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

Kansas To Shun Refugees From Every Country In The World

TOPEKA, Kan. (CN) - Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback issued an executive order expanding his ban on state assistance to Syrian refugees in Kansas to refugees from every country in the world.

Brownback on Friday issued Executive Order No. 16-01, which broadened his November executive order, No. 15-07, concerning resettlement of refugees in Kansas.

Now I wasn't really overly concerned with this bit of political posturing here because of this:

The bans are probably unenforceable, as states have no power to make immigration law, and people with refugee status are legal U.S. residents, and so cannot be prohibited from moving from one state to another.

However, something popped out as familiar about this case. I just saw the Governor's name in another recent article about crazy governing.

Kansas governor orders Planned Parenthood funding cut

These actions are clearly wrong and inappropriate. I get that he is obviously trying to appeal to his base here (as evidenced by the second link and the first link happening in close proximity), but come on... All refugees from ALL countries? REALLY? That is literally the least humane thing I've ever seen. People are trying to flee war torn countries to save their lives and he doesn't want them in his state because a few may be terrorists, and that doesn't even apply to refugees fleeing countries that aren't Muslim dominated.

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

The responsibility of our federal government is to protect the citizens from foreign invaders. Some of them may be radical...let me use a leftist phrase.. we shouldn't take the refugees so we don't bring in any terrorists to save one life, if it saves one life from a terrorist isn't it worth it?

Now you immediately go to, but we should save their lives...and I revert back to my second point...Americans come first.

- Graffik

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Forgot to mention...I understand this is a state level story but it starts and ends with the federal government.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

But it's ALL refugees from ALL countries. Are you saying that all refugees are bad people? America has always been known as a melting pot and a country willing to take in the world's rejects. It's amazing how we can rationalize exceptions to that... But even then, the actions of Brownback here apply to Christian refugees fleeing Africa as well.

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.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

I am English, if my nation were to become unsafe for me to live in due to war/dictatorship etc. and I wished to migrate so your safer shores, where would you stand on immigrants of ALL Countries being proposed a denial of entry? I used to skate in my younger days, and boy was I pretty 'radical'.

a reply to: Learningman

Exactly. That is why this is so concerning. I'm really glad that this EO is unenforceable.

Why should the States be responsible for Federal failures and incompetence?

a reply to: xuenchen

Which federal failure/incompetence are you referring to exactly?

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.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What I find so concerning is the short-sightedness of the proposal. I may disagree somewhat with not wanting to take in people of Islamic faith, (I'm conflicted, my experiences have been 100% positive, but I cannot deny the goings on of the last year or so) but I see the rationale behind it. But this??

I just had a thought though.

It seemed bonkers at first, then I put 2 and 2 together, that along with the Planned Parenthood funding cut, he is merely pandering, knowing full well his plans are nigh-on unenforcible, or just doomed to fail.

He wants to seem like he's a Trump, and he probably realised all talk and no bite actually seems to gain a foothold nowadays.

Not surprised in the least. Immigrants shouldn't take it too personal, Kansas doesn't want us Coloradans in their state either.

Not sure who'd want to live in Kansas anyway, maybe it's better they keep it for themselves.

I imagine there's some very nice people in Kansas but imo Kansas is a pretty inhospitable place. We got tired of being treated so rudely while spending lots of cash traveling through their state.

Last time we went back east we drove through Nebraska.

*shrugs* if its the will of the people...

I expect many people dont trust the FED to do a good job vetting the refugee's... if they have a concern they should have a way of getting that point across.

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

I have no problem with actual refugees from a war zone getting help... its the economic refugee's claiming to be from Syria that bother me, we know for a fact in europe at least they are being accepted at face value, makes me wonder what else is slipping through.

I would prefer all people from Kansas stay home and not pollute the Rocky Mt. West......ski Kansas

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What I find so concerning is the short-sightedness of the proposal. I may disagree somewhat with not wanting to take in people of Islamic faith, (I'm conflicted, my experiences have been 100% positive, but I cannot deny the goings on of the last year or so) but I see the rationale behind it. But this??

Yea, it is rather extreme... But I don't agree with banning the refugees, even the Muslim ones. I don't like letting fear and uncertainty dictate my actions. It leads to poor decisions being made in the long run.

I just had a thought though.

It seemed bonkers at first, then I put 2 and 2 together, that along with the Planned Parenthood funding cut, he is merely pandering, knowing full well his plans are nigh-on unenforcible, or just doomed to fail.

He wants to seem like he's a Trump, and he probably realised all talk and no bite actually seems to gain a foothold nowadays.

Yeah, I had similar thoughts but I'm not trying to expand on them and make this in to a political mud-slinging contest. I already got permission to repost this thread once, I don't want it taken down again. All I'm saying on this matter is that he is most DEFINITELY pandering to his base.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasureif it saves one life from a terrorist isn't it worth it?

In a word? No.

There is no such thing as perfect security. Should we stop driving cars because of car accidents? Should we ban swimming pools because of drownings? Ban guns? Shut down McDonald's? Defund school athletic programs? Maybe sterilize the entire population to keep more criminals from being born?

There are risks to everything but we cannot be controlled by fear or we'll find ourselves living in a society not worth preserving.

Even by the standards of politicians, Brownback is a political whore.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

There are risks to everything but we cannot be controlled by fear or we'll find ourselves living in a society not worth preserving.

EXACTLY! This should obviously be a step too far in the wrong direction.

This is America. We are the world's melting pot. We've built this nation up by accepting the rejects the rest of the world doesn't want. Rejecting refugees in totality stands against what we are and what we mean as a country.

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

The responsibility of our federal government is to protect the citizens from foreign invaders. Some of them may be radical...let me use a leftist phrase.. we shouldn't take the refugees so we don't bring in any terrorists to save one life, if it saves one life from a terrorist isn't it worth it?

Now you immediately go to, but we should save their lives...and I revert back to my second point...Americans come first.

- Graffik

A country does not have to go full retard like Germany to help refugees.

Takeing a few hundred heavly vetted familys is a whole diffrent than just opening the borders to any one for any reason like half of the EU have.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Mmmm, I think Brownback is just playing to his geriatric "Trumpster" base. Its amazing how many 'Muricans believe that just because they are citizens by virtue of having been born in the US they should have some say-so or control over who lives amongst them. Its such a 19th century concept and in a nation that's had no effective border control since the 1950's its amazing the concept has hung in as ferociously as it has.

This of course will go nowhere, just as it did in Texas but it wins points with the Tea Party/Trumpster xenophobes. Which, considering their dwindling numbers due to low birth rate and high death rate is all rather pointless. Really.....I'm not sure why the media even covers these stories anymore....guess it must be a slow news day.

a reply to: Learningman

You'll have to rethink that if you're a "white" English person. With the US 1965 Immigration and Reform act, US immigration policies have been changed to increase racial diversity in the US. Being "white", you aren't "diverse" so you'd face an uphill battle immigrating to the US legally.

Of course...........if you can swim, there's always the other means of entry into the US. You might want to take some Spanish lessons.