OBAMA ADMIN CONSIDERS RESETTLING THOUSANDS OF SYRIAN REFUGEES IN U.S.

www.breitbart.com...

The Obama administration is considering resettling thousands of refugees who left Syria during the country's ongoing civil war to multiple towns and cities across the United States, the L.A. Times reports.

Now, Im sure that the chance of this is slim to none of happening. But, honestly, if this does happen who in their right mind would let this happen and why? Dont get me wrong, im sure that most of the refugees from Syria would become great and honest hard working people...its just the 1-2% that are crazy jihadists who will slip in under the radar that Im worried about. To me, why even take the chance?

Against my DEAD body.

Second line. LOL

We have way too much of an immigration problem here now. Those terrorists sneak in as.. your friends.

reply to post by dizzie56


How long will it take before we have issues similar to the UK (Like that stabbing incident involving a radical islamist)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gee, thank God for that whole immigration reform thing. It'll make getting them here and settled a lot easier....

2nd line

reply to post by dizzie56
We have enough problems trying to figure out what to do with the immigrants (both legal and illegal) that we already have- we don't need any more. Why does the US usually accept half of the refugees that the UN propose for resettlement? That would be half of 1.6 million refugees! Germany has agreed to take 5000 and I think we shouldn't take any more than they do. Everybody hates the US but they want us to be the saviors of the world- problem is we cannot afford it anymore!

Is this how the next civil war begins?

Not with freedoms, rights, properties taken away but bring in more immigrants and then...?

Peace

YES!!!!Let's settle a bunch of Al-Qaeda cells throughout the U.S. Then again.

The State Department is "ready to consider the idea," an official from the department said, if the administration receives a formal request from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which is the usual procedure.

Anytime it's an unnamed source you have to be reticent of the viability of the report. That source could be anyone, with who knows what agenda. With that being said, already taking into consideration funding and arming Al-Qaeda cells, the possibility of settling those cells in the country shouldn't even be on the table. You're just asking for a large attack with that policy.

reply to post by dizzie56


Just stick them all in line, behind the existing immigrants signing up for free government assistance. Where the hell do you think the money to do this will come from. Where the hell will jobs for them come from....

How much more can the American tax payer be squeezed to support social programs. I'm all squeezed dry.

Des

Well, why not. We went to Iraq in 1990 and Iraqis came back as souvenirs. That followed a little dust up in a nation in South East Asia where many thousands came back as keepsakes. Afghanistan? Well, I haven't heard we gave out legal status like a booby prize on the carnival midway in quite the same way the US did in Iraq for 1990, but I'm sure some came back to show we went.

Why wouldn't we bring part of Syria home too? The U.S. brings people home from every far off land it kills them in. :shk:

(I'm really really against this whole Syria action...if anyone hadn't guessed that. )

We can't even take care of our own domestic budget. It appears as though the government just looks for more ways to spend, more ways to burden the tax payer.

Now that being said, I would accept the fact that we would spend the money to take care of them (refugees) if we took the money from;
Syrian "aid"
Egyptian "aid"
Saudi "aid"
North Korean "aid"
DHS budget
etc.

Well. I know if I dont trust this administration there will be "problems". I do not want any " Problems". So I do trust that a Syrian resettlement among us is a very good idea!

reply to post by dizzie56

Easy now...this is only being considered, and it is not like it will happen in a month much less a year. Any decision to bring in refugees would be supported by the U.N. and each of the refugees would be watched extremely close. People act as if we do not have terrorists here now. Getting involved in Syria is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If we leave them to fend for themselves, up against WMD's, they die and the Muslim world catches on fire. If we put troops on the ground, war will break out in the Middle East and they die. If we go in weak, like Vietnam, we win, but it is Iraq/Afghanistan all over again. So, at least this is a fresh line of thinking that is humanitarian. I do not think it is wise to just let the flood gates open, but apparently BO thinks his new spy network can keep them in check. Remember, it was built to monitor terrorists here in the United States.

All that being said, no way this happens with a magic wave of the wand, and it would only happen if Assad's regime cannot be ousted without provoking Iran into a war. JMO.

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
reply to post by dizzie56

 

How long will it take before we have issues similar to the UK (Like that stabbing incident involving a radical islamist)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 13-6-2013 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)

Exactly. Stabbings, flag burnings, beheadings...all in the near future if we allow this to happen. Unfortunately in this case a few bad apples do spoil the bunch.

reply to post by Boscov


How will the refugees be watched closely. By keeping tabs on all *our* phone and electronic communications? Did you know that under the NSA operation that stole all *our* data. Mosques were exempt from meta data gathering?

Tell me again how they will be closely watched.

Obama's Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers

Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com...
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Des

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

(I'm really really against this whole Syria action...if anyone hadn't guessed that. )

I'm of the same mind. Barring knowledge of an imminent large scale event that could affect the whole world, just let 'em work it out themselves.

Good just in time for Obamacare implementation, more body's for the tax payers to support in the nation with medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare and welfare.

Let them come.

That's going to cause some serious debates.

On the one hand it's an incredible humanitarian thing to do, but that's the only argument I can think of.

And besides the terrorists sneaking in as has already been proposed, what about the costs of moving them, housing them, and integrating them into our society?

As nice as that sounds I don't believe it's financially possible.

I would considering relocating the Obama regime to Syria, and let them see their handy work first hand.

Pay attention people instability causes refugees/immigration.

The more unstable a place is the more people leave:

Case in point Mexico a bloody drug war that has escalated the last decade.
Case in point the Middle East 'wars' by internal, and external forces that has escalated in the last decade.

Originally posted by Boscov
reply to post by dizzie56

 

Easy now...this is only being considered, and it is not like it will happen in a month much less a year. Any decision to bring in refugees would be supported by the U.N. and each of the refugees would be watched extremely close. People act as if we do not have terrorists here now. Getting involved in Syria is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If we leave them to fend for themselves, up against WMD's, they die and the Muslim world catches on fire. If we put troops on the ground, war will break out in the Middle East and they die. If we go in weak, like Vietnam, we win, but it is Iraq/Afghanistan all over again. So, at least this is a fresh line of thinking that is humanitarian. I do not think it is wise to just let the flood gates open, but apparently BO thinks his new spy network can keep them in check. Remember, it was built to monitor terrorists here in the United States.

All that being said, no way this happens with a magic wave of the wand, and it would only happen if Assad's regime cannot be ousted without provoking Iran into a war. JMO.

I didnt say it was happening tomorrow just that if it did happen we are in a heap of trouble. Also, Obama's spy network didnt stop Boston from going down even after Russia and Saudia Arabia both told us to watch those guys so what makes you think that it will work after we let in thousands of Al-qaeda who are trained to avoid such things?

Im sorry but its not our job to rescue every nation. If they want to over throw their government then let them fight it out we dont need to be involved. Also, if we do, then why arent we in Africa every damn day stopping those coups from happening? Hell, entire nations have disappeared and been renamed/shaped many times of the past 2 decades yet we do nothing if Africa so why is the middle east so important? And dont say oil cause the US gets most of its oil from our neighbors to the north and south instead of for some reason making it ourselves.

We need to let them go at it in a small box and then wipe out the winner to be honest. Neither side is good. Assaad is an arshat who kills his own people without batting an eye and the rebels are all sworn to Al-qaeda (who we fight in other countries but back in this one?) and they just want sharia law everywhere. Hell, they just executed a 14 year old boy for suppossedly insulting their prophet Muhammed. What else will happen after they take power?

Something else to always consider. . . .