Obama threatens to veto House GOP bill on Syrian refugees

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 7:55 p.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 19, 2015 4:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 3:54 p.m.

    @donn
    And 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.

  • donn layton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 2:47 p.m.

    @GaryO. Poll: A majority of Americans oppose accepting Syrian refugees.Updated 11/19/15 10:48 AM
    More 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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 2:32 p.m.

    @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?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 11:18 a.m.

    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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 10:40 a.m.

    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?

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 10:33 a.m.

    80% of muslims vote democrat.

  • Darmando Parker, CO
    Nov. 19, 2015 10:19 a.m.

    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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Nov. 19, 2015 9:35 a.m.

    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?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 9:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 8:22 a.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 19, 2015 8:06 a.m.

    @Frozen Fractals--Not all refugees are the same.

    With these, killing infidels is a ticket to heaven.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Nov. 19, 2015 8:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 7:09 a.m.

    Obama is the best campaigner the GOP has at this point. 2016 is being handed to the GOP on a silver platter.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Nov. 19, 2015 6:41 a.m.

    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 isn't news.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 6:35 a.m.

    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!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 6:32 a.m.

    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 a child.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 6:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Nov. 19, 2015 6:03 a.m.

    "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.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Nov. 19, 2015 5:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 3:26 a.m.

    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 create.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 12:17 a.m.

    @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.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 19, 2015 12:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2015 11:38 p.m.

    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?

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 18, 2015 11:34 p.m.

    Obama is trying to destroy our country. This is just his latest adverse action.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 18, 2015 11:25 p.m.

    I have a 48 year old Muslim friend. He's lived hear for three years.

    Even he knows this a dangerous move.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 18, 2015 11:18 p.m.

    Obama has been more critical of the United States, its people, its values, Christians, Congress, than ISIL & Muslims.

    Hmm?

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Nov. 18, 2015 11:17 p.m.

    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.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Nov. 18, 2015 10:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 18, 2015 9:57 p.m.

    This is our time to define ourselves.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2015 9:10 p.m.

    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.