Argument for Banning Some Immigrants/Refugees

[Clementine]

I have yet to see anyone on the left discuss certain facts.

First, that the Syrian refugees are economic refugees, according to the U.N., and are in no danger there. Despite that, the U.N. is approving these Syrian Muslims for placement in our country while denying the Christians, who are in danger.

Second, no one has refuted the fact that roughly 10% of those refugees are likely members of ISIS. Do we need 1,000 ISIS members now and another 5,000 later? Considering what one just did in Orlando, the answer is a clear 'hell, no.'

Since the refugees are in no danger and are seeking better living conditions and education for their children, why is it necessary for Obama to 'seed' them all over the states? Makes no sense.

Also, the left is acting shocked at Trump's suggestion that we place a temporary ban on people from countries that support terrorists. It seems reasonable and the last 6 presidents, including Obama, have placed such bans on immigration. They have a right to do that to ensure national security. It seems clear to most that preventing the influx of thousands of ISIS and other terrorists is in the best interest of Americans. Why does the left tend to ignore that and just keep repeating the same talking points about tolerance? Why the hell should we tolerate any effort that allows terrorists to enter the U.S.?

Even those 'refugees' not tagged as terrorists have managed to make life miserable in many other countries. It's the "average" Syrian Muslims who are raping women and boys, attacking women in the streets, rioting, and going on sharia patrols where they harass anyone who is in violation of their laws. They couldn't care less about the laws of the countries they are in, it's all about their laws. To say that they're attitude towards the locals is bad is a gross understatement. They've even attacked those who are trying to help them. They've complained a lot about not receiving better housing, food and whatever else they feel they are entitled to. Many have returned to Syria because they were disappointed in what was offered in other countries. And again, they went home because they are not in danger. When the U.N. admitted that, it indicated that the radicals in Syria leave many alone. When you think about that, it tells you that there isn't a lot of difference between them and those they see as allies. It's the non-Muslims who have been targeted most. And no one is trying to help them. Whose side is Obama on? Why isn't he demanding that the U.N. answer the call for help by the victims in Syria?



"One of the problems with election campaigns is that ideas get presented to the general public as wild, unprecedented and beyond the pale - and the general public has no idea if that's actually true, or if these same kinds of ideas are quietly implemented all the time behind the scenes.


When Donald Trump talks about a temporary halt on immigration by Muslims, or by people from certain countries with known ties to terrorism, the news media acts as if no one has ever imagined such an idea before. And Trump is treated as a wild-eyed lunatic for suggesting it.


Is it true that this idea is entirely beyond the pale? As the Daily Caller has reported today, nothing could be farther from the truth. The last six presidents have used executive orders to ban immigration by specific classes of people - and that includes the one who's now howling about Trump's proposal to do the same:


Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."


President Barack Obama has used the authority this statute provides six times in his tenure. In July 2011, Obama barred the entry of "anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations."


In April of 2012, he barred the entry of anyone "facilitating computer or network disruption that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the government of Iran and Syria; anyone who have sold or provided goods, services, or technology to Iran or Syria likely to be used for such purposes; or to have materially assisted anyone whose property or interests are described."


The Caller goes on to detail how this power was used by each president since Jimmy Carter used the power, and of course, Carter's use of it was most similar to Trump's. He banned all Iranians from entering the country. Similarly, Ronald Reagan banned immigration from Cubans in all but special circumstances. (I never understood that one. We should have built a gateway arch in Miami welcoming them. But anyway . . .)


So no, Trump's proposal is not radical. That's complete nonsense. Presidents have been exercising this very same power in various and sundry ways for generations. Now, it's perfectly legitimate to debate the wisdom of this particular application of the power. Maybe you can make the case that it it's too broad or that it could lead to unintended consequences. But pretending that no president has ever contemplated such an action, or that represents some sort of abuse of power, is utter nonsense."



http://www.caintv.com/daily-caller-details-how-last

 

[Norman]

Makes perfect sense to import people you are in war against. Perfect sense...

 

[Clementine]

Makes perfect sense to import people you are in war against. Perfect sense...

Yes, it makes perfect sense to knowingly import members of that JV terrorist group. Nothing like paying for the enemy to come and kill you.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I've been waiting for someone to mention Obama signed an order suspending immigrants from Iraq after he announced the pullout of US troops

Obama Admin Paused Iraq Refugee Program In 2011

 

[waltky]

"Empathy must be balanced with security,"...

Texas to stop refugee aid as Obama plans more resettlements
September 21, 2016 — Texas will stop helping the U.S. government provide aid and services to refugees, state officials said Wednesday, severing ties at a time when President Barack Obama has announced intentions to dramatically increase the number of resettlements in 2017.

Kansas and New Jersey also have pulled out of the federally funded refugee resettlement program due to what Republicans have called security concerns. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said his state will follow suit unless demands for more rigorous refugee vetting are "unconditionally" met by Sept. 30. Federal officials say refugees are exhaustively screened and have won several court battles over states' efforts to block the arrival of Syrian refugees in the wake of November's deadly attacks in Paris.

But GOP leaders, including vice presidential candidate and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, have said a Syrian passport, now believed to be fake, was found near one of the suicide bombers, and earlier this week, presidential hopeful Donald Trump's eldest son likened refugees from the war-torn country to a bowl of poisonous candy. "Empathy must be balanced with security," Abbott said Wednesday in a statement. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement that servic2es for refugees would continue in Texas. In other states, the Obama administration works directly with local resettlement agencies instead of passing federal dollars for refugee services and benefits through state agencies.

One of the largest resettlement agencies in the U.S., the International Rescue Committee, released a statement from its Dallas director saying that Texas' decision "cannot obstruct our moral obligation to protect and welcome the world's most vulnerable." The White House has said the U.S. would resettle 110,000, a 30 percent increase over the 85,000 allowed this year. Obama told the United Nations this week that world leaders have pledged to take in 360,000 refugees next year, calling it a "crisis of epic proportions" that tested both the international order and the world's humanity. He added, "History will judge us harshly if we do not rise to this moment."

Nearly 30 states vowed to block Syrian refugees following the Paris attacks. Texas was the first to sue the federal government in an attempt to block resettlements but a judge threw out the lawsuit in June after twice rejecting the state's claims that refugees presented an imminent risk. The state has appealed. Indiana is also continuing to fight in court over efforts to uphold Pence's order to bar agencies from helping Syrian refugees resettle in his state. A federal judge has ruled the order "clearly discriminates" against refugees, which the state is appealing to a high court in Chicago.

Texas to stop refugee aid as Obama plans more resettlements

 

[Clementine]

"Empathy must be balanced with security,"...

Texas to stop refugee aid as Obama plans more resettlements
September 21, 2016 — Texas will stop helping the U.S. government provide aid and services to refugees, state officials said Wednesday, severing ties at a time when President Barack Obama has announced intentions to dramatically increase the number of resettlements in 2017.

Kansas and New Jersey also have pulled out of the federally funded refugee resettlement program due to what Republicans have called security concerns. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said his state will follow suit unless demands for more rigorous refugee vetting are "unconditionally" met by Sept. 30. Federal officials say refugees are exhaustively screened and have won several court battles over states' efforts to block the arrival of Syrian refugees in the wake of November's deadly attacks in Paris.

But GOP leaders, including vice presidential candidate and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, have said a Syrian passport, now believed to be fake, was found near one of the suicide bombers, and earlier this week, presidential hopeful Donald Trump's eldest son likened refugees from the war-torn country to a bowl of poisonous candy. "Empathy must be balanced with security," Abbott said Wednesday in a statement. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement that servic2es for refugees would continue in Texas. In other states, the Obama administration works directly with local resettlement agencies instead of passing federal dollars for refugee services and benefits through state agencies.

One of the largest resettlement agencies in the U.S., the International Rescue Committee, released a statement from its Dallas director saying that Texas' decision "cannot obstruct our moral obligation to protect and welcome the world's most vulnerable." The White House has said the U.S. would resettle 110,000, a 30 percent increase over the 85,000 allowed this year. Obama told the United Nations this week that world leaders have pledged to take in 360,000 refugees next year, calling it a "crisis of epic proportions" that tested both the international order and the world's humanity. He added, "History will judge us harshly if we do not rise to this moment."

Nearly 30 states vowed to block Syrian refugees following the Paris attacks. Texas was the first to sue the federal government in an attempt to block resettlements but a judge threw out the lawsuit in June after twice rejecting the state's claims that refugees presented an imminent risk. The state has appealed. Indiana is also continuing to fight in court over efforts to uphold Pence's order to bar agencies from helping Syrian refugees resettle in his state. A federal judge has ruled the order "clearly discriminates" against refugees, which the state is appealing to a high court in Chicago.

Texas to stop refugee aid as Obama plans more resettlements

No one is arguing with the Muslim countries who refused to help, citing security concerns. They are the very ones who should step up first and help.

I think this is about seeding Muslims all over the world, not keeping them safe until they can return home. The women and children are often left behind and its mostly young males being seeded everywhere.

If it hurts us more than it helps them, the answer should always be no. If keeping them safe was the real reason, and that's what the left is still selling, then it would have been quicker, more cost effective, safer for us and would have helped way more people if we had sent aid over there instead of relocating them. The UN already said that most aren't in danger. Many have returned home on their own after being disappointed in the amount of aid they received in some countries. Of course, Obama plans to spend billions to ensure they aren't disappointed here. The veterans can wait years for healthcare and live in the streets. The elderly can do without a cost of living increase. Important thing is that the Muslims are happy and have everything they demand.