Governors, States Now REJECTING Syrian 'Refugees'

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Hey--wait a second!!

Let Detroit take them!!

They would probably make it a better place to live than it is now

 

[SwimExpert]

They know for certain that at least one of the attackers entered into Europe with refugee status. Until we can determine a way to properly screen these people it makes sense to put a temporary stay on importing any more of them

http://nypost.com/2015/11/15/two-syrian-refugees-among-seven-terrorists-in-paris-attacks/

I agree with a strict screening process. But to say that one bad guy got in with the refugees is to literally admit that it's a 50,000 to 1 chance. I don't favor taking any refugees, because I don't see the US being equipped to provide for them. But I also disapprove of the wild paranoia and hate that's being leveraged against 50,000 to 1 odds.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good for them. All the States should refuse to accept any Syrian refugee's.

If Obumble want them then they can all live in DC. and the DC taxpayers can support them.

right, and if Obama wants to do the right thing, and hes so compassionate for these refugees, why not his own back yard! instead of dumping them in mostly red states!

Correct. Send them to Hawaii or Chicago. That way he can see them after he leaves office.

 

[Seawytch]

Send them to states with Democrat governors. All 16 of them.

Seems like the obvious answer. Surely those governors feel the refugees would be helpful additions to their states.

Problem solved.

It sure works with "sanctuary states", doesn't it? This is just an extension of that.
.

Does it, Mac? Does that really seem like the "obvious" answer? And let's assume that your fantasy scenario plays out...how you gonna keep these refugees IN those states?

 

[Mac1958]

Send them to states with Democrat governors. All 16 of them.

Seems like the obvious answer. Surely those governors feel the refugees would be helpful additions to their states.

Problem solved.

It sure works with "sanctuary states", doesn't it? This is just an extension of that.
.

Does it, Mac? Does that really seem like the "obvious" answer? And let's assume that your fantasy scenario plays out...how you gonna keep these refugees IN those states?

Well, that's a good point. My answer would have been that we keep track of these people, but that might hurt their feelings.

Okay, you win. Open the doors, let as many in as we can. It can only be good for America. We deserve what we get.
.

 

[Seawytch]

Send them to states with Democrat governors. All 16 of them.

Seems like the obvious answer. Surely those governors feel the refugees would be helpful additions to their states.

Problem solved.

It sure works with "sanctuary states", doesn't it? This is just an extension of that.
.

Does it, Mac? Does that really seem like the "obvious" answer? And let's assume that your fantasy scenario plays out...how you gonna keep these refugees IN those states?

Well, that's a good point. My answer would have been that we keep track of these people, but that might hurt their feelings.

Okay, you win. Open the doors, let as many in as we can. It can only be good for America. We deserve what we get.
.

Well there you go, we have your answer. You want to track human beings that have not demonstrated they did anything wrong beyond fleeing a shit ass situation. That's a good Authoritarian answer. Shall we make them convert to Christianity too just for extra good measure?

 

[Mac1958]

Send them to states with Democrat governors. All 16 of them.

Seems like the obvious answer. Surely those governors feel the refugees would be helpful additions to their states.

Problem solved.

It sure works with "sanctuary states", doesn't it? This is just an extension of that.
.

Does it, Mac? Does that really seem like the "obvious" answer? And let's assume that your fantasy scenario plays out...how you gonna keep these refugees IN those states?

Well, that's a good point. My answer would have been that we keep track of these people, but that might hurt their feelings.

Okay, you win. Open the doors, let as many in as we can. It can only be good for America. We deserve what we get.
.

Well there you go, we have your answer. You want to track human beings that have not demonstrated they did anything wrong beyond fleeing a shit ass situation. That's a good Authoritarian answer. Shall we make them convert to Christianity too just for extra good measure?

No, in fact, we should get as many Muslim young males 18 to 34 in here as we can.

Let's get to building those mosques, too, they'll need those. And ask all of them not to do anything to assimilate.

This is sounding better all the time!
.

 

[Seawytch]

Send them to states with Democrat governors. All 16 of them.

Seems like the obvious answer. Surely those governors feel the refugees would be helpful additions to their states.

Problem solved.

It sure works with "sanctuary states", doesn't it? This is just an extension of that.
.

Does it, Mac? Does that really seem like the "obvious" answer? And let's assume that your fantasy scenario plays out...how you gonna keep these refugees IN those states?

Well, that's a good point. My answer would have been that we keep track of these people, but that might hurt their feelings.

Okay, you win. Open the doors, let as many in as we can. It can only be good for America. We deserve what we get.
.

Well there you go, we have your answer. You want to track human beings that have not demonstrated they did anything wrong beyond fleeing a shit ass situation. That's a good Authoritarian answer. Shall we make them convert to Christianity too just for extra good measure?

No, in fact, we should get as many Muslim young males 18 to 34 in here as we can.

Let's get to building those mosques, too, they'll need those. And ask all of them not to do anything to assimilate.

This is sounding better all the time!
.

Way to not address my points and go right to the hyperbole. What is the average age and the gender of Syrian refugees, Mac?

Would you like to stop Muslims from building places of worship in America, Mac?

 

[Seawytch]

 

[Mac1958]

Seems like the obvious answer. Surely those governors feel the refugees would be helpful additions to their states.

Problem solved.

It sure works with "sanctuary states", doesn't it? This is just an extension of that.
.

Does it, Mac? Does that really seem like the "obvious" answer? And let's assume that your fantasy scenario plays out...how you gonna keep these refugees IN those states?

Well, that's a good point. My answer would have been that we keep track of these people, but that might hurt their feelings.

Okay, you win. Open the doors, let as many in as we can. It can only be good for America. We deserve what we get.
.

Well there you go, we have your answer. You want to track human beings that have not demonstrated they did anything wrong beyond fleeing a shit ass situation. That's a good Authoritarian answer. Shall we make them convert to Christianity too just for extra good measure?

No, in fact, we should get as many Muslim young males 18 to 34 in here as we can.

Let's get to building those mosques, too, they'll need those. And ask all of them not to do anything to assimilate.

This is sounding better all the time!
.

Way to not address my points and go right to the hyperbole. What is the average age and the gender of Syrian refugees, Mac?

Would you like to stop Muslims from building places of worship in America, Mac?

I don't know what the average age is. I don't care if they stop building mosques.

Good enough?

You're going to get what you want: America is being fundamentally transformed. We were a racist country founded on racist principles by rich white slave owners; we stole land from Mexico; we stole land from the Indians; we have been terrorists; we hate poor people; we hate women and gays 'n stuff; we're greedy; we think all Muslims are terrorists (there, I think I've hit most of the Regressive Left's points); we have to pay the price, and now we will.

Congratulations. Not sure what else I'm supposed to say. I'm just going to observe our "transformation".
.

 

[Meathead]

Something ain't right. You, the chart and by extension Mercycorp are hacks. From their own site:

Of the thousands of refugees arriving every day on Europe’s shores, most are young. In the first seven months of this year, 67 percent of them were between the ages of 14 and 34. These young refugees are travelling from countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, driven from their homes by conflict and instability.

Who are the young refugees risking their lives to make it to Europe?

Meanwhile, a far more accountable site of the UN gives 20% children, 14% women and a full 66% adult men.

UNHCR Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response - Mediterranean

 

[bripat9643]

The states don't have the right to 'reject' refugees that receive legal status from the federal government.

Says who?

The Refugee Act of 1980.

Cite the language that says so.

The whole law.

Read it, you'll notice there's no mention of states having veto power over refugee designations.

In other words, there's no language saying states have to admit refugees.

 

[Conservative65]

Seems like the whole Ebola scare all over again, just another angle.... it's Ground Hog Day, the movie, only another clip of it!

How many of these "refugees" are you willing to let live with you? I'm guessing none so STFU.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The states don't have the right to 'reject' refugees that receive legal status from the federal government.

Says who?

The Refugee Act of 1980.

Cite the language that says so.

The whole law.

Read it, you'll notice there's no mention of states having veto power over refugee designations.

In other words, there's no language saying states have to admit refugees.

Once the federal government grants a refugee legal status, the state has no say.

 

[bripat9643]

Defend Obama's position at all costs! Even if it means risking American lives.

Unbelievably disgusting

This doesn't have anything to do with Obama, as far as I'm concerned.

It most certainly does. If Obama wasn't trying to bring them here you wouldn't be having this discussion.

6 months ago I thought we should possibly bring them here. In light of the fact that ISIS is using refugees as a method to infiltrate other countries I have enough common sense to rethink my original position.

Basing your arguments on what your crystal ball tells you that I would have done in your hypothetical situation is pretty stupid.

The fact that you're being emotional and reactionary doesn't mean that everyone else has to be as well.

Do you support his decision to bring thousands of Syrian refugees here or not?
If not then I apologize. If so, fuck off.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care where refugees come from - but yes, I do agree with US policy regarding refugees in general.

As far as Obama "making the decision" to bring thousands of Syrian refugees, I could go either way. There are refugees in plenty of other war-torn countries that are just as deserving of a chance at a new life.

What I will say is that pants-pissing fear about terrorists hiding in the refugees is dumb and reactionary. There are no shortage of ways for terrorists to physically enter the country, and no way to plug every hole. Denying entry to Syrian refugees based on that won't hurt ISIS or prevent terrorists from entering the country, it'll only hurt the millions of people who've been bearing the brunt of ISIS, being conquered and driven from their homes by ISIS, and suffering the worst that they do.

That's only one reason to keep them out. The main reason is that they're muzzie savages who will eventually overwhelm and destroy our culture. We don't need any more Muslims in this couintry.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In other words, there's no language saying states have to admit refugees.

States don't have the legal power to keep somebody out. Louisiana can't escort someone to Mississippi and say don't come back. Are you really this dense?

 

[bripat9643]

Says who?

The Refugee Act of 1980.

Cite the language that says so.

The whole law.

Read it, you'll notice there's no mention of states having veto power over refugee designations.

In other words, there's no language saying states have to admit refugees.

Once the federal government grants a refugee legal status, the state has no say.

They have a say about where they can live.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That's only one reason to keep them out. The main reason is that they're muzzie savages who will eventually overwhelm and destroy our culture. We don't need any more Muslims in this couintry.

I could effectively argue we don't need more people like you in this country.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, there's no language saying states have to admit refugees.

States don't have the legal power to keep somebody out. Louisiana can't escort someone to Mississippi and say don't come back. Are you really this dense?

Really? They can't kick out non-us citizens? Why not?

 

[bripat9643]

That's only one reason to keep them out. The main reason is that they're muzzie savages who will eventually overwhelm and destroy our culture. We don't need any more Muslims in this couintry.

I could effectively argue we don't need more people like you in this country.

True, but I'm a natural born citizen, so you're stuck with me. WE aren't stuck with these Muzzie savages until they become citizens.