27 States and counting...

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: introvert

I bet there are at least 10,000 households who voted for Obama and support taking more refugees in.

Send all the refugees to those households. let people put their money where their mouth is.

Meanwhile I'll keep doing charity for homeless vets and homeless American kids.

Well said. Let the people who agree with obama step up and volunteer to take in these refugees.

I wish I could give you flags for that.

a reply to: introvert

How is my response ignorant? Did congress vote to take in extra refugees? Did congress vote to run guns to Libya and Syria, in support of "moderate" rebels, in the name of regime change? Why do my taxes have to go to something I had no say in, and I do not support?

You missed the second part of my post where I said I'd rather continue supporting homeless vets and Americans that are in poverty.

You could respond to my opinion with some reasons why it wouldn't be fair to send refugees to neighborhoods and households of people that are for taking them in, over others that are against it.

Yay indiana!
Indiana has about 20,000 Burmese refugees and a city close to me "fort wayne" has 5000 of them.
Anybody that thinks we don't take refugees is a fool.

www.baci-indy.org...

I have no problem saying no to Syrians until things settle down.

My first thought was that it is a State Rights issue....and that States should be allowed to block questionable/unsafe immigration practices.However...

But "when push comes to shove, the federal government has both the plenary power and the power of the 1980 Refugee Act to place refugees anywhere in the country," Appleby said.

www.clickondetroit.com...

Seems all the stats will be able to do is make it difficult as possible to allow these people in their states.

a reply to: SonOfThor

You could respond to my opinion with some reasons why it wouldn't be fair to send refugees to neighborhoods and households of people that are for taking them in, over others that are against it.

It's ignorant because your entire premise is predicated on the false idea that the people that are for taking-in refugees live in the same neighborhoods separately from those that would not, and that these refugees are shacking-up in the homes of Americans.

That is false and completely ridiculous.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.

I disagree with you entirely. I couldn't care less about the politics. I don't want potential terrorists next door. Period. Its not just republicans talking. They aren't fooling me or anyone else. They are doing what their constituents want them to do, unlike obama.

Yes, it's mostly political as it pertains to the politicians and some of the brainwashed minions they represent. It's curious that you felt compelled to get a dig-in on Obama. Sure it's not about politics?

As far as your post, I cannot fathom how someone lives in so much fear.

Man-up, buttercup.

What about Christian Syrians ? Does that change anything?

a reply to: introvert

Ok - then what is your suggestion? Put all the refugees in camps? Put them all in shelters in urban centers? Let the refugees create their own neighborhoods in various areas? That has gone over real well for places in the UK and France, where the police aren't even willing to go.

The only ridiculous thing is supporters of taking in refugees that have no solutions of where to put them. My argument highlights precisely that.

I have yet to hear solutions from the pro-refugee side.

ETA: Are you personally willing to host a refugee family in your home? What about in a shelter on your street? How much of your paycheck are you willing to donate to their food, shelter, and clothing?

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
My first thought was that it is a State Rights issue....and that States should be allowed to block questionable/unsafe immigration practices.However...

But "when push comes to shove, the federal government has both the plenary power and the power of the 1980 Refugee Act to place refugees anywhere in the country," Appleby said.

www.clickondetroit.com...

Seems all the stats will be able to do is make it difficult as possible to allow these people in their states.

I get the feeling this is posturing at the state level, so they can say "We tried", once the refugees start pouring in. If it isn't posturing, there are only two options...
1. Make it difficult. Although I'm not so sure the feds are going to ask permission. They'll bring them in, and put them where they want them more likely.
2. A state vs Feds armed standoff at the state line. Not likely to happen, but then again, you never know.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

This doesn't surprise me in the least.

Aren't these the very same people who go around insisting we're a "Christian" nation? Well, how Christian of them!

I can't, in my wildest dreams, imagine Christ turning refugees away for fear that there may be some who intend to harm him. Especially women and children!

It's also quite an expose' of the true cowardice of those who claim to be guardians of the "home of the brave."

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That won't be California. They will take in anyone for a $buck.

Has always felt like Iowa is pretty safe from any significant terrorist attack anyways but as the saying goes "Better safe than sorry"

We have enough problems with all the refugees coming from Chiraq anyways

a reply to: SonOfThor

Ok - then what is your suggestion?

I don't know. No matter what I don't think there is one answer that is the perfect solution.

The only ridiculous thing is supporters of taking in refugees that have no solutions of where to put them.

It's a good thing that I have never said whether or not I support refugees coming to this country. As I said before, I don't know and I sit on the fence on this issue.

My argument highlights precisely that.

Does it? Let's look at what you said:

I bet there are at least 10,000 households who voted for Obama and support taking more refugees in.

Send all the refugees to those households. let people put their money where their mouth is.

How does this post, in any way, address whether or not the pro-refugee people have a solution for the problem? This was a political post and you equated pro-refugee with Obama.

All you've done is prove that I was correct in saying that this is more about politics than anything else.

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 ?

Jews wernt blowing # up.

To be fair I have no issue takeing refugee but boy do they have to be vetted and have good solid backgrounds.

Letting them just pile in undocumented asking for trouble.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: introvert

Ok - then what is your suggestion? Put all the refugees in camps? Put them all in shelters in urban centers? Let the refugees create their own neighborhoods in various areas? That has gone over real well for places in the UK and France, where the police aren't even willing to go.

The only ridiculous thing is supporters of taking in refugees that have no solutions of where to put them. My argument highlights precisely that.

I have yet to hear solutions from the pro-refugee side.

ETA: Are you personally willing to host a refugee family in your home? What about in a shelter on your street? How much of your paycheck are you willing to donate to their food, shelter, and clothing?

Quit that Fox News bull# will you?

There are no no go areas for the police in the UK

I though that's bull# was debunked years ago on ATS!

Lol DETROIT. Isn't it actually a wonderful idea to bring a new life to dead cities?
27 States and counting... does it mean anything? Once a refugee enters the states isn't he free to travel? Or it's just related to the first stage when they are 'imprisoned" in the camps? Can you force them to stay?

Secondly: If you can accept only women and children to Texas, make sure there's no adult muslim not to speak of imam around who will rise the boys to his image.
What about: Only women and daughters

originally posted by: skunkape23
I welcome the women and children to Texas. The men need to stay home and take care of business.

The fact is at some point there's no way out of some communities. That's how they get their 1,6bn joke numbers.
If you want to help them make sure they will have the Freedom! Or they'll live like bitches without passports.
I don't like pimps.

a reply to: introvert

Um. Obama is vocally pro refugee. I also said I bet, as in I am willing to wager, as in not a statement of fact. Glad to know you don't have any solutions, (fair enough as you are admittedly on the fence which I respect). Also, I actually agree with you that a lot of this is about politics, i.e. like saying we should just take in refugees without a transparent and thought out solution. I also openly err on the side of caution. I am a libertarian so I find it amusing (and frustrating) that some of these same Governors who espouse security against Islam are also willing to fight against various equal rights for people based on gender or sexuality, due to their very own theocratic takes on the rule of law.

I haven't heard one solution from any of the pro-refugee people I personally know on social media; does anyone have any links or articles that actually show what the pro-refugee folks solutions are?

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: introvert

Ok - then what is your suggestion? Put all the refugees in camps? Put them all in shelters in urban centers? Let the refugees create their own neighborhoods in various areas? That has gone over real well for places in the UK and France, where the police aren't even willing to go.

The only ridiculous thing is supporters of taking in refugees that have no solutions of where to put them. My argument highlights precisely that.

I have yet to hear solutions from the pro-refugee side.

ETA: Are you personally willing to host a refugee family in your home? What about in a shelter on your street? How much of your paycheck are you willing to donate to their food, shelter, and clothing?

Quit that Fox News bull# will you?

There are no no go areas for the police in the UK

I though that's bull# was debunked years ago on ATS!

a reply to: skunkape23

This right here means the most sense in such an argument.

We are a country built on immigration and welcoming the poor huddled masses. We can't change that now because we are uncomfortable.

We should however be vetting people better. (Why aren't the men fighting to regain their own country while their families move to safety?) This applies to more than just Syria too, it should apply to all of the countries we are accepting refugees from. There are too many people who want to hurt us to welcome them all with open arms. Those little ones who need shelter from war right now should be given that shelter though.

I believe in states rights fully and am surprised that Alaska isn't on the list. Then again, though most are pretty conservative up here they are also quick to reach out a helping hand.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
And for every six year old girl there are a hundred military aged men with fake documents and suspect intentions... Sleep well.

This is a claim that you have NO way of knowing is true, is fueled by your prejudices, and is VERY likely not even close to true.