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.

 

Kansas To Shun Refugees From Every Country In The World - repost

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The simple fact of the matter is, people do have good reason to be concerned.

And, with time...all things change. Period. Just look at how the country has changed in your lifetime.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Go Kansas!



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The simple fact of the matter is, people do have good reason to be concerned.


Ok. That still doesn't mean we should give into those fears.


And, with time...all things change. Period. Just look at how the country has changed in your lifetime.


Actually this debate is also centuries old since natives have been complaining about immigrants/refugees since we first started getting them. Literally every argument used against Syrian refugees or illegal immigrants has been used against other immigrants/refugees in the past. Guess which side has historically won out in the long run? I'll give you a hint, it's how we got the nickname "Melting Pot".
edit on 15-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Siddharta

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
Maybe you should share your sympathies with Germany and Sweden. How about you open your home up to a family?


I don't see much sympathy for Germans and Swedes in this ban either. Obviously we would not be welcome if we really had to flee our countries.

Brownback? Nomen est omen.


Europeans welcome.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Siddharta

Yes, I am aware of what I say. Are you?

By the way, the US did not allow Jews to come to this country during WWII.

The problem here is that the US government is not doing it's job to ensure that it vets the refugees, so the state tries to step up and take over that role. The state is thwarted by being told it cannot discriminate by disallowing certain refugees it feels are a security risk, so it simply says if we cannot protect ourselves from the ones that are a risk, we will allow none.

If the US government wants to bring in refugees, then it should do its part by making sure the refugees are actually what they say they are and not young men of military age who get their kicks by sexually assaulting women, or worse.


edit on 15-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t





Again.

Things change.

Times change.

If I were in the position to make such a call....personally speaking, I'd have done the same thing.

You obviously disagree. We'll have to leave it at that.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

Well I have historical precedent on my side, but if you want to agree to disagree that's fine.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How about the tradition and the first responsibility of the federal government...

Traditions? What about laws and reasoning...

Take your feelings out of it and then think of the issue. Have you heard of the m&m parallel to the situation?...about a bowl of candy with 1 or 2 poisoned...how many from the bowl would you eat...OK none right?...well now we have someone telling you they pulled all the poisoned candy out and they are all safe...how many are you eating now?

Stop trying to feel good about yourself and use simple reasoning



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

I have used simple reasoning. Your analogy isn't apt by the way. Not everyone in the country is going to meet those refugees. So not everyone would be sticking their hands into your candy jar and pulling out M&Ms. On top of that, poisoned M&Ms would be guaranteed to do damage. Terrorists sneaking in as refugees would still have to go about procuring supplies and setting up an attack. Things like that can put them on government watch lists if they aren't careful (and they usually aren't).

Simple reasoning also says that terrorist attacks against Americans within the US are near non-existent statistically. And that includes factoring 9/11 into the equation.


Stop trying to feel good about yourself and use simple reasoning


Dude, your entire argument is an appeal to emotion fallacy. You want to stop refugees from coming into the country because you are scared they may be terrorists. That is fear. Fear is an emotion. You are dressing it up with "simple reasoning", but striped away of the reasoning, that is what your argument is.
edit on 15-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

But how am I a poisoned M&M (assuming a poisoned M&M is an Islamic terrorist) ? If I were an immigrant from my Nation, due to tyranny at home, I'd be denied. I' understand you have a fear of Islamic fundamentalists. But me? By all means you have a right to be, I am just curious.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

I started earlier why, part of it is because people would deem it discrimination...say a temporary man maybe needed.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Watchlists... So now again with the addition of being you are putting your life and your family's life in the hands of the federal government.

Did you not watch the news about a month or ago of what happened in California... There are many more that are thwarted, that's good, but why should it when get that far



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you agree terrorists will come as part of the refugees?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Historical precedent or not.....

Things do change.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Learningman

PFFT,hell no, we need trouble to play with...Gotta let off some steam it seems to scare norms...
edit on 15-1-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yup. I keep trying to point out what a fail Brownback is with his policies. Thanks for lending credence to the issue.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf


if its just a republican trying to score points with his base hes an idiot and should pay for his mistakes.

Yep. Instead of making the residents suffer on account of them.
He was 're-elected', and he is a Dominionist - there has been a push to recall him.
His "mistakes" are clear for all the world to see....
giant failure.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you agree terrorists will come as part of the refugees?


I think it is unlikely. I try not to speak in absolutes though. So I won't say no to that question. I could be proven wrong.

However, I think the unlikelihood outweighs the possibility of them being terrorists so I'm not going to worry.
edit on 18-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Seriously? I hope they recall him. That guy is bonkers with those policies. I mean there is catering to your base and then there is taking it too far. And actions like the OP are taking it too far. Why should African refugees suffer for the actions of a small country hundreds of miles away from where they are?



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

May be true for some, but I know I speak for other Americans when I say that it is not the Federal government's to protect me (I am a citizen) from anyone, including myself.

I don't need the State to protect me.


True enough, but it is the government's responsibility to not take actions that would increase your risk in the first place.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join