Oregon continues to accept refugees

[Sstrand]

I think boogerhook misses the point. The Indians had very lax immigration policies . . . See where that got them!?!?!?!?!?

Sheldon

 

[2506]

Just a little perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

 

[DMax]

We will now see who in the country are the real treasonous terrorist collaborators. Including at the state and city levels. We all know at the fed level.

 

[Mikej]

etrain 16 for president!!!!

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.

Now, if everyone on this site could speak/write as well as THAT, we might, as a group of gun owners/firearms enthusiasts, get more respect!

 

[etrain16]

etrain 16 for president!!!!



Now, if everyone on this site could speak/write as well as THAT, we might, as a group of gun owners/firearms enthusiasts, get more respect!

I think you missed the point, Mike. I don't write like a president (or any politician for that matter), so it makes more sense

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the office of president is the last job I'd want in this country

 

[etrain16]

Just a little perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

I'm not sure I get the point you're making with the article. Are you saying that these refugees represent less of a threat than homegrown "terrorists" do to date? Okay, I can see that. But what does that mean with respect to the current concern over the Syrian refugees? I'm hoping you're not, as this article appears to be doing, trying to make the point that it's okay to take more in simply because, historically, they are less likely to be a threat? Is that where you're going with it? I'm asking because it's not clear.

When it comes to the Syrian concern, we cannot base our consideration of accepting/admitting these folks based solely on past violent occurrences. We need to review these folks, regardless of our past history, on what is currently happening in countries all over the world. Turkey just arrested 8 suspected ISIS terrorists coming into their country, with the wave of Syrian refugees. That is a real threat, not only to the US, but to many other countries that could be ISIS targets such as France, Germany and Great Britain.

I think this article, at least it appears to me, is trying to say we're a bigger threat to ourselves than these refugees are. That's a faulty argument in my book, again, a straw man that has nothing to do with the concern at hand. We simply cannot look to the past and then make the glaring assumption that it can't get worse here. It can get worse, and I believe it will.

 

[Mikej]

I think you missed the point, Mike. I don't write like a president (or any politician for that matter), so it makes more sense

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the office of president is the last job I'd want in this country

NO SHIZZLE!

 

[2506]

Freedom comes with risk. We can live in the open light of freedom which implies a modicum of risk. Alternatively, we can generalize from a low probability of a thoroughly vetted refugee instigating an attack. Terrorism is predicated on the one -to- many hysteria it triggers. ISIS wants the West to make the generalization that all of Islam is radical and should be feared. We are doing EXACTLY what they want. We need to treat evil people (Isis) as they deserve. We should not vilify good people who are, rightfully, running away from these crazy f*ckers and what they are capable of. If we do, we are playing in to Isis' narrative and they win. And I hate to lose....

 

[etrain16]

Freedom comes with risk. We can live in the open light of freedom which implies a modicum of risk. Alternatively, we can generalize from a low probability of a thoroughly vetted refugee instigating an attack. Terrorism is predicated on the one -to- many hysteria it triggers. ISIS wants the West to make the generalization that all of Islam is radical and should be feared. We are doing EXACTLY what they want. We need to treat evil people (Isis) as they deserve. We should not vilify good people who are, rightfully, running away from these crazy f*ckers and what they are capable of. If we do, we are playing in to Isis' narrative and they win. And I hate to lose....

So, how do we tell the ISIS folks from the rest? We know you can't go by looks, gender, even age. The problem is that they blend in so well with everyone else, they can be virtually impossible to detect in the group.

So, until such time that we can have a very reasonable assurance that we're not inviting terrorists (or even potential terrorists) in the front door, then we need to stop until such time that system can be devised. I'm sorry if that hurts others, but it's their people that are doing this. They may be getting caught in the middle, and for that, I'm sorry, but it does not create some kind of mandate that we must take them all in. How about they stay in their own country and fight them?

Nope, I'm not buying the whole "it's not fair to the others" argument. We need to protect this country first. Until such time that we have done that, I'm afraid they'll have to wait or find themselves another option.

 

[boogerhook]

So, how do we tell the ISIS folks from the rest? We know you can't go by looks, gender, even age. The problem is that they blend in so well with everyone else, they can be virtually impossible to detect in the group.

So, until such time that we can have a very reasonable assurance that we're not inviting terrorists (or even potential terrorists) in the front door, then we need to stop until such time that system can be devised. I'm sorry if that hurts others, but it's their people that are doing this. They may be getting caught in the middle, and for that, I'm sorry, but it does not create some kind of mandate that we must take them all in. How about they stay in their own country and fight them?

Nope, I'm not buying the whole "it's not fair to the others" argument. We need to protect this country first. Until such time that we have done that, I'm afraid they'll have to wait or find themselves another option.

The problem is that anyone could be a terrorist, or become a terrorist after being "radicalized". We have misguided white American youth that get up one morning and decide to join an extremist cause. We already have some 700,000 people on our watch list. I would agree that those we admit need to be vetted with scrutiny. But to categorically deny entry is wrong, IMHO.

I would be more concerned about 1.5% of these 700,000 than the refugees we are talking about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...revent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/

 

[DMax]

How about they all go to Seattle and you all can let us know how it all works out. Problem solved

 

[etrain16]

The problem is that anyone could be a terrorist, or become a terrorist after being "radicalized". We have misguided white American youth that get up one morning and decide to join an extremist cause. We already have some 700,000 people on our watch list. I would agree that those we admit need to be vetted with scrutiny. But to categorically deny entry is wrong, IMHO.

I would be more concerned about 1.5% of these 700,000 than the refugees we are talking about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...revent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/

Let's not forget a very important point. Immigration to the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. Neither the Constitution nor the Declaration require that the U.S. take in any immigrant. It is solely at our discretion. This is our country, we set the rules, they do not.

Can you name any other country in the world where I, as a U.S. citizen could go and, in effect, demand citizenship of that country? Mexico wouldn't do it. Canada wouldn't do it. Really, no one would do it. If you get to come in and become a citizen, it's because they, by their good graces, have allowed it.

And let's be very clear here - the U.S. has NOT cut off immigration. We are receiving immigrants on a daily basis to this country. Believe me, there is no shortage of immigration into the U.S. But what is happening with the Syrian refugees is a very different creature from say a Chinese family hoping to make a better life in the U.S. The difference is that they are coming from a known terrorist state and, we know, without a doubt that ISIS has said they will use the incoming refugees as a way to get terrorists in our country. This is a known threat, not just speculation.

And let's stop comparing problematic people already in the U.S. with the Syrian refugees - they cannot be compared. If anything, using that argument should make us stop and say "you know what? We've got enough problems already, we shouldn't be importing more".

It doesn't get more simple than this. The Syrian refugee influx represents and known threat to our security. Period. This isn't about compassion. This isn't about religious freedom. This isn't about racism. This is about one of our most basic, and most important values - the protection of our country and it's people. We should never, ever compromise on that.

 

[boogerhook]

This is about one of our most basic, and most important values - the protection of our country and it's people. We should never, ever compromise on that.

"Liberty" is more important to us than "safety", so we do compromise on the protection part by choice. If we didn't we would have round the clock surveillance and be ok with it.

 

[etrain16]

"Liberty" is more important to us than "safety", so we do compromise on the protection part by choice. If we didn't we would have round the clock surveillance and be ok with it.

"Liberty" applies to U.S. citizens. It is not guaranteed to anyone else. If they want to come here, as you have done, and as my ancestors did before me, go through the process and the hard work to become a citizen, then yes, "Liberty" will apply to them too. The U.S. did not become a country to take in every single person in the world that can't function where they are now. That would be absolutely impossible.

I have documented ancestry to the Mayflower. I belong to the Mayflower society. My ancestors on that side came here to escape religious persecution. And they paid a terrible price to come here. Just looking at my family tree on that side shows the depth of death and sacrifice they made to come here. My ancestors have fought in many of the great conflicts, including the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWII and Vietnam. They helped, as have many others, to build this country into something great. Today, we must continue the hard work to make this country great. All the while, we're seeing more and more people coming here that want the benefits of what this country has to offer, while at the same time demanding we allow them to act as if they're back home. Pick one - your're an American or you're not. If it's not the former, then I guess it's time to move back. All of my ancestors, up to the most recent immigrant, my grandmother, born in Sweden, saw themselves not as a "Swede" living in the U.S., but as naturalized U.S. citizens. They spoke English. They considered themselves Americans. They fought for this country, not against it.

I wonder, of the people attempting to flood into this country, are they also planning on becoming Americans? Are they willing to dissociate themselves with their former country of residence and disavow all allegiances to that country? Or are they simply looking to come here, get a free ride for awhile to avoid the hardships at home, then run back there as soon as things cool down?

And how, exactly, do we expect to vet these people? What is the source of information? Many don't even have I.D. Do we have access to the governmental records of Syria? Do we trust the government of Bashar al-Assad, a terrorist in his own right, to give us all the information we need to separate the good from the bad? How can we hope to accomplish this?

I've said about all I can on this issue. We are facing a threat. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in our founding documents puts us in a position where we should feel in any way obligated to bring people in that are coming from known terrorist states. You clearly don't agree with that, and so, in that matter, we must part along our separate beliefs.

 

[boogerhook]

"Liberty" applies to U.S. citizens. It is not guaranteed to anyone else. If they want to come here, as you have done, and as my ancestors did before me, go through the process and the hard work to become a citizen, then yes, "Liberty" will apply to them too. The U.S. did not become a country to take in every single person in the world that can't function where they are now. That would be absolutely impossible.

I have documented ancestry to the Mayflower. I belong to the Mayflower society. My ancestors on that side came here to escape religious persecution. And they paid a terrible price to come here. Just looking at my family tree on that side shows the depth of death and sacrifice they made to come here. My ancestors have fought in many of the great conflicts, including the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWII and Vietnam. They helped, as have many others, to build this country into something great. Today, we must continue the hard work to make this country great. All the while, we're seeing more and more people coming here that want the benefits of what this country has to offer, while at the same time demanding we allow them to act as if they're back home. Pick one - your're an American or you're not. If it's not the former, then I guess it's time to move back. All of my ancestors, up to the most recent immigrant, my grandmother, born in Sweden, saw themselves not as a "Swede" living in the U.S., but as naturalized U.S. citizens. They spoke English. They considered themselves Americans. They fought for this country, not against it.

I wonder, of the people attempting to flood into this country, are they also planning on becoming Americans? Are they willing to dissociate themselves with their former country of residence and disavow all allegiances to that country? Or are they simply looking to come here, get a free ride for awhile to avoid the hardships at home, then run back there as soon as things cool down?

And how, exactly, do we expect to vet these people? What is the source of information? Many don't even have I.D. Do we have access to the governmental records of Syria? Do we trust the government of Bashar al-Assad, a terrorist in his own right, to give us all the information we need to separate the good from the bad? How can we hope to accomplish this?

I've said about all I can on this issue. We are facing a threat. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in our founding documents puts us in a position where we should feel in any way obligated to bring people in that are coming from known terrorist states. You clearly don't agree with that, and so, in that matter, we must part along our separate beliefs.

I absolutely agree on the "assimilation" requirement for immigrants. Sweden does a great job in it, all immigrants have to learn Swedish, pass a civics test, etc. Germany and France do a terrible job on the assimilation front. In part, the problem is that refugees are not able to work while being processed. So, young, bored men are hanging out in camps for up to 2 years having nothing to do. That breeds trouble. But I digress. My main concern is that we now act out of fear. Irrational fear, in my mind. You are correct that there is no entitlement of immigration, but we have values, such as to provide shelter (or resettlement) to those in need. Those values are at risk. Other countries have taken much larger risks in this crisis
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/18/9756656/syrian-refugee-response-chart

From the pool of resettlement consideration we can carefully pick and chose those we feel comfortable bringing in, those that already have families in the US, those who are too young or too old, those who have education, etc. It's not going to be a "truck load of terrorists" dumped at our door.

 

[etrain16]

I absolutely agree on the "assimilation" requirement for immigrants. Sweden does a great job in it, all immigrants have to learn Swedish, pass a civics test, etc. Germany and France do a terrible job on the assimilation front. In part, the problem is that refugees are not able to work while being processed. So, young, bored men are hanging out in camps for up to 2 years having nothing to do. That breeds trouble. But I digress. My main concern is that we now act out of fear. Irrational fear, in my mind. You are correct that there is no entitlement of immigration, but we have values, such as to provide shelter (or resettlement) to those in need. Those values are at risk. Other countries have taken much larger risks in this crisis
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/18/9756656/syrian-refugee-response-chart

From the pool of resettlement consideration we can carefully pick and chose those we feel comfortable bringing in, those that already have families in the US, those who are too young or too old, those who have education, etc. It's not going to be a "truck load of terrorists" dumped at our door.

I think it's very unfair to classify legitimate concern, based on a known threat, as fear, particularly irrational fear. This is not baseless speculation we're working on here. It is well documented that ISIS has issued threats against the U.S. They have told us they will 'hide' among Syrian refugees. What the heck is irrational about being concerned about that? To my mind, it is irrational to simply dismiss an active threat to this country simply because our 'values' tell us we need to be polite and kind regardless of the circumstances?

No, I'm not letting this go that easily. You say it is our 'values' that dictate we take in those at risk. I think you need to read the founding documents again - because that value, and the mandate to act on it, is not dictated in those documents. Where are our official values defined? Where does it say we must take people in? We have a long and wonderful history of helping the oppressed/repressed around the world, at great cost to us of life and money. I think we've already shown we have an abundantly compassionate and charitable side to us. But does that mean we don't get to draw the line somewhere? Or do we just have to take them all in, regardless of threat, regardless of intent. And at what percentage of dangerous/bad people to good in any group is acceptable?

I have no quarrel with you, you, as I, are entitled to our opinion. I will not, however accept any claim that I, or anyone else is behaving irrationally for trying to protect this country.

 

[PiratePast40]

According to recent reports, the United States has spent more than all countries of this planet combined in finding sanctuary for the people being persecuted by ISIS. We are providing food clothing and shelter for the oppressed all over the world. Religion has little to do with the current purging. Any Shiite, Kurd, or Coptic can tell you that. They must all bow to the fundamentalists or face death, torture, rape, imprisonment, or slavery.

Most of us are simply asking for some sort of assurance that the people we are helping won't turn around and slice our throats as payment for our compassion. I certainly don't have the answer to identifying every viper in the crowd, but all of these people are not evil.

IMHO, both Trump and Obama are guilty of making broad and unqualified statements concerning those trapped in the situation. They're starting to sound more like each other every single day.

 

[boogerhook]

so etrain16, what will you do if ISIS calls in a threat it will blow up the next Seahawks game. Will you cancel the game? Will you not attend, if they don't cancel?

 

[etrain16]

so etrain16, what will you do if ISIS calls in a threat it will blow up the next Seahawks game. Will you cancel the game? Will you not attend, if they don't cancel?

Well, first, I don't attend big sporting events, so the answer is always "don't attend". But, since your question is likely just for the sake of discussion, I would say it depends. Is the threat credible? Who says so? And why do they believe it is? I believe the Germans did just that recently after receiving a credible threat.

I'm not sure the point you're making with the question. Any time a threat is made, regardless of venue/location, I would weigh my concern, and by extension, my response, based on my perception of the credibility of the threat, based on the best information available. If I don't have reasonable assurance that it's reasonably safe, I'll stay home. No reason to risk it, nor to get worked up or fearful about it.

We all have to weigh risks every day. There are certain parts or Portland I absolutely will not go to at night. They are unsafe. So, I avoid them. It's just basic common sense.

 

[tommy98466]

OK I hate to say this but I would like all of you to think about this the next time there is a "food drive" of sorts. Those items you give to food banks are really supposed to go to those in need but guess who gets them??? Yup... you guessed it. Illegals and refugees who do not belong here. Stop giving food away because of you give, they will come for it. Unfortunately. If you feel compelled to give, find a family in need, that you know, and buy them a turkey or diapers for their kids or what ever. I stopped giving a long time ago to food banks for that very reason. Those that it was intended to help never get it. You will do your part by NOT helping refugees that do not belong here.