States refusing to accept Syrian refugees

This reminds me of Republicans, mostly, wanting to refuse entry to anyone flying in from Africa due to Ebola.

However, I do think that there is merit in the idea of training a military force of Syrians, on US or EU soil, to go back and reclaim their country; assuming that the refugees give a damn about it. There were plenty of such expatriate volunteers during WWII, for Poles to French and many more.

Is this a war or not, or just another time for Republicans to show what they (don't) stand for?
 
On this topic of refugees, I do have to ask what people will think, or even be able to do, if AGW (and population increases) turns much of the fastest population increasing parts of the world into cesspools of starvation and war (including religious and tribal wars)? Will Europe and the rest of the West be even capable of taking up the slack by accepting unlimited "refugees", political or otherwise? This is not a question of sentiment, morality or ethics. It is one of real economic and practical capability.
 
Caper said:
Wouldn't it be a hole lot easier if the US only took Christian refugees or non religious refugees? They would be much much easier to integrate then Muslims.

Let Muslim nations take the Muslim refugees and majority christian nations take the christian refugees.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

There are no "Muslims". There are only Muslims and heretical muslims and it has been so for at least 1400 years. Nobody but Allah knows who gets the capital M, and He (it) isn't talking.
 
Toontown said:
750 over 3 years. Awesome, aren't they. And always among the least hypocritical people in internet discussions.
Click to expand...

As I have said about four times we probably could have taken more

But we don't have 233,000,000 people
 
Refugees go through the filter

The refugees have to have a network already in place where they attack. These networks just don't exist in the United States, like they do in Europe.

Perhaps one may argue that these networks could form and flourish, after an influx of Syrian refugees. Given the scrutiny that will, no doubt, be upon them (by our federal agencies alone), does it seem plausible that such networks , used primarily to acquire guns, make explosives, and launder money, could flourish?

The ones (domestic terrorists, and the upstart networks) the United States has now are being taken down on a regular basis, before they can even come close to executing their first attack. But these refugees will fly under the radar? No.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
As far as I know, governors of states do not have the power to bar immigration. Immigration is federal, not state. Nobody needs state government permission to settle anywhere.
Click to expand...

So far, TragicMonkey is the only one in this thread who has posted on topic.

What powers DO states have regarding foreign immigrants? It seems to me that once they are inside U.S. borders, they can pretty much settle wherever they please. Are these governors going to call out State Police and National Guardsmen to turn them away at the state border? I'd like to see them try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom