So you all do realize that refugees are the victims of terrorist and are trying
to escape the violance right? I am sure it would be unthinkable to must of us to
suddenly decide we are going to require any of the survivong victims of the
French attacks to not only wait the three years it already takes for refugees to
get approval to come to the US but stack even more requirements on top as you
want to do now.
Some folks assume refugees are poor widows, families, and starving children.This is why we have so much sympathy.Truth is, we don't
know who are targeted to come, and you can't rely on the media or
politicians to be truthful. They play on peoples sympathy, and goodness.Trusting politicians is nothing more than gambling. Do we want to
gamble with these refugees?Deceit is often used, as with the video
which caused the Benghazi violence. If you want to help
refugees,--fix the land they come from.
@donnAnd in 1938 a majority of Americans apposed taking Jewish refugees,
there was also a time when the majority of Americans thought it was It wa a good
idea to lock up our own citizens of Japanise decent for our safety but that does
not make them right then or you right now.
@GaryO. Poll: A majority of Americans oppose accepting Syrian refugees.Updated
11/19/15 10:48 AMMore than half of U.S. governors have declared they will
not accept new Syrian refugees into their states, and a new poll shows that a
majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s plans to accept
increased numbers of Syrian refugees. The latest NBC
News/SurveyMonkey online poll shows that 56% of Americans disapprove of allowing
more migrants fleeing violence in Syria and other nations into the country,
while 41% approve and the issue divides sharply across party lines.
But overwhelmingly, Americans say the U.S. and its allies are losing the war
against ISIS and the poll shows bipartisan support for sending additional ground
troops to fight the Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria.
@Say No to BO"80% of muslims vote democrat." And? Not sure that is
true but even if it is, so what? Do Muslims not get to be Democrates? Do
Democrates not have religous freedom to be Muslim?
In just the last thirty days, 1285 individuals have been killed, and 1838
individuals have been injured by Islamists. That doesn't count the two
women bombers in Nigeria yesterday. The kind Obama said don't exist.
These are the hard facts liberals don't want you to know about. In the past immigrants were held in facilities like Ellis Island while they
were vetted. Why not do that now? Ft will gladly take four or five
single male refugees into his home no questions asked.
Sometimes analogies just backfire when attempting to make a point But to be
fair; "Maybe the Native Americans should have banned immigration to the
Americas; then none of us would be here."One - they tried.Two - How did it work out for the Native Americans?
80% of muslims vote democrat.
Our own congress is far more a danger to the American people than Syrian
refugees or certainly than our president, who has shown far more moral
leadership than almost any of those who want to be POTUS. If someone is placed
on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist, and they go to an American airport to
buy a plane ticket, someone behind the counter will say, “No.”If that same person on the terrorist watchlist leaves the airport, drives to a
gun show, and tries to stock up on assault rifles, someone behind the counter
will likely say, “No problem.”Congress has the power to change
this, but it doesn’t want to.Refugees don't present nearly the
threat to our safety that our own congress presents.I'm definitely
not anti gun, but is it too much to ask for common sense restrictions on who can
buy a gun?I won't hold my breath.
Vetoing the idiotic bills sponsored by Congressional Republicans is Standard
Operating Procedure for any competent and truly patriotic American President.Wouldn't it be nice if Republican Politicos just stopped wasting
taxpayer money on nonsense?
I have more fear of those xenophobic politicians and their prejudice towards
non-Christians than I do of a Syrian refugee. Obama is a great leader and those
that call him a divider are the ones he has stood up to. Stay strong Mr.
President, America and the values for which she stand are not only be challenged
by the terrorist but by those being guided by fear and ignorance.
Why would terrorists go through a refugee process exposing themselves to review
when you all think there's an open border they can just pass through
easily? Not one single Paris attacker was a Syrian refugee, they were all
European citizens. This reaction of fear and Islamophobia is exactly what ISIS
wants. They don't want refugees leaving. They don't want Muslims
feeling like they're safer with the west than with them. They want this
conflict to be painted as Christianity (or non-Muslims) attacking Muslims. They
want themselves to be seen as the true Islamic group (which is why the phrase
isn't used by Democrats because we're not looking to legitimize their
claims). Republicans are just blissfully happy to give ISIS whatever it wants.
@Frozen Fractals--Not all refugees are the same.With these, killing
infidels is a ticket to heaven.
Obama has issued just 5 of the over 2000 vetoes Presidents have signed since
George Washington was President.If this bill escapes Congress, I
hope it becomes number 6.
Obama is the best campaigner the GOP has at this point. 2016 is being handed to
the GOP on a silver platter.
The most partisan man we've ever had in the white house, who spent all of
yesterday excusing and verbally dancing around an enemy he won't even name
in favor of hateful, mocking, actual grade-school level rhetoric against
lawmakers elected by the people to stop his unconstitutional overreaches
"threatens to veto their bill". That's not news, that's a
given.It's worth pointing out these same lawmakers have so far
handed him everything he wants. They very well could shut him down, but they
won't. In fact, the threat of vetoing a bill will probably keep them from
even sending it up. We have a party bent on lies and destruction, and a party
that pledges to stop it but won't. One complaining about the other
There is no common sense here. With Obama it is "my way or the highway."
Common sense says that tight vetting is the only plausible way to let anyone in
this country from Syria. It only took 9 of them in Paris to create that brutal
blood bath! We, as American citizens, have a right to demand this through our
elected representatives.If he vetoes, then Congress has the power to
over-ride the veto. I'd like to see us abide by the Constitutional process
instead of some radical executive order that we, the people, overwhelmingly do
not want!God Bless America! Reclaim her in 2016!
Maybe the Native Americans should have banned immigration to the Americas; then
none of us would be here.America has isn't the nation I knew as
bo incompetence came outashe spoke the other day about the refugees. Telling
Filipinos that Republicans are scared of NBC and widows and 3 year old orphans
from Syria.Really?From his speech you'd think that is all he was going to
let in. Any widow and 3 year old orphan.This is the guy that has armed body
guards,armored vehicles and snipers protecting him wherever he goes.He's
not going to sit in a movie theatre where any nut job or terrorist can walk in
and kill as many as they can.He's even working hard to make sure we
can't have a weapon of our own to defend ourselves.I don't think
it's ridiculous tobe overly cautious on who we let into this
country.Obviously the attacks in Paris show the ISIS is very capable of sneaking
interrorist,even with a vetting process.Released today that 8 Syrians were
captured on the Mexican border trying to enter.There were only a handful of ISIS
in Paris that kill hundreds and injured hundreds more.And yes,one ofthem wasa
woman.And terrorist are not above using a 3 year old as a decoy or as a bomb.
"Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Jeff Flake planned to introduce a bill
that would restrict visas for any individual who had been in Iraq or Syria in
the past five years. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Republicans are focused on
a refugee program that is 'serious and arduous,' but 20 million
foreign visitors come to the U.S. with visa waivers with no fingerprinting or
background vetting. 'Now that has to be reformed,' he said."Yes, it's the visa program that needs to be reviewed, not the
refugee program. This is what qualifies as "common sense" in my book.
How disappointing that someone in as powerful a position as Speaker of the House
is apparently allowing irrationality to rule him too.
Since 9/11 far more killings in this country have been done by
white-supremacists who left clear manifestos than by Muslims. If you
include mass shootings in theaters and schools, I far more concerned about white
male anti-government types than Muslims.
We have infinitely more to fear from home-grown racist, right wing
anti-government terrorists than we do from Syrians refugees who are desperately
fleeing a hellish part of the world that our foreign policy blunders helped to
@MapleDon"A significant proportion of Americans agree that bringing in
a large quantity of people from terrorist nations without sufficient vetting
increases our domestic risk"Were you aware that in 2008 the US
allowed entry for more than 25000 refugees from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran
and other middle east/muslim countries? In 2007, it was more than 10000, same
in 2006, and in 2005, and in 2004, and so on.Were you asking about
Bush's objective then? Was the vetting process better, or worse than it is
now? Was protecting American interests something that Bush placed as a priority
when he allowed refugees from known terrorist countries?This type of
selective outrage toward Obama, for simply maintaining the status quo on refugee
handling, is exactly the reason people are accused of racism toward Obama. In
cases like this, the only difference between him and Bush, and Clinton, and
Bush, and Reagan is the color of his skin.
Last month, FBI Director James Comey told Senate lawmakers that
“gaps” remained in the U.S.'s ability to screen the refugees,
because of a lack of intelligence on the ground in Syria. “There is risk associated of bringing anybody in from the outside, but
specifically from a conflict zone like that,” Comey said. "Even the vastly superior security situation for Iraqi refugees was not
sufficient to prevent some hair-raising mistakes. In 2013, for example, ABC News
reported on several dozen suspected terrorist bomb-makers admitted to the United
States as refugees, including a pair of Iraqi al-Qaeda insurgents living in
Kentucky who admitted attacking American soldiers in Iraq."After
seeing Obama turn thousands of criminals here illegally back on the street, I
don't trust him or his administration to make this decision.
And yet two GOP candidates are children of refugees. Should we have banned Cuban
refugees for fear that they'd be communists or Cuban spies? If you're
so worried about terrorists coming over from Syria, why in the world would you
just allow Christians to come over since what's to stop a terrorist from
lying and claiming to be a Christian?
Obama is trying to destroy our country. This is just his latest adverse action.
I have a 48 year old Muslim friend. He's lived hear for three years.Even he knows this a dangerous move.
Obama has been more critical of the United States, its people, its values,
Christians, Congress, than ISIL & Muslims.Hmm?
Can you just imagine what the ISIS people are saying to each other? "Hey,
why are we risking fighting these people hand-to-hand in the desert? Just as
they supplied us with our weapons, let's just be "refugees," and
they'll invite us right in to their homelands and support us while we find
ways to dominate and destroy them!" Yep, looks like the ultimate Trojan
Horse strategy, and we as naive and gullible people look dumb enough to swallow
it hook, line, and sinker--or let some of our politicians aid and abet the
invaders even more than they have done in the past.
The President's comments and behavior beg the question: what is his
objective? To protect American citizens, or continue his campaign to
fundamentally turn America into a not-so-great nation? A significant proportion
of Americans agree that bringing in a large quantity of people from terrorist
nations without sufficient vetting increases our domestic risk. Protecting
American interests does not appear to be one of his priorities.
This is our time to define ourselves.
Mr. President, we should have brought Jews over here in the 1930's and
1940's, and would have had we known of pending danger. It is okay to bring
over the persecuted due to religion and race. It is okay to bring
persecuted Christians here as well, from the Middle East. It seems to me our
President likes to pick fights, I don't think he was this way his first
term (some may disagree on that.) Islam countries will gladly take and afford
to take Syrian refugees. It seems the President takes positions in order to
then pick a fight, with those who are contrary to him. Once Mr. President
went up against Mr. Romney in 2012, his advisors advised to go negative, and
that hasn't stopped to this day. Second terms always seem to bring out
the worst in human beings. I voted for happy hopeful Mr. Obama in 2008 and
positive experienced, principled Mr. Romney in 2012.