Abbott: Texas won't accept any Syrian refugees

[VMI77]

"At least with the camps, we can provide for their immediate needs and monitor them to weed out the threats."

Any idea how you "weed out the threats"?

By not admitting them in the first place.....that means not admitting any, since there is no practical way to weed them out.

[dlh]

In my opinion it should be grounds for impeachment if the National Security Council told Obama there is a likelihood of terrorists hiding in the Syrian refugee crowd and he recklessly allows them into the country anyway.

dlh

[VMI77]

In my opinion it should be grounds for impeachment if the National Security Council told Obama there is a likelihood of terrorists hiding in the Syrian refugee crowd and he recklessly allows them into the country anyway.

dlh

There are already grounds for impeachment but we don't have a Congress with the will to do their legislative duty. Obama could murder and bbq babies on the White House lawn with TV cameras rolling and this Congress wouldn't impeach him.

[DevilDawg]

I support the sentiment, however it won't happen as the States don't have legal standing. They can deny State funding, but not the people. Especially if non-profit charities (heavily federally funded) take them in.

They simply need to stage them for 90-120 days in a secure segregated facility until vetting can be completed. If only 8% of All Muslims are radicalized then they shouldn't be hard to find. The ones who aren't won't have anything to do with them in holding.

[VMI77]

I support the sentiment, however it won't happen as the States don't have legal standing. They can deny State funding, but not the people. Especially if non-profit charities (heavily federally funded) take them in.

They simply need to stage them for 90-120 days in a secure segregated facility until vetting can be completed. If only 8% of All Muslims are radicalized then they shouldn't be hard to find. The ones who aren't won't have anything to do with them in holding.

You're assuming someone is looking....vetting. You give this administration of traitors too much credit. This is the most lawless administration in US history. Obama has zero interest in vetting these "refugees." There's no down side...they're either going to be cheap labor and vote Democratic (or just be counted in the House and for Electoral College representation serving the Demonrats), on welfare and vote Democratic (double plus good), or a minority will perform criminal acts of some kind --which bolsters government power and may create additional pretext for more gun control. But let's assume the most benign results: polls of Muslims in the US indicate that 50% or more support the imposition of Sharia law. That's a net negative for assimilation and a net positive for conflict. And we have enough of our own special protected classes --we'd don't need to import more.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11 ... louisiana/

Louisiana State Police contacted the charity organized that originally resettled the Syrian refugee in Baton Rouge and were told that the individual has been settled with a family out of state. According to the charity, the individual is not missing, but has been resettled outside of Louisiana. It is unfortunate and potentially dangerous that the federal government will not work with state authorities and we have to hear reports of refugee resettlement from the media. Governor Jindal has demanded that President Obama give state authorities more information on this program and has directed the State Police and state agencies to use all available measures to prevent the resettlement of refugees in Louisiana.” – Major Doug Cain, Louisiana State Police

[WTR]

I support the sentiment, however it won't happen as the States don't have legal standing. They can deny State funding, but not the people. Especially if non-profit charities (heavily federally funded) take them in.

They simply need to stage them for 90-120 days in a secure segregated facility until vetting can be completed. If only 8% of All Muslims are radicalized then they shouldn't be hard to find. The ones who aren't won't have anything to do with them in holding.

[nitrogen]

My family came to America in multple waves as refugees, so i'm somewhat biased here.

I'd like to think that we're smart enough and caring enough to figure out a way to accept these folks in, even with the danger of ISIS striking through one of them.

I'd hope we'd accept the risk, because I thought that's who we were as a country. But again, i'm biased.

[VMI77]

My family came to America in multple waves as refugees, so i'm somewhat biased here.

I'd like to think that we're smart enough and caring enough to figure out a way to accept these folks in, even with the danger of ISIS striking through one of them.

I'd hope we'd accept the risk, because I thought that's who we were as a country. But again, i'm biased.

Actually, the "nation of immigrants" line is a shibboleth of the left. It's more like Ann Coulter says, we're a nation of settlers. We had a lot of EUROPEAN immigrants coming from CHRISTIAN nations steeped in similar traditions and culture, and in some cases even speaking the same language (without even getting into the roots of language and the similarity of English with other European languages). Equally important is the fact that the immigrants of the past came expecting to work and assimilate....to become "American." And they did.

Part and parcel of the work ethic they brought was the fact that there was no WELFARE. You came and you worked....you didn't get free housing, free food, Obamaphones, and free medical care. That alone substantially changes the demographics of those who want to come here. Note that the "refugees" flooding Europe are all headed to the countries with the most generous welfare systems. Between about 1917 and 1965 very restrictive immigration laws created an immigration hiatus that allowed the US to adjust and assimilate those multiple waves you speak of.

This is not your grandfather's immigration that we're experiencing now. Those coming from Latin American countries are at least coming from Christian countries with shared values, though not much assimilation takes place any longer. The pattern in Europe and the pattern emerging here is refusal to assimilate and political agitation to preserve the imported culture at the expense of our own. Those coming from Muslim and Asian countries not only don't have shared values (coming from societies where the collective predominates and individuals have limited or no rights apart from the collective), the majority of Muslims have values that are antithetical to our system.

Why aren't these people seeking refuge in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, and why aren't those countries with shared language and values offering that refuge? I don't know what your ethnic background is and I don't care....you're posting comments on a gun forum so you obviously have values in common with me and I assume you want to preserve those values. TPTB are advocating unrestricted immigration to undermine our values. Immigration here and in Europe has become a deliberate strategy to achieve by demographic shift in a short period of time what can't be achieved at the ballot box. The "refugee" designation is an emotional ploy by those in power designed to play on natural human sympathies and override logic and self-interest.

[VMI77]

Something else to consider for those of you who think importing the "refugees" is a good thing: http://atimes.com/2015/11/why-france-wi ... -massacre/

Ignored in news coverage of the Paris massacre is the single most pertinent piece of background: A 2014 opinion poll found that ISIS had an approval rating in France (at 16%) almost as high as President Francois Holland (at 18%). In the 18-to-24-year-old demographic, ISIS’ support jumped to 27%. Muslims comprise about a tenth of France’s population, so the results imply that ISIS had the support of the overwhelming majority of French Muslims (and especially Muslim youth), as well as the endorsement of a large part of the non-Muslim Left.

Nonetheless, it is clear that a very large proportion of French Muslims support the most extreme expression of radical Islam, offering the terrorists the opportunity to blend into a friendly milieu. The problem has gotten too big to be cured without a great deal of mess and pain. In the Gallic hedonistic calculus, a massacre or two per year is preferable to a breach of the tenuous social peace. And that is why France will do nothing.

Finding a needle in a haystack is possible only when the haystack helps you find the needles. The French authorities would have to persuade its own Muslim community to turn informer against its radicalized youth. Muslim community leaders would have to fear the French state more than they fear their own radicals, and this would require a large number of arrests, deportations, and other coercive actions. In this case the situation would get worse before it got better. In 2005, Muslim youth rioted in Paris’ suburbs and elsewhere. Then President Jacques Chirac pledged to address the supposed root causes of the violence, saying, “There is a need to respond strongly and rapidly to the undeniable problems faced by many residents of underprivileged neighborhoods around our cities.” The unemployment rate for French Muslim youth remains around 40%, and the likely response to state pressure would be another wave of violence.

Why import the same intractable problem into our country?

[rotor]

My family came to America in multple waves as refugees, so i'm somewhat biased here.

I'd like to think that we're smart enough and caring enough to figure out a way to accept these folks in, even with the danger of ISIS striking through one of them.

I'd hope we'd accept the risk, because I thought that's who we were as a country. But again, i'm biased.

My family escaped those "Christian" countries too ( referring to another post in this thread). Poland and Austria to be exact. I really feel sorry for the Syrians and all oppressed people in the world but since there is no way to tell the good from the evil they shouldn't be let into this country. Our Arab allies have lots of space and money to accommodate these refugees. They know that the risks are so high that they won't take them in.

[VMI77]

To be clear, I'm not opposed to all Muslim immigration. I know several Muslim engineers who are not radical Muslims and they do not desire to impose Sharia law. The Pakistanis I know are even pro-gun. But like all immigration it needs to be limited and selective and the sole purpose should be to benefit the US. Importing more uneducated people to populate our welfare roles is not a benefit to the US....though it undoubtedly is to Demonrat politicians. Unvetted and unvettable immigrants who pose security threats are unacceptable. Educated Muslims in small numbers who bring useful skills to the country are fine (educated immigrants of all persuasions are fine) --but not immigrants of any religion or nationality who primarily serve to displace educated Americans and provide cheap skilled labor to tech companies like Microsoft and Facebook.

[rbwhatever1]

31 States refusing to support Obama's unconstitutional immigration doctrine...

[Bitter Clinger]

My family came to America in multple waves as refugees, so i'm somewhat biased here.

I'd like to think that we're smart enough and caring enough to figure out a way to accept these folks in, even with the danger of ISIS striking through one of them.

I'd hope we'd accept the risk, because I thought that's who we were as a country. But again, i'm biased.

"יזכר לא עד פעם". Have you forgotten so soon?

Open borders, gun free zones, Islamic terrorists intermingled with illegal immigrants, this is not your father's immigration.

[NotRPB]

VETTING ... Pretty much impossible, as admitted by all except POTUS

You don't lock a door because you hate those outside, but because you love the ones inside

---------------
ISIS warns of attack on Washington DC https://t.co/ZdJ2DiY5qp

Whoopsie: Missing VETTED NEW ORLEANS Syrian “Refugee” Found In Washington DC https://t.co/9kXAUoVchF

Coincidence I bet ...
---------------
2 Kings 20:14-17King James Version (KJV)
14 Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, even from Babylon.

15 And he said, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them.

16 And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord.

17 Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord.
----------
Right along with one should love their neighbor, there is also a duty to protect neighbor foreseeable harm
-----------
Deuteronomy 22:8 “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.
-------------
It is foreseeable that 6 or 7, or even two so-called Refugees can wreck your neighbor’s house, as was done in Paris, and Boston Marathon bombers, which were refugees
To subject a neighbor to that risk, is not showing love for your neighbor
-----------
PS If I have offended or violated any Forum Rule with this post, please delete and accept my apologies, Posted in spirit of love, not hate.

You don't lock a door because you hate those outside, but because you love the ones inside

[JALLEN]

As Thomas Sowell eloquently points out,

History may yet record that an even greater stupidity, with even more catastrophic consequences in the long run, was the European nations' decisions to import millions of people with a culture that was not merely very different, but hostile, to the culture, the values and the people of the Western world.