Can the states refuse to accept these immigrants that the Federal goverment brings in?

[oneshooter]

Do they have the power as a state to refuse to house them?
Not starting a flame war, just don't know quite how it works.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I doubt they can refuse to let them into the state.

However, they can probably refuse to allocate state funds for housing and other support.

[FLPanhandle]

28. Which they will.

The Feds can force the refugees on the states, but the Feds are going to have to fund it.

They will look first to states willing to accept the refugees and pay for them.

[saturnsring]

2. i dont know where in the constitution it says the states have to take in immigrants that potus

has brought in.

[jberryhill]

4. That's an amusing comment in several respects

First of all, there are no immigrants "that potus has brought in".

The federal government has exclusive authority to determine who is allowed into the country.

Anyone lawfully present in the country may reside in any state.

States do not determine who is or is not lawfully in the country, nor do they have the power to exclude anyone from entering.

[saturnsring]

10. they maybe here lawfully but they arent citizens and potus has a history of backing down

so I guess we'll see.

[jberryhill]

13. It doesn't fucking matter

Anyone with a valid visa - including s refugee visa - cannot be excluded from the territory of any state. There is no more to it than that.

[former9thward]

18. You are missing the point.

Where are they going to live? It is not likely they have any money. They would need state resources. POTUS can't compel that.

[joshcryer]

21. Oh yes, the states would love to open themselves up to civil suit.

The refugees with lawful visas getting systematically denied would have open and shut civil suits.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. Lawsuits based on what?

States aren't required to provide them with resources and housing.

[joshcryer]

23. Discrimination?

I'm on my phone but I just googled this sort of thing, is nothing new, here's a lawsuit over discrimination for refugees in regards to schooling: http://www.cnyhomepage.com/news/ucsd-faces-refugee-lawsuit

If there is systemic denial of refugee only applications it will wind up in court.

Fact of the matter is the aid worker isn't going to give a shit, they'll do their job, and the refugee and their family will disappear in the diversity that is America and no one will care.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. Currently, the federal government

relies on state governments to aid them in resettlement - finding housing, etc. States aren't required to do this, and I'm guessing that many will refuse to do so.

And right or wrong, they are within their rights to refuse to allocate funding and other resources to aid in resettlement of refugees. State money is state money - the federal government can't force them to spend it on refugees.

The case you cite is completely different - those refugees were already settled, and the schools refused to provide them with an equal education. Huge difference.

[joshcryer]

82. Sure, state welfare offices have all that information.

But if a refugee comes walking into the welfare office and requests their given right to TANF benefits as a resettler, they won't be denied. They can burn the resettlement resource pamphlets and put their applications at the bottom of the stack, but they can't do much more than that.

So it just makes it more complicated, but it doesn't hurt them much, most state level resettlemnt programs are handled by charities, particularly the Catholic church: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/state-programs-annual-overview

OK, so "we're not cooperating" means "we won't tell you that the Catholic charities are the guys who do it anyway."

To actually hurt the resettlement effort, such as burning TANF applications, having people arrested, crap like that, would be highly illegal and would open them up to lawsuits.

[former9thward]

24. Ridiculous.

Go represent them on those "open and shut civil suits."

States cannot refuse refugees, but they can make it difficult

Experts say that while the states may not have the legal authority to block their borders, state agencies have authority to make the process of accepting refugees much more difficult. ....

Appleby said one thing the states could do was to cut their own funding in the area. ...

But Vladeck notes that without a state's participation the federal government would have a much more difficult time. "So a state can't say it is legally objecting, but it can refuse to cooperate, which makes thing much more difficult."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/refugee-states-governors-syria/index.html

[joshcryer]

29. I'm on my phone, this is blown out of proportion.

I'll respond later if I feel like it.

[joshcryer]

81. Here's how resettlement works:

The HHS does its policy work based on interviews of skills and abilities of those people who need to resettle, to build a placement profile for large groups, a thousand or so people per city. Those people are then sent to those cities and are placed on TANF rolls for a couple of years until they can get on their feet. This is poverty level stuff here, and many resettlers bust their asses and get jobs and get off the rolls because once they run out, it's over, no more assistance.

No state can simply deny some TANF resource, that is completely insane.

What the state government can do is stop, say, handing out pamphlets providing resources of lists of available programs. Big deal, they can call the Office of Refugee Resettlement and get all the information they need from there. If a settler goes into the local welfare office they can throw a wrench in to things and say "refer to X" and cause problems for the settlers, they can place the paperwork all at the bottom of the stack and let it hit its term limit. And no doubt, some people will go out of their way to lose paperwork because the bureaucracy isn't without its racists.

But in reality most welfare workers will simply stamp the paperwork and go about their lives, because they're not asshole. The settlers will integrate well but there will probably be a bad one here or there which will make the news, etc.

So in the end all the states can really do to throw a wrench in to things is not be compassionate and reach out to the refugees and force them to take their own initiative and figure out all the quirks of the system.

Between being in a hell hole of death and destruction and juggling paperwork, I think they won't mind.

[former9thward]

87. I think you are neglecting 8 USC, Section 1522 (a).

The United States Refugee Act requires the federal government to take into account the concerns and recommendations of the states. Failure to do so will result in court cases.

[joshcryer]

89. That's a rather arbitrary reading.

It says that shall consult, if the states don't cooperate it's not the directors fault.

[Erose999]

88. "Potus as a history of backing down" - here in GA Shady Deal has lost every fight he's picked with

the Obama administration.

stimulus funds, Obamacare, gay marriage, etc etc. Our governor keeps getting dragged along by the engine of progress kicking and screaming like a little baby the whole time.

[TBF]

15. That durn potus

[meow2u3]

32. I don't know the part of the Constitution where it reads

that the States can override Federal jurisdiction. Immigration and asylum issues are exclusively the jurisdiction of the Federal government and states have no say as to whether they can reject refugees--especially when the refugees belong to a group they hate and fear.

[jberryhill]

3. No

Anyone lawfully present in the United States may travel to and reside in, any state.

[GummyBearz]

5. Except possibly by plane next year

When people from some states will need a passport to fly within the US

[jberryhill]

8. That's neither here nor there

One will need a verified ID for aircraft travel. That has utterly nothing to do with whether states can impose restrictions on who may be lawfully present in the United States, and therefore in any state.

[X_Digger]

63. The "right to travel" != "the right to travel on a commercial airplane". n/t

[ileus]

6. If the citizens should have the ultimate say...

[Xithras]

7. The correct answer is both yes and no

The federal resettlement program is a joint effort between the states and the federal government. The federal government asks the state to find housing for X number of refugees and set up support programs, and the federal government reimburses the state afterward. States absolutely do have the right to opt out of that program.

Once an immigrant resides within the United States legally, however, they cannot prevent those same immigrants from MOVING into their states post-settlement. Freedom of movement is a constitutional right held by everyone within the United States. So if an immigrant is settled in South Dakota, and later decides to move to Austin because winters in South Dakota are awful, there's nothing that Texas can do about it.

The states can refuse to cooperate with immigrant settlement, but they can't block legal U.S. residents who want to choose their own homes using their own resources.

[branford]

9. The states cannot set immigration policy.

However, states can refuse to allocate any funds for resettlement and other support and prohibit state employees, including the police, from cooperating with federal authorities in any way, rendering federal efforts to admit refugees extremely difficult (Congress can also refuse to approve of any funds for refugee resettlement).

States can also challenge some refugee programs and authority in court, and governors' opposition, often strongly supported by their individual state constituencies, could very well help improve Republican electoral hopes nationwide, and force the president and Democrats to expend a great deal of political capital to sustain refugee resettlement efforts. If, God forbid, anyone admitted as a refugee was involved in terrorism, the people will solely blame President Obama and the Democrats.

[saturnsring]

11. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-foun

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.

[davidn3600]

12. A bigger problem is how the public is going to perceive them

If the state governments already don't want them, the people probably don't either. You are going to have a situation where the state and federal government will be fighting. Americans will become fearful that terrorists are being admitted in. And the refugees will be caught in the crossfire faced with racism.

[jberryhill]

14. The Italians were considered bomb throwing anarchists

This is nothing new.

[former9thward]

19. They had support in the Italian community at the time.

They did not rely on state (or federal aid). Big difference.

[annabanana]

26. I think they WERE the first big

Italian influx which created that Italian community you speak of.

(let me check my dates)

[former9thward]

27. Regardless, no state or federal aid.

Not the situation now.

[davidn3600]

34. You need to consider the political implications too

If we let in Syrian refugees and Obama forces it, and Hillary and the Democrats back him up.....and one of those refugees happens to be an ISIS terrorist and kills Americans.......say goodbye to the Democratic party in 2020. There would be no blaming of Bush or the GOP for that. That would squarely be on Obama and Hillary.

Just keep that in mind when you want to let in 10's of thousands of these people. Do you trust DHS to be able to look into the backgrounds of each and every one?

[jberryhill]

35. Or, my goodness, what if someone buys a gun and shoots people

Oh, I forgot, we already have that.

"Looking into the backgrounds of each and every one" is as silly as renting a truck to Timothy McVeigh, who had nothing in his background to suggest the 168 people he killed and the 680 he injured.

More red-blooded 'muricans are going to shoot one another in the next week than these refugees will ever be able to compete with.

Did we vet refugees from Vietnam? The Vietnamese, mind you, killed 50,000 Americans before we took in 125,000 of them in 1975.



There are likely more of them who will be useful assets in combating extremism than contributing to it. That has always been one of our strengths.

[hifiguy]

45. I don't think that the Vietnamese and Cambodians

who came here ever had the slightest inclination to wage war on America or Americans.

They didn't come to "spread Communism" as they very much wanted to get away from it, or at least what they thought it was - and what it actually turned out to be, in the case of Cambodia. Thankfully for us, they brought their wonderful food with them.

Part of the jihadi mindset is to infiltrate and pass before doing what they intend to do all along. Mostof the 9/11 hijackers - Saudis - were absolutely nondescript people. They didn't look at all dangerous but the madness inside their heads was incredibly dangerous.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. "Part of the jihadi mindset is to infiltrate and pass before doing what they intend to do all along"

"Part of the communist mindset is to infiltrate and pass before doing what they intend to do all along."

Anybody with a slight grasp of 20th century American history can show you 10,000 documents that say exactly what you said in exactly the way you said it, but switching out "communist" for "jihadi."

I certainly agree with you that few people viewed the Vietnamese we took in that way, but the logic we're applying to jihadis is one of the most popular tropes of the Cold War, there used for the "insidious" communists.

[jberryhill]

53. Just like the Italians

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Come_unto_me,_ye_opprest.jpg/220px-Come_unto_me,_ye_opprest.jpg

[davidn3600]

49. Vietnamese were never trying to blow us up over here

If anything it was American anti-war protesters blowing up stuff over here.

[jberryhill]

52. Italian anarchists were doing so in their day

[davidn3600]

59. Not the same situation at all

Look at Europe. They are being overwhelmed. Terrorists are threatening them and they are threatening us. They have bombed a Russian plane. They have killed over 120 people in attacks in Paris.

The obvious question is...are we next?

The Viet Cong just wanted us out of their country. The Italians you speak of were not part of some systematic religious doctrine. ISIS are religious maniacs in a part of the world that is incredibly unstable, incredibly violent, and filled with religious bigotry. These terrorists blend in as civilians. You cannot tell the difference.

But even beyond that....look what has happened to France. They have let in so many Muslims who have failed to assimilate into the French society. So now these immigrants are mostly unemployed, living off the government, and living in slums. And they are very easy to radicalize in this state. So some of this terrorism in France is homegrown.

The same thing can easily happen here. You let in a large number of refugees, they refuse to assimilate to American culture, and you start seeing radicalization. In the US for example, it is 100% legal to draw a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad. But according to a radical interpretation of Islam, doing that requires death. This has happened in Europe. Remember Charlie Hebdo earlier this year? Remember the Dutch filmmaker several years ago murdered because he criticized the way muslims treat women? Remember in Copenhagen earlier this year a muslim gunman opened fire in a cafe trying to kill an artist that drew Muhammad as a dog?

[jberryhill]

60. Oh good golly

You could really use a sense of proportion.

No terrorist organization will ever get anywhere near what we do to ourselves with 18,000 annual gun deaths and tens of thousands of auto fatalities.

Falling down stairs will kill more people in Paris this year than terrorists, by an order of magnitude.

I've never seen such irrational fear at work.

You are doing what the terrorists want.

[davidn3600]

61. I'm not in favor of this mass migration

Not after witnessing what it's done to Europe.

[jberryhill]

62. How often are you IN Europe?

Just out of curiosity, how many weeks a year do you normally spend in Europe?

Because you must be "seeing" something very different than what I see there, or what any of my European colleagues see there, and that includes the week I spent in the "Little Beirut" section of London north of Paddington last year.

Go hide under your bed. The terrorists thank you for playing along.

[jberryhill]

70. Could you please answer my question?

How much time do you spend witnessing anything in Europe? I am curious to know what you've seen during your time there.

[davidn3600]

84. I've been to Europe several times and know several Europeans

And none of them that I have talked to are happy about what's going on over there. They are concerned criminals and terrorists are hiding among the refugees. They are concerned the government is going to end up taking care of them all. Many say there is no jobs for the immigrants because Europeans struggle to find jobs themselves. So where are they going to work? Where are they going to live? Where are their kids going to go to school? They are angry the government and the leaders are not answering these questions. And already our politicians are ignoring the same questions.

And these questions are growing louder and louder in Europe. This migration crisis and terror attack is going to create a revival of the right wing in Europe. And you know what...it's the left wing's fault because they've allowed this immigration situation to get so out of control. You got millions of these people flooding in. What makes you think the systems in place in these European countries can handle such an influx? Most of them are on the brink of debt problems as it is.

[hifiguy]

20. And it is a virtual dead certainty

that some small percentage of these individuals are or will become radicalized in some extremely dangerous way.

To construct an analogy - 5000 people are to admitted from Wattalottaland, a country that is known to consistently harbor a fatal and virulent plague in 1-3% of its population. Of the 5000, at most 150 of these 5000 will be carriers, but no less than 100. There is no test to separate carriers from non-carriers. The non-carriers are no threat to anyone but the carriers may be responsible at some point for many deaths, perhaps hundreds or more.

Is it justifiable to exclude them all because of the consequences that will result from the carriers' status? Logic and self-preservation say it is not only permissible but may be required. How many flea-ridden plague rats are too many?

[Thor_MN]

30. So Europe has gained no more than 800 to 2400 refugees?

To make your analog even slightly representative, 8 terrorists would result from your scenario with 800 to 2400 refugees. If one believes there is a "terrorist virus". Do we even know at this point that the terrorists entered Europe under the guise of refugees?

[hifiguy]

31. One could easily extrapolate "refugees" to "immigrants" more generally and probably should.

A certain small percentage of Muslims are or will become radicalized into people capable of mass murder and other atrocities. More will become sympathizers who do not necessariy act overtly on their beliefs but may support those who do act financially or in other indirect ways. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Hell, ISIS recruiters have been documented right here in Minneapolis. Kids have disappeared and turned up in the ME with ISIS and like groups.

[Thor_MN]

37. Did they come in as refugees? Because that is the topic.

Your small percentage that you cited was 1-3%. If you are right, then there can be no more than 2400 refugees in Europe. I would say your percentages are many orders of magnitude off. Your question, more properly, would be is it justifiable to exclude them all because of the potential consequences that will result from the 0.000X% (I have no way to quantify that but it is more correct than your 1-3%) that possibly be ISIS in disguise.

Yes, there are ISIS recruiters in the US, that came in as immigrants. How is making life hell for refugees going to have any effect, when we haven't been able to stop ISIS coming in as immigrants? How much easier is it to radicalize someone who the US is treating like shit?

[hifiguy]

39. My core point is that you have no way to eliminate the small

number of real or potential jihadis from oppressed and impoverished genuine refugees. And I so need to turn the humanitarian impulse into a suicide pact.

Why aren't the oil-rich Arab countries doing a thing to accommodate their co-culturalists?

Mass immigration from Muslim countries into western democracies is, at this time, the same thing as inviting in terrorists and potential terrorists, small though their absolute number may be. The potential catastrophe is just like inviting healthy-looking people from a plague ship into a medieval port city. The potential for danger on a mass scale, like Paris, is ultimately disproporionate to the good that can be done.

[Thor_MN]

47. Well then, by all means, let's turn into xenophobes and close our borders to all.

After all, if we let anyone at all into the country, there is a risk that they may have been radicalized while abroad. It's the only way to be sure...

[hifiguy]

48. I can recall no other immigrant group

of any significant size who has had within it a small but fanatical and insane sub-group individuals committed to the destruction of western society and mass murder as a tool to accomplish that goal.

Not the Irish, the Swedes, Scots, Norwegians, Frence, Germans, Russians, Poles, Finns, Jews, Italians, Greeks, Latinos, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians or any other immigrant group I can. Many brought their internecine beefs with them when they came to the US, but they did not see dragging civilization back to the 9th century by any means available as their goal

The choice does not have to be eiher-or. Reasonable people can make reasonable distinctions.

[Thor_MN]

50. 6 million Muslims live in France. They say there may have been 8 terrorists.

Are you advocating to be an asshole to 5,999,992 people? Because 0.00000013% of them may be terrorists?

Americans kill more people in the US each week than the Paris attacks.

Wouldn't it be reasonable, and much more effective, to ban Americans?

[ret5hd]

57. Hey, the person you are "conversing" with...

just compared the Syrian refugees to "plague infested rats".

I think you are wasting your time.

[jberryhill]

64. And the murder rate per capita is lower in all of Europe

You might be on to something here.

[Thor_MN]

65. Beyond that, all the terrorists identified have no refugee connections.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/16/3722838/all-paris-attackers-identified-so-far-are-european-nationals-according-to-top-eu-official/

People calling for banning refugees are akin to Shrub attacking Iraq for 9/11.

[jberryhill]

67. Raw knee jerk fear

It's fascinating to watch it in action.

[Yorktown]

38. Yes. Mass immigration from traditionalist Muslim countries is a bad idea at present

Wahhabi financing and resentment over the invasion of Iraq (thanks, GW) guarantee a few percent points of the million of refugees believe in a radical, literal Islam.

Not good.

[hifiguy]

41. Agreed.

[jberryhill]

54. The Italians brought the Mafia and Communism!

[Yorktown]

58. Well, to be fair, Italians did bring the Mafia

The fact obstacles have been overcome shouldn't erase their memory.
Despite my own affinity with Italians, it's true the link with the Mafia was strong.

Even today, EU estimates put the Mafia hold on the Italian economy at 10%.
And the Mafia families were very powerful in the US in the 30's up to 60's.

In the same way, it would be futile to deny a non negligible percentage of Muslims worldwide agree with radical Islam.

Now, the Faustian bargain that Luis was referring to is what George Shultz – co-chairman with me of the Committee on the Present Danger and a not a man easily given to overstatement – calls a grotesque protection racket. And what I meant by the Faustian bargain is that in the 1970s, particularly by 1979, two things happened on the Arabian Peninsula.

The House of Saud became very, very wealthy and very, very frightened – wealthy because of the huge spike in oil prices by the end of the decade, taking them from a couple of billion dollars a year in foreign earnings to 20 billion dollars, and frightened because of two events: the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of Islamists to govern in Tehran among the hated Shiites, and the takeover attempt in Saudi Arabia, which was really a coup attempt that resulted in the takeover of the great mosque in Mecca by Islamist terrorists for a time.

The deal that I believe was struck, whether implicitly or explicitly who can say, was for the Wahhabis to be given all of the money in the world they could ever remotely dream of needing or wanting to spread their sect’s beliefs and for them to leave the House of Saud alone. The effect over the last 30 years, at least according to Alexei Alexiev, is that some 85 to 90 billion dollars – that is “billion” with a B – have been spent fostering and spreading Wahhabism in the world
R. James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence;
http://www.pewforum.org/2005/05/03/the-global-spread-of-wahhabi-islam-how-great-a-threat/

[jberryhill]

66. The point being that humans have issues

Yes, the Italians did bring crime and violence with them.

It really makes no difference to someone who is the victim of violence whether it was a home grown asshole or an imported one. Thankfully, decent people far outnumber assholes across the board.

Notably, before becoming Mayor 9/11, as a US prosecutor, Rudy Giuliani racked up an admirable record of putting organized criminal Italians behind bars. Likewise, to deal with Irish hooligans, we put badges on quite a few of them.

[Yorktown]

68. Granted. But some humans have more issues than others.

And to have been exposed to a totalitarian brainwashing doctrine can foster those issues.

If you have been taught hatred of the degenerate West, contempt for women and radical intolerance of gays in a madrasa, you probably come with a reduced ability to blend in harmoniously in a secular western democracy.

[jberryhill]

69. Well, golly

My mother was indoctrinated in a totalitarian political system and spent time operating an anti-aircraft gun aiming at Americans. Good thing you weren't in charge when my father, who'd been on the receiving end of gunfire from her side, didn't think it was such a big deal.

As far as having "more issues" I again point to the murder rates in any European country having a higher proportion of Muslims of ME origin than the US. The population in question has a lower demonstrated propensity for violence than do white people already in the US.

If you are going to make a quantitative comparative statement such as "more issues" then you are going to have to rely on more than absurdly broad generalizations based on stereotypes. Aleppo, Syria was not some kind of terrorist training camp, and the refugees are trying to get away from precisely the atmosphere, and people behind it, you are describing.

Your position is boldly irrational, motivated chiefly by fear ignorance and stereotype, unsupported by reference to any documented statistics, contrary to the experience of people directly involved I refugee resettlement, and driven by nothing more than disproportionate and misdirected primal emotional reaction. It is the residue of inherited brain features which have become maladaptive in the context of modern civilization.

[Yorktown]

71. You are wrong on many counts

1- the story of our mother and your father is nice, but it is not a statistic. Staying at the personal level, you make assumptions about my ignorance of Islam and Muslims which are unfounded.

2- Communist indoctrination didn't work as well as religious indoctrination. It took less than a generation to see Russians completely forgo Communism. History teaches it takes generations for religious indoctrination to wither. (it took centuries for Christianity to replace the old pagan beliefs, and for Islam to replace preceding beliefs in its conquered lands.)

3- Pew Research documents that about half the population of 'muslim' countries hold anti-democratic values: superiority of men, intolerance of gays, belief that religion trumps democracy, etc.

In this respect, it is your position which is irrational since you do not appear to take these numbers into consideration

[jberryhill]

73. Your point three is amusing

I have no idea what Communism has to do with it. The other people she was shooting at were Russians.

Point 3 is a good argument for ridding ourselves of white Christians, who have also a demonstrable record of organized violence in the US. But what your point 3 has to do with organized violence, I have no idea. Again, the rates of violent crime in European countries with a much higher proportion of Muslim immigrants are nowhere near any US city. How do you explain that?

[Yorktown]

75. My point 3 is worrying: Islam teaches anti-democratic values

Marriage equality and Islam anyone? Would you walk dressed in drag in Tower Hamlets?

And your point about Muslims and crime in Europe is amusing.

Muslim immigrants account for most of the rape cases in Finland and Sweden.

Ethnic groups with particularly high rates of rape included individuals born in Iraq, North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia), and Africa (excluding Uganda and the North African countries) who were convicted of rape at rates 20, 23, and 17 greater than individuals born in Sweden respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden

Could it have a link to imams who preach women not wearing niqabs are whores?

I could also point that people of Muslim origin are committing far more violent crimes in Europe than 'natives', but here the socio-economic background muddles the religious interpretation. But still, Muslims offenders in Europe are lucky there is no chopping of the hands of thieves in secular Europe.

[jberryhill]

77. Does the Japanese internment strike you as an oddity of US history?

Well of course it was a proper precaution to lock up the Japanese. The Asian mind is like a hive mentality. They don't assimilate well, and it is nearly impossible to breed these propensities out of them.

We have been there and done that so many times that it is amazing to see the same paper rolls fed into the player piano one more time.

[Yorktown]

78. History does not produce carbon copy situations

You didn't have a very rich kingdom financing radicalisation in Shinto temples all over the globe.

Japanese imperialism was only 100M people and there were 0.5M Japanese-American citizens.

Islamic Imperialism is 1500M people and there are 5M Muslim-American citizens.

Bigger problem.

[jberryhill]

83. What the ever living fuck?

We are taking about 10,000 refugees here.

You want to get rid of Muslims generally? There are not 1.5B Muslims who want to harm anyone.

I think I've plumbed the depths of your thinking on this matter as deep as I care to go. I feel sorry for you. You have so little faith in this country.

[jberryhill]

36. And a virtual dead certainty that many more of them will join the fight on our side

We will have more informants among them, who are as sick of the shit as everyone else, than potential troublemakers. You can take that to the bank.

[hifiguy]

42. I wish there were some evidence to back that up

as in fact I would like to believe it.

[jberryhill]

43. The dynamics are pretty simple to understand

These idiotic arguments proceed on the hypothesis of "a small number of them seeking to cause trouble".

Think on what the "larger number of them" are motivated toward.

The overwhelming majority are best situated to detect and identify any among them which are up to no good.

It's not a hard dynamic to understand.

[hifiguy]

46. Were the potential for trouble limited to that caused by

small-time local Mafiosi preying financially on Italian immigrant communities the question would be of a different nature. The small minority - and it certainly is a small minority - is committed to mass murder and the destruction of western/modern civilization in the name of their Invisible Man in the Sky.

We haven't had immigrants where that was an issue before.

[Joe the Revelator]

72. Pretty good analogy....and I agree, its justifiable to exclude them from entry

nt

[bigwillq]

16. I hope but CT gov Malloy already said he will accept them.

Nothing against them personally but there's so many people already in CT that need help. Let's take of them first.

[joshcryer]

17. No, they'll have green cards.

And a greyhound bus ticket.

People are stupid about this.

But we now know how many racist governors we got.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. My faith in the general American public (and many of its "leaders") is continually shaken

and in need of reassurance.

[goldent]

40. I don't think the legalities matter

There is no way that the president is going to go to battle trying to get states to take Syrian refugees in the current climate - it would be a political disaster for him. The refugee program will experience some "delays" while they work on enhancing the security and background checks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Solution: Bring them here, make them citizens.

As American citizens they can settle any where they please.

[jberryhill]

55. As lawful residents of any kind

They don't have to be citizens. Anyone lawfully resident in the country can reside anywhere.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

56. They can't; however, they can make it politically difficult for the administration to admit them.

[Blue_In_AK]

74. I'm happy to report that Alaska's governor has said he has no plans

to turn refugees away from our state. The Congressional delegation seems to be toeing the party line, but I would expect that from them, especially the hawkish Dan Sullivan, who formerly worked for Condi Rice. Obviously, he's an expert on how to deal with this.


http://www.ktva.com/walker-not-among-governors-raising-concerns-about-refugees-376/

[COLGATE4]

76. Nothing more than cheap theatrics,

pandering to the fearful whose irrational response is being stoked mightily by the RW.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

79. It's not just the RW

Read some of the replies in this thread from super lefties.

[COLGATE4]

80. I know. Was trying to be polite.

It's embarassing.

[Orrex]

86. I agree--it's an investment in their next campaign for office

"I took a strong stance against terrorism while Obama wanted to give potential terrorists free passage across our borders," etc. Blah blah blah.

It's bigoted xenophobia pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[oneshooter]

85. So if , in a few years, some to come out as radicals

Will the Government and the Democratic Party accept the consequences of their actions?

Because the American People have a long memory.