right, America, Cuba and Canada turned away Jewish refugees, America did even more than just turn them away too:



St Louis was turned away from Cuba … America not only refused their entry but even fired a warning shot to keep them away from Florida's shores". Legally the refugees could not enter the United States on tourist visas, as they had no return addresses. The U.S. had passed the Immigration Act of 1924 that restricted numbers of "new" immigrants from eastern and southern Europe.

Schröder said he circled off the coast of Florida after leaving Cuba, hoping for permission to enter the United States. At one point, he considered running aground along the coast to allow the refugees to escape. He was shadowed by US Coast Guard vessels that prevented such a move. US Coast Guard historians maintain the two cutters involved were not ordered to turn away St. Louis but dispatched "out of concern for those on board". Ultimately the United States did not provide for entry of the refugees.

MS St. Louis

It appears that denying refuges isn't something new to America, we just tend to forget the unfortunate cases as the decades pass.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I just had a vision of the Statue of Liberty being removed.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

That particular circumstance is what I was referencing earlier with my Roosevelt comment.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I just had a vision of the Statue of Liberty being removed.

Guess we could make like Solomon and cut her in half?

Naw...then we'd just have half a statue.
edit on 11/17/2015 by ~Lucidity because: autocorrectitis.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Welcome to reality! The State's Governors and/or governments can't stop the refugee resettlement.

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."

Welcome the the "CSA", "Crap States of America" YOU got no say about who is allowed into the country, into your state, or into your neighborhood.

REMEMBER THAT before buying that shiny new cookie cutter tract house in the suburbs! You got no say so whatsoever about who moves next door. And that means, you pay $150,000.00 for the house of your dreams and you wake up a week later and its market value is only $50,000.00 and you can't move away from the foreign lunatic that's moved next door because your upside down on the note!



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That's fine, too. Did you know that the US didn't want that statue in the first place? Congress voted to accept the gift, but rejected it when Bartoldi informed them that the US would need to provide the pedestal. Zero tax dollars were to be used. It took France convincing Pulitzer to partner with them by printing the name of every contributor to the fund to construct the pedestal. Fund raising for it took 15 years and, when finally built, the people of New York hated the damn thing.

The "melting pot" destination of the world's cast aways and dregs is largely a construct of the government and media, forced upon the citizenry of the US. It is not something "We the People" have ever majority embraced.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Are you a native American? I mean, like, an Inuit? Any Native American (pre-colonization) ancestry in your genealogy?



edit on 11/17/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join