No refugees wanted here in RI!

BobF said:
Both being pushed on the US while we are willing to help but our ability to do so is not here at all. You forget that we have a crippling national debt. We are working to find jobs for all that are already here and looking. Not all Americans are employed these days and little hope for jobs either. Plenty to do for our own people, then the illegals, then this new bunch that can ask but legally get refused. Which is it, Sweden or Norway, or Denmark where they have also closed their doors due to various reason. I believe that some European countries like Hungary, Germany, France, guesses, will also close their doors. We also have a concern about security, something you don't want to be concerned about.

Sorry but your nasty talk about me is just that. Empty talk, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Nobody is pushing refugees on the US. Obama offered to take them because he is a good man. My country has also offered to take them and some have arrived just today, and they are welcome here. And they will be welcome in Germany and France, etc.

I don't say anything about you that isn't true.
 

BobF said:
Both being pushed on the US while we are willing to help but our ability to do so is not here at all. You forget that we have a crippling national debt. We are working to find jobs for all that are already here and looking. Not all Americans are employed these days and little hope for jobs either. Plenty to do for our own people, then the illegals, then this new bunch that can ask but legally get refused. Which is it, Sweden or Norway, or Denmark where they have also closed their doors due to various reason. I believe that some European countries like Hungary, Germany, France, guesses, will also close their doors. We also have a concern about security, something you don't want to be concerned about.

Sorry but your nasty talk about me is just that. Empty talk, nothing more.
Click to expand...


With 50% of your budget going to military, maybe you could hold back a few bucks to save the lives of innocent women and little kids and old people?
 
I'm in agreement with Shalimar and Ameriscot and QS and a few others here. If we let our fear stop us from doing something to help these refugees, than we're on the wrong side of this story. If we lock them out, then we condemn them to death either at the hands of terrorists or the weather. Either way, they're dead because we were afraid.

And that (being fearful and afraid) is one of the things those terrorists want to do to us. Imprison us in our fear!
 

Warrigal said:
I don't remember that verse in the Bible, Bob. Can you provide me with chapter and verse so that I can look it up.
Perhaps you are confused with this passage

Or perhaps you are referring to the mythical queue that refugees are supposed to join? The trouble is that even if they can find one, the children will be old before they move to the front of the line to be served.
Click to expand...

Just what does the Bible have to do with this conversation. We are not run by the Bible in the US as that is forbidden by the Constitution. Yes, we do concern about those fleeing the battle areas. But most of those in the US, including 30 states and many Democrats in the government are not happy with Obama's choices lately. There is a high concern about security and safety. If those concerns are taken care of by our government, then that problem will go away. Obama's words are not enough. He has to do better than wave his magic wand. This appears to be a bit more that a little item in the US population and government.
 
Debby said:
I'm in agreement with Shalimar and Ameriscot and QS and a few others here. If we let our fear stop us from doing something to help these refugees, than we're on the wrong side of this story. If we lock them out, then we condemn them to death either at the hands of terrorists or the weather. Either way, they're dead because we were afraid.

And that (being fearful and afraid) is one of the things those terrorists want to do to us. Imprison us in our fear!
Click to expand...

All true. And I will not be afraid.
 
Ameriscot said:
Nobody is pushing refugees on the US. Obama offered to take them because he is a good man. My country has also offered to take them and some have arrived just today, and they are welcome here. And they will be welcome in Germany and France, etc.

I don't say anything about you that isn't true.
Click to expand...

Not everyone thinks he is perfect at all. Thirty states don't agree. Not all of his Democrat staff and Congress people don't agree either. The security and safety must be addressed by more than just Obama's words.
 
Interesting opinion article on Mother Jones, we are all concerned, especially after the Paris attacks, about our safety. I'm for allowing the refugees into our country, screening them as closely as possible for security reasons. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...nock-mockery-over-calls-limit-syrian-refugees


Cillizza has some poll numbers to back this up, but he's right in more ways than just that. Here's the thing: to the average person, it seems perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of admitting Syrian refugees to the country.

We know that ISIS would like to attack the US. We know that ISIS probably has the wherewithal to infiltrate a few of its people into the flood of refugees.

And most voters have no idea how easy it is to get past US screening. They probably figure it's pretty easy.So it doesn't seem xenophobic or crazy to call for an end to accepting Syrian refugees. It seems like simple common sense. After all, things changed after Paris.

Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?

The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.

Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster.
Click to expand...
 
BobF said:
What happened to 'first come, first served'?
Click to expand...
Ever been waiting in an emergency room when a gunshot victim or heart attack patient came in? It's called triage, the most urgent first. Wake up! These people are fleeing the barbarians who bomb, shoot, explode, and behead the innocent.
 
AZ Jim said:
Ever been waiting in an emergency room when a gunshot victim or heart attack patient came in? It's called triage, the most urgent first. Wake up! These people are fleeing the barbarians who bomb, shoot, explode, and behead the innocent.
Click to expand...

And they will be welcome as soon as Obama proves security is taken care of. So far he apparently has not done that sufficient to convince even his staff and the Democrat governors and of course most of the conservative folks.
 
BobF said:
And they will be welcome as soon as Obama proves security is taken care of. So far he apparently has not done that sufficient to convince even his staff and the Democrat governors and of course most of the conservative folks.
Click to expand...
All of the states are governed by Republicans (25). Only one state, New Hampshire is a Democrat.
 
Meringue said:
Excuse my naivete, but are you by "RI" in The Republic of Ireland, or is RI an abbreviation for one of America's cities ?
Click to expand...

It's Rhode Island, USA

MA doesn't want them either and neither does NC. Unfortunately our neighbors in VT and CONN will allow refugees so I'm sure ISIS can slip in and blow up Boston again. Like we didn't have enough grief recovering from the Tsarnaev brothers.
 
chic said:
It's Rhode Island, USA

MA doesn't want them either and neither does NC. Unfortunately our neighbors in VT and CONN will allow refugees so I'm sure ISIS can slip in and blow up Boston again. Like we didn't have enough grief recovering from the Tsarnaev brothers.
Click to expand...

By law no state can refuse entry by these people. Federal law trumps state law.
 
I think America is in far more danger from some of the homegrown nut jobs, than properly vetted refugees. I stand with President Obama on this one. He has the respect of the Canadian people.
 
BobF said:
Just what does the Bible have to do with this conversation. We are not run by the Bible in the US as that is forbidden by the Constitution. Yes, we do concern about those fleeing the battle areas. But most of those in the US, including 30 states and many Democrats in the government are not happy with Obama's choices lately. There is a high concern about security and safety. If those concerns are taken care of by our government, then that problem will go away. Obama's words are not enough. He has to do better than wave his magic wand. This appears to be a bit more that a little item in the US population and government.
Click to expand...

Bob, my post was deeply ironic in answer to your trite comment of "first come, first served" which is pretty meaningless in the context of refugees fleeing a war zone.

However, I am reminded of another meaningless phrase - "In God we trust". When we are afraid we have to trust in something. I choose to place my trust in the goodness of human nature, even as I recognise the dark side, and I choose to respond with an open heart to those unfortunates who are lucky enough to secure passage to Australia, out of the hell hole that is the Middle East. I choose not to fear the terrorists because I do not wish to yield to their threats.
 
QuickSilver said:
Tight security and intense vetting...THEN we need to take them.... because it's the absolutely right and moral thing to do..
Click to expand...

My question is how do you tightly screen people coming from a country that is in chaos and near collapse? It's not like you can just run them through NCIS. My understanding is that most of the refugees do not even have identification. This is not to say we should not help them, but I've heard so much about "vetting" and I wonder how this can be accomplished. Just how would we determine exactly who is who and if they are who they say they are?
 
Butterfly said:
My question is how do you tightly screen people coming from a country that is in chaos and near collapse? It's not like you can just run them through NCIS. My understanding is that most of the refugees do not even have identification. This is not to say we should not help them, but I've heard so much about "vetting" and I wonder how this can be accomplished. Just how would we determine exactly who is who and if they are who they say they are?
Click to expand...

Our vetting is not perfect but it is better than no screening at all. And that is why so many states and political persons, including many Democrat Governors and Congress persons are resisting Obama's hurry to please rather than take action first.
 
If a terrorist wanted to come to America they would just buy a ticket and hop on a plane. No need to go through the long and drawn out process of applying for refugee status. They would be under much more scrutiny than just passing through Customs.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top