- Messages
- 2,376
- Reactions
- 4,800
I think boogerhook misses the point. The Indians had very lax immigration policies . . . See where that got them!?!?!?!?!?
Sheldon
Sheldon
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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!
Just a little perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0
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
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....
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.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/
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.
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"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.
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?