Oregon continues to accept refugees

[etrain16]

There are these two - children if asylum seekers (some say that means they're technically not refugees - decide for yourself):

 

[Charliehorse]

I thought he was born in VA and his parents were the ones who immigated from Palestine.


Ray

I stand corrected.

Let's try this one:

 

[Charliehorse]

Interesting... not only is there reason for adequate "vetting & processing" to insure the security of our Nation and its CITIZENS (at least for sane people unlike chairman hobama & appointee brown), asylum and refugee status are NOT blank checks for anyone or any reason to be taken advantage of.
I wonder why this point hasn't been brought up with the invasion from Central America (which the Court has overruled hobama's unlawful ploy at padding demorat future voters).

excerpts:

Refugee 'Religious Test' Is 'Shameful' and 'Not American' … Except that Federal Law Requires It

11.18.2015
In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:

When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who's fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that's shameful…. That's not American. That's not who we are. We don't have religious tests to our compassion.

Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission

must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a "refugee" as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien's religion:

The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]

The law requires a "religious test." And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president's personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.

There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. War, regrettably, is a staple of the human condition. Civil wars are generally about power. That often makes them violent and, for many, tragic; but it does not necessarily make them wars in which one side is persecuting the other side.

In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine.

And it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is "not American," let alone "shameful." How can something American law requires be "not American"? And how can a national expression of compassion expressly aimed at alleviating persecution be "shameful"?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...merican-except-federal-law-requires-it-andrew

 

[Hawaiian]

I watched her being interviewed on this subject on KOIN news tonight. It was obvious that she was spewing her party's position and was uncomfortable as she was denying the concerns of the people or the potential dangers involved. When she stated that the incoming would be properly vetted, it was clear that she did not actually believe what she was saying. She knows better, but must support her party's views.
And.....Maybe no one explained to her how her new guests view women's rights.

 

[41Slinger]

So will Obama or Brown be rushing to the scene of the explosion and gun fire like they do when some nut job attacks a group of people with a knife or runs over a crowd with a car or another drunk kills a family or a Doctor kills another patient or a rogue cop shoots a unarmed white guy, oh, wait, they don't go to any of those do they, oh well, what's another Boston bomber or two. Oh yea, I don't think he showed up there either, but I could be wrong, old guy, memory is fading.

 

[jbett98]

Honduran police just caught 5 Syrian's attempting to enter the US with stolen passports.

http://news.yahoo.com/honduras-arrests-five-syrians-headed-us-stolen-passports-204536480.html

 

[boogerhook]

anyone who is not a red-skin is an immigrant to this country, we just have to go back between 1-300 years. That's not very long.

Most gunners appreciate the Constitution, not only the 2A. Under Article 6, the matters of immigration rests with the federal government, not the States. Let's respect the Constitution, even when not what we want it to be.

 

[IheartSig]

A lot of good posting I am against Syrian refugees in Oregon on her Facebook page did.
Hope Oregonian open there eyes and votes with conviction in the upcoming elections. From small city positions to the governors office all needs a good clearing.

I think Governor Brown has made it clear she is going to do what ever she wants while she rides out her unexpected term. Whether or not the citizens of this State agree.

 

[Stomper]

anyone who is not a red-skin is an immigrant to this country, we just have to go back between 1-300 years. That's not very long.

Most gunners appreciate the Constitution, not only the 2A. Under Article 6, the matters of immigration rests with the federal government, not the States. Let's respect the Constitution, even when not what we want it to be.

BS... the "red skins" immigrated (albeit a long, long, loooong time ago) here across the land bridge that existed between what is now Russia and Alaska.

They displaced whoever was here first... and there WAS someone here before them.

 

[boogerhook]

BS... the "red skins" immigrated (albeit a long, long, loooong time ago) here across the land bridge that existed between what is now Russia and Alaska.

They displaced whoever was here first... and there WAS someone here before them.

very interesting, maybe it would be more constructive if you commented on the Article 6 part of my comment?

 

[Charliehorse]

anyone who is not a red-skin is an immigrant to this country, .

So are they like Stomper said. From Eurasia. Search Ft Rock & Paisley Caves.
Migration has been a constant on planet earth. But when nations & laws are formed, defense from invaders and enemies (foreign AND domestic) comes into play.

 

[IheartSig]

very interesting, maybe it would be more constructive if you commented on the Article 6 part of my comment?

Can you clarify this? What are you implying? That we should abide by the federal decision to place refugees based on the verbiage about respecting the law of the land etc?

I'm trying to understand the original comment referring to Indians , immigration and Article 6?

 

[Stomper]

very interesting, maybe it would be more constructive if you commented on the Article 6 part of my comment?

Article 6 doesn't give authority to "traitors in charge" to import insurgents.


Was that constructive enough?

 

[Charliehorse]

I'm trying to understand the original comment referring to Indians , immigration and Article 6?

Yeah I don't get it. But I do get Article IV

Article. IV.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[IheartSig]

All this aside, it seems rather presumptuous to me that we should readily accept any mandate from the federal government about housing and maintaining refugees or other types of displaced individuals, on a State level just because "we will abide by the laws of the land"...

In the last few months alone we have made efforts to stray from the federal popular opinion on things and make our own decisions on a state level. Decriminalization of marijuana for example.

 

[IheartSig]

On a side note, I saw an article earlier that caught my eye;

The title read "Gun sales soar as Syrian invasion looms"

and my first thought was "WTF country is Syria invading?

ooops. They meant "Ours". I see what you did there. Clever girl....

 

[cascadianliberty2012]

Mecca is which direction from here?

Make a "thumbs up" sign with one hand. Now sit on it. Your thumb will now be pointing towards Mecca.

 

[etrain16]

anyone who is not a red-skin is an immigrant to this country, we just have to go back between 1-300 years. That's not very long.

Most gunners appreciate the Constitution, not only the 2A. Under Article 6, the matters of immigration rests with the federal government, not the States. Let's respect the Constitution, even when not what we want it to be.

All article 6 does is give control over refugees coming into the country to the federal government. But is does not guarantee anyone refugee status. It does not require the United States to take in refugees, exiles or those seeking asylum. That is discretionary. And as for Article 6, there are those that would make the case that the 10th amendment is in direct opposition and may, in some cases, supersede Article 6. It's a question for constitutional scholars and lawyers - I am neither.

The fact that we are a nation of immigrants is irrelevant. The fact that almost all of us are here because relatives came from other countries is irrelevant. The fact that the natives were here before the Europeans is irrelevant. None of this has anything to do with the current situation. Just like Obama claiming we're afraid of 3 year olds and widows is irrelevant. Those are all straw man arguments and have no place in this particular discussion. Our President needs to learn that lesson.

One of the duties of the federal government is to protect our borders and our citizens. We're not talking about regular immigration here. I don't think anyone here really has any issue with lawful immigration, so long as it follows the procedures, including the necessary time tables and vetting. What we're talking about is a knee-jerk reaction by some people in this country that think we need to bring every single person in the world that doesn't live at our standards, into this country, and give them a free ride. That is not how our system of immigration is supposed to work. It's not racism. It's not bigotry. It is a completely fair question - these people, coming from a known terrorist country, may, in fact, be joined by terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers.

And this isn't a question of whether it may happen. It is ALREADY HAPPENING. Just yesterday, Turkey arrested 8 ISIS suspects posing as Syrian refugees (source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/18/turkey-arrests-8-isis-suspects-posing-as-syrian-refugees/) Somehow, I don't think ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC will be covering that story. Hell, these people have stated that they will use the refugee crisis to get their people into various countries - just check out this article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/isis-smuggler-we-will-use-refugee-crisis-to-infiltrate-west/ "
Author Robert Spencer wrote Sept. 4 in Front Page Magazine, "This is no longer just a 'refugee crisis.' This is a hijrah." Hijrah is the Islamic doctrine of migration, which is a form of stealth jihad. "To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act,"

I don't think anyone is suggesting we suspend legal immigration, but there is plenty of evidence in how ISIS and other jihadi type organizations work, that we must, absolutely must, be beyond vigilant in screening who is coming in - especially if they are coming from places like Syria, that are known to breed and support global terrorism.

Regardless of whether Obama may have the right to bring these people in, he had better damn well start listening to the people, because the people are starting to get concerned and pissed off. This is not a D vs R issue, people on both sides, in rapidly growing numbers are very concerned. And even as of today, the number of states that are saying they won't take them is continuing to grow - including many states that have supported Obama in the past. I think this is going to backfire on that arrogant turd in a big way. And, I'm getting damn tired of his 'lectures' to the American people. He can shove his lectures up his backside.

 

[IheartSig]

Make a "thumbs up" sign with one hand. Now sit on it. Your thumb will now be pointing towards Mecca.

Instructions unclear; dislocated shoulder and broke ankle.

 

[notazombie]

If King Barry wants them here so bad maybe he should just set up a few dozen FEMA trailers on the White House lawn inside his security perimeter and see how things play out.