Obama Blocking Syrian Christians Admittance To USA In Favor Of Sunni Muslims.

a reply to: marg6043

That was a simple yes or no question.

Since you did not answer the simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no answer, I must infer, based upon your reply, that you feel the lives of Christians in the Middle East are more valuable than the lives of Muslims, and we should make it a priority to "save" them over Muslims, even though Muslims are just as much the target and victims of violence as Christians are. Got it.

Is that an accurate inference?

Is not equality so far, Christians refugees has been left out.

No, they haven't. It's been more or less proportional to their demographics in Syria.

See my previous post about the numbers and proportions of Muslims vs Christians in Syria and the number of Christian vs Muslim refugees.

a reply to: Liquesence

Christians refugees from Syria are not the only refugees from the middle east that has been looking to come to the US.

So far the majority has been Muslim refugees getting the asylum and growing.

From the original sources,

This month only 9 refugees, or 0.38 percent, were not Muslim. That brings the fiscal year's total to 32 non-Muslim Syrian refugees, or 0.62 percent, 17 of whom are Christians.

The State Department is now 4,814 refugees shy of its goal, which it could accomplish in mid-August if it continues at the current rate.

Very troublesome indeed.

Jesus Christ. smh

a reply to: marg6043

So far the majority has been Muslim refugees getting the asylum and growing.

Why? Because the MAJORITY of the Syrian population is Muslim. Like, 90+%.
The Christian population is like 10%.

The proportion of Muslim vs Christian refugees admitted to the US has more-or-less reflected that.

Hello??

That's right, you think we should put the Christians at the front of the line and get them to the US as quickly as possible and then worry about the Muslims.

Got it.

a reply to: Liquesence

Yes we should because we already have enough Muslim refugees lets give a break to the none Muslim and Christians now.

Don't you agree, we are after all a nation of equal opportunity for all.

a reply to: marg6043

Yes we should because we already have enough Muslim refugees

I figured that's what it boiled down to.

Took all this time and all these posts to finally get to that very simple answer, thanks.

a reply to: marg6043

I have to say i agree whole heatedly with your post!

a reply to: marg6043

Absolutely indeed.

What a lying, duplicitous, hypocritical, farcical, traitorous piece of human garbage at the top of the White House heap.

What a commentary on how far we have sunk as a nation and culture.

I feel that when it comes to the realities of what is really happening in the US for the last 7 years of Muslim immigrations in the form of refugees, it seems that I am beating the drum and nobody seems to listen, actually talking about the discrepancies of such migration is deem to be taboo.

But the numbers are a big example of how for the last 7 years the priorities are toward one sector rather than all sectors.

If you want to change the make over of a nation and can not do it alone with the established population you just bring and influx of immigrants refugees and within a short amount of time the host nation will never be the same again.

I call that an agenda.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Liquesence

Yes we should because we already have enough Muslim refugees lets give a break to the none Muslim and Christians now.

Don't you agree, we are after all a nation of equal opportunity for all.

How is it equal opportunity when you deny a person the chance to come to this country because of their religion? If a crisis were going on in Vatican city would it be alright to deny Christians entry because they make up the majority of the people there?

originally posted by: marg6043
I feel that when it comes to the realities of what is really happening in the US for the last 7 years of Muslim immigrations in the form of refugees, it seems that I am beating the drum and nobody seems to listen, actually talking about the discrepancies of such migration is deem to be taboo.

But the numbers are a big example of how for the last 7 years the priorities are toward one sector rather than all sectors.

If you want to change the make over of a nation and can not do it alone with the established population you just bring and influx of immigrants refugees and within a short amount of time the host nation will never be the same again.

I call that an agenda.

So a few thousand refugees are going to take over and remake this nation? LOL Do you have any more radical Christian propaganda you would like to add to this?

actually blocking any group while favoring another group is Racism
the Obama love fest with Muslims to the exclusion of Christians is a UN-constitutional policy...
I think it is time to Impeach the sitting president on the Theme of not-protecting the citizens or the Constitution as was his lame Oath just mouthed out with no conviction whatsoever

a reply to: St Udio

the Obama love fest with Muslims to the exclusion of Christians is a UN-constitutional policy...

Excluding Christians from what?

And how is it an unconstitutional policy?

a reply to: buster2010

We already have millions of Muslim refugees in the US, we don't need anymore, or you just want to push the rhetoric, I already posted in the discrepancy on the religious side of it.



The tax payers have been paying for the refugees needs for years.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: buster2010

We already have millions of Muslim refugees in the US, we don't need anymore, or you just want to push the rhetoric, I already posted in the discrepancy on the religious side of it.

The tax payers have been paying for the refugees needs for years.

Millions since when?

We have millions of muslims. Not 100% they're all refugees.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

OK lets bring the data, we are taking then as refugees since 1965,

According to U.S. Census Data, the United States admits roughly 100,000 Muslim immigrants legally each year, representing the fastest growing block of immigration into the United States. Tennessee, in fact, is home to one of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the country, causing the President to give a recent speech there in favor of expansive immigration. The Mayor of Nashville has launched a New American Advisory Council to help facilitate the legally-sanctioned transition from the previous inhabitants of Nashville to the new ones.

Pew Research has estimated that immigration will cause the population of U.S. Muslims to more than double over the next two decades—from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million in 2030. This demographic change is entirely the product of legal admissions–that is, it is a formal policy of the federal government adopted by Congress.

Another major source of Middle Eastern immigration into the United States is done through our nation’s refugee program. Every year the United Stated admits 70,000 asylees and refugees. Arabic is the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

If the estimates doesn't change America will be a Muslim majority nation in a few decades, but heck isn't that what is all about, take a nation from within.

www.breitbart.com...

The Future of the Global Muslim Population

www.pewforum.org...

Who need wars of conquest in modern days.

But then I will be already pass away of old age to care anymore.

a reply to: buster2010

I don't play with numbers so lightly as you, facts are facts is not a few, is millions of them.

a reply to: marg6043

we are taking then as refugees since 1965,

Your source:

According to U.S. Census Data, the United States admits roughly 100,000 Muslim immigrants legally each year

While refugees are immigrants, immigrants aren't all refugees.

You're equating them as one and the same, which they aren't.

a reply to: mOjOm

If you don't like the discussion i'll give you my old push bike so you can push off into the sunset......

You know when something doesn't sound right, doesn't smell right and doesn't taste right,

Why oh, why, the middle eastern affluent countries are not taking refugees?

Refugee crisis: Why aren't Gulf states taking them in?

They've risked their lives to escape war in Syria. Most of Europe has struggled to deal with their masses, and has at least tried to answer a humanitarian call of a magnitude not seen since World War II.

But no Syrian refugees have been resettled in Persian Gulf nations like Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, countries with significant financial and political interest in Syria.

"Other countries need to do more," tweeted Nadim Houry, Human Rights Watch deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa. He called those wealthy countries' inaction on the Syrian refugee crisis "shameful."

The countries that share a common language religion, brotherhood, tribal ties are paying the UN so they don't have to take refugees

The U.N. has been direct. It wants all nations which are developed to open their borders.

It's more than a matter of generosity; it's also practical, some argue. Gulf citizens have much in common with Syrians. They speak Arabic, like most Syrians. And those states are wealthier than many countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, that have accepted refugees.

Some say Saudi Arabia and Qatar have an obligation to help victims of a war in which those nations have been involved through their financial support of rebel groups that have fought Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

It seems that is ok for the more affluent middle eastern countries to worry about repercussions of inviting refugees in their borders, but we Americans and other western countries are supposed to take them, feed them and make them welcome even when their believes class with our own and our constitution

And for those that love what is going on is peachy, suck it up and be quiet.

Gulf states are hesitant to welcome refugees because they are concerned about what it would mean for their nations' security, said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a retired professor from United Arab Emirates University.

He told CNN that there's a belief that accepting Syrians who are fleeing ISIS only appeases the terror group. It would feed "into the violence in the region, which is already the most violent region on Earth," he said.

The Gulf states are the most stable nations in the region, he explained, and getting too involved could risk that.

www.cnn.com...

You don't have to be a genius to see that this is an expansion one that have been planned and executed, the sad thing is that this no ISIS or any other terrorist group doing the thing, this are the powers that be that wants this expansion in order to pursue whatever agenda they has been planning on for decades.