YES to REFUGEES: only Washington, Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware, Colorado, and Pennsylvania.

[pnwmom]

So far.

There's a map at the link showing the status of each state.

Twenty six states are trying to keep Syrian refugees out (including New England states Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire) and others remain uncommitted (including New York).

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/

More than half the nation's governors -- 26 states -- say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government.

States protesting the admission of refugees range from Alabama and Georgia, to Texas and Arizona, to Michigan and Illinois, to Maine and New Hampshire. Among these 26 states, all but one have Republican governors.

The announcements came after authorities revealed that at least one of the suspects believed to be involved in the Paris terrorist attacks entered Europe among the current wave of Syrian refugees. He had falsely identified himself as a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad and was allowed to enter Greece in early October.

Some leaders say they either oppose taking in any Syrian refugees being relocated as part of a national program or asked that they be particularly scrutinized as potential security threats.

SNIP

[jberryhill]

1. This will be viewed as a shameful episode in our history

When one looks back at shameful episodes of US history, there is this feeling of "how did we ever do that?"

This is how.

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Yeah, i seriously doubt it. Not this time. nt

[forest444]

121. It's sad - but it's true.

I really hope the President rethinks his Syrian refugee policy.

There's really no delicate way to put this: we have elections coming up; and just as reports of Central American children streaming through our southern border cost Democrats the 2014 election, big time, you can be sure that letting in even a handful of Syrian refugees will be used as a very effective cudgel by Republicans in 2016.

If Obama presses forward with this, and even an attempted attack happens - well, I doubt there will be much of an inclination for anything humanitarian under a President Trump or Carson.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

130. Yes sad so much fear mongering about refugees when terrorists DON'T use refugees!

Terrorists use student visas and tourist visas to infiltrate countries or they use people born in those countries or who have been long term naturalized citizens of those countries.

Refugees get much heavier screening than students and tourists, so terrorist groups don't use refugees.

However, terrorist groups use fake passports and they are sometimes copies of the same passports that a refugee might possess properly or buy having bought it from a smuggler.

That is the source of the confusion on the part of people who are against refugees: a fake passport was found in the Paris attacks that was the same number as a passport used by a refugee.

Do not give into irrational fear-mongering. Apply logic and reason to see the reality deeper than the surface facts shouted at you by political operatives who have their own anti-immigrant agenda.

[forest444]

135. I hear you.

But try explaining that to the average, low-information voter if, God forbid, anything should happen - or even almost happen - between the arrival of first wave of Syrian refugees and Election Day.

The voters, as you very eloquently pointed out, would be mistaken - but believe me, their anger would be pointed straight at Obama, and by extension all the other Democrats running for office. Nothing the President would say, or any of the facts however compelling, would be able to stop that.

[uppityperson]

13. I agree. Banning thousands over the actions of a very few and fear is shameful

[yeoman6987]

31. I'd like to see a poll from the American population be done

Of we want to be a democracy and not a republic then the American people should get a say at least.

[jberryhill]

32. Americans overwhelmingly supported locking up the Japanese

While I don't know whether any polls were conducted, it's safe to say there was no significant opposition to locking up the Japanese.

People were of course also overwhelmingly in favor of the Chinese exclusion acts, and much of the country still opposes marriage equality.

[yeoman6987]

33. Were luckily not 1940's anymore

If the president wants to do this. It would be easier with the support of the country.

[jberryhill]

34. The country elected him president

Some time ago, we established that you use a lawn chemical service, and the runoff from your lawn goes into the Chesapeake Bay. You assured me that your lawn service operator was duly licensed and in compliance with all applicable laws, and that the laws were presumably correct. Was a poll taken on the question of which chemicals you use and in what concentrations? No.

Your irrational fears are not an excuse to allow thousands of innocent people to die of exposure and starvation. We have laws for these situations and they are going to be followed.

At no time in this country's history was the side of irrational fear and stereotype the correct side in the judgment of history - never. Fear and hate have a 1000 batting average of the wrong impulses.

[JDPriestly]

170. I would handle the refugees as they were handled after WWII in many cases.

Churches, mosques and other similar organizations, maybe in some cases individuals, should offer to sponsor a refugee family or a refugee. The sponsor should be held responsible for knowing where the refugees are and how they are doing.

That is a safe way to integrate refugees into our society. If they are Muslim and don't like the idea of having a Christian church sponsor them, they can find a Muslim country to take them in. We are a nation that believes in religious freedom. No Syrian Muslim has to convert to Christianity or any other religion, but they will have to agree to live with us in a society that is tolerant of all religions.

I favor assigning each refugee to a sponsoring group that keeps track of the whereabouts and activities of the sponsored refugee and most important welcomes that refugee into our society.

I have lived in other countries for years. It can be very lonely. Having a group or at least a few individuals who explain the culture and the society to you can be helpful.

[a la izquierda]

61. The country also supported...

Sending Jewish refugees away in the '30s and '40s.

[Koinos]

77. Excellent example, a la izquierda.

[Drahthaardogs]

63. They interred the italians too.

Even Joe DiMaggio's parents. This is despite the fact that much of italy were partisiasnos and opposed the fascists. Strangely though, we never interred German americans. Can anyone guess why?

[atreides1]

105. True

But according to research the number of Italians interred was between 300-3000, as were 11,000 Germans and 127,000 Japanese.

[former9thward]

108. I am sure a poll will be done.

I am also sure you will not like the results.

[MrScorpio]

37. Bingo!

[pnwmom]

47. I am proud of WA today. Less proud of the US in general. n/t

[Boudica the Lyoness]

101. Keep them on your side of the mountains then.

[geardaddy]

139. +1 million n/t

[Fred Sanders]

157. "Shameful" is the word on the lips of the world for RW reactionary behavior cheered on by a

childishly trembling media hoping to use the rusting but still huge military that is needing some work.

[treestar]

2. They have no power to do that

The law allows the President to decide who can be refugees. Up to some number.

I hate this meme going around the internet! What stupid people, they should not be governors - why do those states elect morons.

Let alone their lack of compassion for the refugees.

[pnwmom]

3. The power they have is to make things harder by refusing to allow any state

funds to be used.

Apparently states have been spending money which is then reimbursed by the federal government. This is what another DUer explained.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027352160#post2

[treestar]

10. States just don't have border rights, period.

They can't have their own immigration agents. The Constitution commits immigration and naturalization entirely to the federal government.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

As states cannot coin their own money, they cannot make any naturalization (and immigration) laws.

The right to travel inside the US is absolute.

[pnwmom]

41. Of course they don't. That's not the issue. Who is going to give the refugees

money to pay for the things they will need when they arrive? The states have been doing it -- and then being reimbursed by the Feds -- but 26 of them are bowing out. So the Federal government would have to set up an entire system for the states that bow out now. Meanwhile the Rethugs are busy planning ways to pass bills preventing Obama from using Federal funds.

I wish I had the confidence you do that these opposition Governors aren't going to make the whole resettlement effort much harder.

[treestar]

72. They get jobs, stop posting as if they are dependent on our governments

for life once they get here. Right wingers will say that enough. That's a factor, but it still doesn't stop the fact they don't have the right to keep anyone in the US out of a state. And they are not saying the sophisticated argument that they will try to keep them out by using state fiscal powers - they are just saying they won't "take them."

[rpannier]

163. I saw the blurb from Libertarian Judge Napolitano

According to him, Congress passed a law in 2005, that gives the president unlimited authority (numerically unlimited) to bring people in from other countries for humanitarian reasons or political asylum, reasons

There really is zip the governors can do about it

Gretchen Carlson practically had apoplexy when he explained it to her.
I found it on C&L

[treestar]

165. True, though I thought they might be numbered

Or maybe the President can decide the number.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/refugees-fact-sheet

[joshcryer]

43. That links to a DU post which links to a DU post.

There's no way they can legally deny TANF benefits to settlers. I would love to see the application denial for that for any state that does it.

[pnwmom]

44. I'm glad to hear that. n/t

[joshcryer]

46. Obviously the Office of Refugee Resettlement...

...will want to place them where they are welcome, of course.

But there will undoubtedly be diaspora as some settlers move to where they have family in states that have racist hostile governors.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. The people in these states do not want these refugees.

The Governors are doing what is right by the people in the states the represent.

[treestar]

7. The Constitution gives them no say

They are utterly ignorant of the laws. No state can refuse any person entry into that state. Only the nation can.

The President has powers under the laws to admit refugees.

Once people are admitted with visas, they can go anywhere. As any US citizen can go anywhere in the US. States have no ability to police their borders from other states in any manner.

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Maybe that is so, but it doesn't mean that Governors shouldn't represent the views of the people....

....they actually represent.

[treestar]

12. the governors should know that it's impossible under the Constitution

to do such a thing, so they look stupid suggesting it.

What if the people of some state say they don't "want" black people to live there? Who cares what bigots want? The Constitution does not allow them to make any laws to reflect their bigotry.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. Your analogy is no good. "black people' are citizens of the country. Refugees are not.

It's not bigotry to not accept refugees.

[treestar]

16. Yes, it is

None of the immigration laws allow any state to discriminate once a person is admitted to the US.

Of course it is bigotry! They don't object to white immigration or Christian immigration but they do object to Muslim refugees and that is not bigoted? Of course it is. Bigotry against Muslims.

[Joe the Revelator]

18. Oh i see, we are pretending that Muslims are not fighting a war against the West.

I got it now, this conversation is going nowhere fast. It's not bigotry to not let in a large group of people from the state and region you are at war with, with lax at best screening. You forget that this Country is responsible for the security of the current citizens of this country first and foremost.

[treestar]

21. We are not at war with these refugees!

Jeez, you sound like a republican.

We are not at war with Syria, either.

They are not a threat to our security - you are assuming they are all terrorists, because they are Muslims. That is the very definition of bigotry.

[uppityperson]

24. "all terrorists are Muslim" is a FACT???????

The number of falsehoods and logical fallacies in this is amazing. Simply incredible.

I did not alert on that post, but wantrd to thank the jurors.

[annabanana]

138. yep, Like Timothy McVeigh... . .n/t

[Ilsa]

149. And the nameless terrorist, a member

or follower of neo-nazis and the KKK, that killed those nice people in a church in SC, just because they were Black. I suspect he was a member of a Christian church at one time.

[arcane1]

153. Some people like to forget that western military presence is the root of all this.

And the root of the military presence is oil and gas.

The common myth is that we're all just sitting here minding our own business, not bothering anyone, and these Muslims hate us so much they're willing to die just to kill a few of us, for the sake of killing.

Terrorism is a reaction.

[Koinos]

78. And we are not at war with all Muslims.

[pnwmom]

45. Muslims as a group are not fighting a war against the West. Certain looney-tunes are.

The KKK aren't radical Christians and these people aren't radical Islamists.

[cstanleytech]

110. If we used your logic then every catholic must be a child molester because some

catholics have molested children, thankfully most of us dont use your logic.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

123. Wow. When you say it like that you are prejudging a whole group of innocent people.

Prejudice:

An unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc. : a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not ... -- Merriam-Webster

Your assertion is that "Muslims are fighting a war against the West". As stated, the benefit of the doubt might be generously given to you as meaning "Some Muslims ...", but your other statements make it clear you are implying that Muslims as a group are fighting the West and that they should be prejudged guilty of that until proven innocent.

Wow.

[annabanana]

137. Muslims are not fighting a way against the West.

There is a cult (a VERY small percentage of the World's Muslims, by the way) that is pushing their version of armaggendon as hard as the cult that is a VERY small percentage of the World's Christians are doing the same...

[rpannier]

164. No things

1. Muslims are not at war with America. Your broadbrush assault is ludicrous.
2. The US has let in thousands of refugees from the Middle East over the past decade-and-a-half and the screening has not been lax. That's probably why there haven't been any attacks by any refugees.

[PowerToThePeople]

29. I do not agree with treestar often

But I am going to agree here.

It is blatant bigotry to try and not allow refugees into your state.

[pnwmom]

9. Did you read FLPanhandle's post?

2. The states can legally not provide funds for housing, food, or relocation though

This was discussed in LBT and well explained. States can make it fiscally impossible and with the House in Republican control, there won't be new funds for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141262266#post11

Our current resettlement program basically consists of the Federal government handling resettlement off to various departments in each of the states, and then refunding the states for the cost of those programs. The federal government cannot require the states to participate in the programs. These governors are basically ordering their state level agencies to cease cooperation with the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, which IS perfectly legal for them to do.

There's nothing stopping the federal government from settling the refugees directly, but it would take a lot of time and money to build a 50 state federally administered resettlement program out of nothing. The federal government could also pass legislation requiring states to participate in the program under the threat of losing federal funds, but states would still have the option of giving the feds the middle finger and forgoing the funds (as many do with Obamacare), and it would be very difficult to pass a bill like that at the moment anyway. People are freaked out right now, and a LOT of voters would flee any parties or representatives pushing that kind of legislation.

[treestar]

15. They still can't stop the refugee from living in the state

They cannot block anyone from moving to that state.

It may not be legal for them to do something like that to burden the other states. That could certainly be challenged.

[pnwmom]

28. Of course they can't. But most of the refugees are going to need financial help,

Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2015, 01:34 AM - Edit history (1)

money for rent deposits and temporary income -- which state organizations have been providing, and then reimbursed by the Fed govt. This will mean the Fed govt will have to set up a settlement infrastructure for all the states that refuse to get involved.

[treestar]

66. Eventually they will get jobs though

and then they can move into those states. Though after hearing about this crap, they may not want to.

[pnwmom]

69. Of course. But the initial resettlement can be made much harder by so many states

refusing to cooperate.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. Nope they can't block anyone from moving to a state

But they can most certainly over zero assistance, financial or otherwise, in helping them settle into a new area.

And of course it's legal, regardless of the burden it puts on other states. Those other states could do the same, if they chose to.

[treestar]

67. Not an absolute

That is indirect, but not ultimately a factor. Once the person is on their feet, if they can get a job in one of those states, no one in the state can block that. Though if I were them and knew about it, I'd avoid those states. Still not everyone in the state is a cold hearted jerk, so they might find themselves working in one of them.

[branford]

49. The states can do more than just not expend funds.

They can refuse to assist and cooperate entirely with federal agencies and officials.

Successful refugee resettlement generally requires a great deal of coordination among federal, state, and local agencies, as well as various charities. Just like how certain liberal states and cities refuse to cooperate with the federal government with respect to undocumented immigrants, conservative states and cities can pull the same shenanigans with respect to resettlement efforts. Welcome to the joys of federalism.

Besides the near insurmountable burden of the total absence of state funds or new federal funds from a Republican Congress, the administrative and logistical difficulties of social welfare agencies and law enforcement refusing to deal with federal officials would create a nightmare scenario, to say nothing of actually physically endangering the refugees.

Simply, while states cannot directly control immigration and refugee policy, they can certainly make resettlement efforts an absolute living hell for the administration and refugees, particularly with a very supportive Republican Congress and local population strongly backing their state's positions.

I expect to see a lot of explanations from the White House about the time and thoroughness of refugee screening, assurances that any refugees allowed in the USA are definitely not a threat, as well as the American tradition of welcoming refugees, rather than engaging in direct and costly battles with a majority of states on a topic related to terrorism as we enter an election year.

[treestar]

68. That's not what they are saying though

They are saying they won't "take" any refugees. Not using this sophisticated argument which is really "we will use state power to refuse to help them."

[branford]

90. Correct, but we're now quibbling over semantics.

If the federal government seeks to resettle refugees in any of these objecting states, the governors will refuse. There will likely be a angry and very publicized court battle, and the governors will lose. However, they then get to complain about the evils of the oppressive federal government during an election year, and force the White House to engage in a political battle they do not want and which is very unpopular among many Americans. If it's controversial here on DU, a liberal and exclusively Democratic forum, it's unquestionably a whole lot more unpopular among the general population.

Only after this political and legal fiasco, would the federal government then have to actually try to resettle the refugees in these objecting states. Without their very active cooperation, which given political trends would not happen, resettlement probably will be impractical and dangerous, and White House would have fought a bruising election year battle for nothing.

While the White House technically appears to be on much stronger legal ground concerning refugee resettlement, any victory would be Pyrrhic at best. So, when a majority of state governors say they won't take any refugees, it's quite meaningful and realistic, and they might be the ultimate victors.

Moreover, God forbid, if we suffer a terrorist attack anything similar to that of France, the public would sour even more, and regardless of legalities, refugee resettlement would be totally and completely politically dead, at the very least until the end of election season. If any Democrat pushed a resettlement policy under such conditions, it would be electoral suicide.

[uppityperson]

19. Rather like allowing segregation or limiting marriage? How about not allowing women to vote?

No, they are not doing "what is right by the people in the states they represent".

[Joe the Revelator]

20. Again, you're missing the very simple fact that...

.....you can not and should not discriminate against citizens in your country. Refugees, by their nature, are not citizens of America.

[uppityperson]

23. No, they are not"The Governors are doing what is right by the people in the states the represent"

In no way. Not any more than if their people demanded the other things I mentioned.

I notice you only want Syrian refugees banned. That is odd since those who participated in the Paris attacks were primarily Euro citizens.

And no, we are in no way at war with Muslims.

[Joe the Revelator]

25. 'We are in no way at war with Muslims'

25-70% of the worlds Muslims may disagree with you.

And again, yes the Governors are. There is a difference between citizens and people claiming refugee status. You can insist that there is not, but you're going to continue to be wrong.


What other refugees are we discussing right now if not Syrian? I think there should be a moratorium on any 'refugees' coming from the Middle East at the moment.

[uppityperson]

27. You are pulling numbers out of the air. Show me proof that 25-75% Muslims in the world think that.

Show me proof that the USA is at war with Muslims.

Thank you for clarifying that you are prejudiced against people trying to escape DAESH.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

127. We are not at war with Muslims as a group. Some people act like it though.

Many Muslims feel like they are on the receiving end of a war that they had nothing to do with starting and will have nothing to do with finishing.

Some people lump "Muslims" as a group and then make statements against members of that group simply because they belong to that group.

It seems you are one of them.

To be on the receiving end of illogical and false statements like yours that "all terrorists are muslim" is to feel like being on the receiving end of a war.

Please stop.

We are at war with a few, very few, Muslims. We are not at war with them because they are muslim. We are at war with them because of their policies and behavior. When christians behaved the same way we were at war with them.

Either you believe A) We are at war with all Muslims, or B) We are at war with only some muslims. If you believe B, then you need to be very careful that you include the word "some" frequently in your statements because you have a way of writing that makes it appear you believe A, which would be prejudiced and bigoted. Please tell us you don't believe A.

[treestar]

70. Did you know this country, once it admits refugees or immigrants of any kind

applies its values as stated in the Constitution to them too? The entire bill of rights, including Freedom of Speech and religion, applies to people physically in this country, even if they are illegal aliens. I believe the Founding Fathers thought all humans had these rights, that they were basic human rights, and applied to all people.

[pnwmom]

42. How do you know the people in the liberal state of Massachusetts don't want refugees?

I refuse to believe that people in only 6 states support allowing wartime refugees.

[Koinos]

129. The pattern is easy to see.

Republican governors, including the governor of Massachusetts, don't want refugees. Of course, they don't want Democrats either.

And how many Republican governors do we have? Is it still 31?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

120. That's not true

In Maine, Gov. Paul LePage just does whatever he wants. He doesn't give a rat's ass what the people in this state want.

[smirkymonkey]

154. Yes, I suppose the governors are acting in accordance to the desires of the majority of

their citizens. You can't really place all the blame on them.

[lonestarnot]

4. This fucking state, what do they want them to do, "shelter in place?"

[snappyturtle]

146. Texas has taken in 200 Syrian refugees since 2012. The attack in Paris has changed

Governor Abbott's opinion. He also said in a teevee interview today that Texas has taken in many people. He didn't rule taking them (Syrian) in in the future. He also pointed out that the FBI has said it cannot insure our security with the influx.

[lonestarnot]

168. Your dumbass neighbor might shoot your ass when you take out the trash, did your fine governor think

about that? So your state of Texas is shaking in its boots too?

[snappyturtle]

169. We have plenty of immigrants we really know little about. The governor is endeavoring to keeping

the number from increasing. And, to further answer your rude reply, Texas is not shaking in its' boots. FYI I voted for Wendy Davis.

[ismnotwasm]

11. This makes me so angry

I'm glad I live in Washington state.

[treestar]

17. Glad I live in Delaware

It is anger-inducing to see this bigotry and people defending it!

[PowerToThePeople]

30. Glad I live in Washington.

[jberryhill]

36. It's nauseating

I don't know if I feel angry about it, but I do feel sorry for people whose fears are the only things they listen to.

[CTyankee]

89. glad I live in CT. Our gov. Malloy has been very good on this issue. The virulent RW here

loathe him.

I know how emotionally destroyed I felt when Newtown happened. I hated that it happened in my state. I was sick at heart for days. I still am when I think about it...

[LynneSin]

115. I'm also glad I'm in Delaware

Thank you Governor Markell for not being an a-hole!

[Iliyah]

26. Approx. 400 are arriving in San Diego I think this week

[bigwillq]

35. CT Can't even take care of the folks already living there

But they want to take others in? No, thanks.

I'm sure CT will just tax these folks too death and just forget about them like they do to everyone else. Joke.

[pnwmom]

38. Is that what you would have said during the Holocaust, if we'd been offered

Jewish refugees from Germany?

[bigwillq]

80. Yes (nt)

[bigwillq]

81. Exactly. Help them first. (Nt)

[ColesCountyDem]

82. No, Gov. Malloy isn't going to supply anything

This is a federal program, paid for with federal revenue, NOT state revenue (because it's not a state program). Conflating this issue with the issue of homeless CT citizens will not lead to productive discourse or viable solutions to either problem.

[ColesCountyDem]

85. Did I say that? No.

Don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much.

[bigwillq]

84. It doesn't matter, state or federal

Help the people already in this country. There's enough of them here suffering.

[ColesCountyDem]

86. I agree we should be doing far, far more to help our own homeless.

That said, it's not an 'either/or' situation. We CAN do both, if we only WILL do both.

[bigwillq]

87. We can't do both when we can't even do one

Correctly. We'll take these folks in, support them for a little bit and then forget about them like we do to everyone else that's struggling.

[ColesCountyDem]

88. My point, worded a bit differently:

Our problem is not that we can't do both correctly; our problem is that we won't do both correctly. That said, the problem is not of the good governor's making.

[ColesCountyDem]

93. The GOP-controlled Congress has, in contrast, done what, exactly?

I await the revelation of their no doubt massive and positive contributions toward a solution of these twin problems with bated breath.

[ColesCountyDem]

97. Your post is the actual deflection: read Article I of your Constitution.

Don't blame the President, because the President neither appropriates funds nor enacts legislation-- Congress does. If you want the President to be responsible for homeless CT residents, have Congress pass legislation the President is responsible for carrying out. Civics 101.

[ColesCountyDem]

99. Show me a link where this Congress has ever undertaken their duty to craft legislation...

... dealing with refugee problems. You do understand that Congress can act all on its own, don't you, and send legislation TO the President to either sign or veto? They need not wait for him to ask for diddly squat. Why are you defending Congress so staunchly, and attacking the President? You do realize that our party does not control Congress, but does control the Presidency, I'm assuming?

[ColesCountyDem]

118. *crickets* n/t

[pnwmom]

142. There will NEVER be a moment when we have no suffering people in this country.

The same governors who are trying to block the refugees fight any effort to eliminate homelessness here.

[Le Taz Hot]

106. Listen to you.

Fighting over the fucking crumbs. We are a wealthy country! Wealthy enough that there should be no homeless, no one sould go hungry, everyone should have equal access to education and everyone should have free health care. But 90% of the wealth -- OUR WELATH -- is concentrated at the top and we HAVE to reverse that. Instead of pitting needy against needy, how about tackling the problem at the root -- too few people having too much money and they're not sharing.

[ArcticFox]

39. if I were President

I would settle the refugees exclusively in those twenty-six states saying "no".

[Waiting For Everyman]

48. Yes, we should rush to put ourselves in the same position France is in now.

We should provide lots of assistance, but bringing Syrians here is a mindlessly stupid thing to do. Equally so settling them in Europe. There is nothing but trouble will come of it. And then we'll hear "but who could've predicted that?" Anybody with half a brain can see it coming a mile down the road.

I'm with the Repub governors on this. It really ticks me off that no Dems have the guts to stand up for common sense on a life-and-death issue. Very disappointing.

Oh and by the way, the name calling and labels that will be forthcoming mean less than nothing to me. I don't give a hoot whether anyone likes my opinion or not... my opinion it is. The FIRST obligation of the US government is to the safety of its citizens. I will be writing to Congress, to insist they act on that.

[pnwmom]

50. Would you have been on the side of banning Jewish refugees from Hitler? nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

52. If Jews had stated the intent to murder us and actually done it

numerous times, you bet I would.

[pnwmom]

53. How come you don't blame all Christians for the KKK? All Muslims are no more responsible

for the lunatic jihadists than Christians are the for KKK.

[Waiting For Everyman]

54. It not a matter of blame, it's a matter of not being STUPID.

Christians in the KKK are already here and are citizens. Outsiders who include obvious severe problems do not need to come in. Why bother having ANY security precautions at all, if we are going to invite in ourselves any number of ISIS murderers? Security is bullshit then.

I will repeat: the first obligation of this government is to its citizens, not to non-citizens

[treestar]

75. What bunch of ISIS murderers?

We are admitting refugees, not ISIS murderers.

[forthemiddle]

91. What percentage of bad apples is too much?

Lets say that only 1% of "bad apples" or terrorists slip through (like the one that already did in France).
If we accept 10,000 that President Obama wants that is 100 terrorists. If we go with 65,000 like Bernie and Hilary want that is 650 terrorists that sneak in.
Please remember that it only took 8 people (I know they weren't all refugees) to pull off the terrorist attacks in France.

We have no good background checks for these people coming in, what do you suggest?

Maybe a comprimise? What if we only accepted women and children?

[treestar]

113. So 99% should be left in Syria

because of 1% of them?

There are ways to screen them.

Totally ridiculous. We have had refugees from many places before. We are not going to let in actual ISIS terrorists. If we have learned anything since 911, it would be connect the dots about who is who (and we could have interrupted Atta and two other hijackers had we thought of it).

If someone vowed to kill us, they would get in? Quit attributing their words to other Syrians.

[pnwmom]

124. If we turn back the refugees, the terrorists win. That is exactly what they want to happen.

We have a chance to not be cowards and to save some lives. I'm glad my state is stepping up.

[Waiting For Everyman]

126. Nope. The terrorists want the refugees admitted.

To argue otherwise is sheer nonsense. They have STATED that they will come in among the refugees. That is clearly to their advantage.

If we want to thwart ISIS we should say no as my state (Maryland) just did, and I agree with that. I think it's the stupidest thing I've heard all year.

It's not helping, for us to expose more people to needless harm.

[jberryhill]

171. "They have STATED that they will come in among the refugees"

Of course they did.

They're terrorists.

Gee, I guess we better listen to them and do as they suggest, then.

The question of WHY they would make a statement like that, flies right over your head.

[Demit]

55. Did the Syrian refugees do that? I missed that.

[Waiting For Everyman]

56. Syrians did it. Can YOU tell them apart?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027352790

[Demit]

57. Actually I can't tell what citizenship anyone has from just looking at them.

And I don't condemn groups of people based on what some have done.

God, such fear. We are a country that sings "...and the home of the brave" with no trace of irony. We are the home of the scaredy-cats.

[Waiting For Everyman]

60. It's not fear, it's common sense.

Being foolhardy is no virture.

[treestar]

76. Now you are into total bigotry territory

Can you tell them apart? Really? Yes, individuals can be screened and are every time people from abroad are admitted into this country.

[Waiting For Everyman]

96. But all refugees don't come from areas where

some among them have VOWED TO MURDER US, AND DO SO. See the difference there? It's not a hard concept to grasp, yet so many can't seem to do it.

And no, you can't screen people when there is not information to screen them with. You can go through the motions of screening them, but it is nothing but a deceptive show accomplishing exactly the same thing as if nothing was done at all. In other words, no screening.

p.s. Your ad hominem is a waste of energy because I don't conform my views to what others want them to be.

[treestar]

111. there is information to screen them with

a refugee should not be punished because of other people they "look like" vowed to murder us. The concept I don't grasp is judging people by the acts of others who "look like" them.

[Waiting For Everyman]

112. You can't tell one from another so how are you going to tell which are "safe"?

That's not a hard idea to understand.

Nobody is "punishing" anybody. There is no entitlement to come here.

[treestar]

167. There is

by our respect of international law

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/refugees-fact-sheet

That's a summation of our law, which reflects our values.

As for the idea we can't tell terrorists apart from others, that's ridiculous. By that logic, we should have no immigration at all. Or is that your position?

We have many grounds on which people can't come to the US:

http://www.immihelp.com/travel/grounds-of-inadmissibility-entering-united-states.html

[jberryhill]

172. Bet you have that problem with more than just Syrians

[treestar]

74. "the Muslims" have not stated that

feels like freeperville around here.

[Waiting For Everyman]

95. What are you quoting, treestar?

I don't believe I used that term, you did.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Its not like the refugees just come in on a boat or plane, there is an exhaustive vetting process...

to even allow refugees to enter this country, it takes 2 years(on average).

France is in the position its in now because of a combination of home grown radicals and geopolitical realities that we don't face here in the States.

[treestar]

71. We have always prided ourselves on our helpfulness to others

starting at least with WWII, where we seem to figure we saved the world.

We offer asylum to people who can prove they are oppressed politically and religiously, because we think of ourselves as a great helper and bastion of freedom.

It's what we do as a nation. That is why we have laws allowing for refugees. Why we have laws allowing people to stay here if something bad happens in their country, such as the earthquake in Haiti, hurricane in Nicaragua, government instability and overthrow in other countries.

As for safety, that is accounted for. The refugees will be screened. They are not the same people as the terrorists. .0019 percent of Muslims are terrorists to begin with. Too many people pretend they all are and they can't be excluded from that group.

[Waiting For Everyman]

100. I don't agree

and your assurances are nothing but wishful thinking based on nothing.

This group of refugees is materially different, and the "vetting" is a fraud.

If as you say... "they are not the same people as the terrorists" then tell me something... how come none of the people in Paris who were living with and near these attackers, none of them could pick them out as different from the everyday Syrians? Why is that? If attackers are so different, why were none of them noticed? BECAUSE THEY LOOK JUST LIKE OTHER SYRIANS, THAT'S WHY. They are the very same people, only with different beliefs.

[treestar]

109. Saying they look alike is awful

and no they can be vetted:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/some-things-to-know-about-how-us-screens-syrian-refugees?utm_term=.igQPlz176

You are talking about leaving a lot of people be in a terrifying place because they "look like" people who do bad things.

[Waiting For Everyman]

114. This is simplistic mischaracterized drivel.

And has already been covered.

The heads of the agencies responsible for this "vetting" say it can't be done. That was on the news today. But I suppose you know better.

[treestar]

166. Of course it can

and it wouldn't be perfect (look at the Tsarnavs) but it certainly would avoid people already involved in terrorism and fighting. We are very tough on who we let into this country.

[Blue_In_AK]

51. Alaska's governor Bill Walker has said he won't oppose Syrian refugees to Alaska.

Of course, our congressional delegation is following the Republican line, but at least for now, refugees are welcome here, as they have been in the past.

http://www.ktva.com/walker-not-among-governors-raising-concerns-about-refugees-376/

The office of Alaska Gov. Bill Walker said Monday “he hasn’t given any thought to closing Alaska’s borders to refugees,” focusing instead on a $3.5 billion state budget deficit and “solving the state’s fiscal challenges.”

“This appears to be a matter that we have little to no jurisdiction over,” the governor said in a statement. “However, I do believe that refugees should be fully vetted by federal background checks before entering the United States.”

And, of course, they will be.

And this story gives me hope for the future.

http://www.ktva.com/east-high-students-create-peace-campaign-following-paris-attacks-361/

<snip>

“East High School is the most diverse school in North America,” Wilkins said. “We represent the actual possibility of a peaceful coexistence together. We live and we work and we dream together every day.”

The students made posters to show support not just for Paris, but all countries recently attacked by terrorist groups.

One of her students, 17-year-old Baneen Albotaify, moved from Baghdad a year and a half ago and is a junior at EHS. Her father and most of her brothers still live in Iraq.

“I already lost three friends, three of my best friends in Iraq,” Albotaify said. “If I stayed in Iraq I don’t know when I’m going to die or what’s going to happen, which is really heart breaking. I wish I could do something about it.”

Albotaify said she may not be able to do much for Paris but she can show compassion.

<snip>

[Humanist_Activist]

59. Same with Missouri's Jay Nixon...

http://www.abc17news.com/news/gov-nixon-not-refusing-syrian-refugees-in-missouri/36478426

We already have tens of thousands of refugees in St. Louis, we can take in even more. Hate saying it, but there are entire sections of the city that are sitting abandoned that could be used to house refugees on a long term if not permanent basis.

[a la izquierda]

62. Some of the posts in this thread...

Are fucking embarrassing.
"Give us your tired, your poor..." Unless you're Muslim, because then you might be a terrorist, so you can fuck right off back where you came from.

Many of you are GREAT practice for Thanksgiving with my family next week. I'm getting all the talking points now.

[Glassunion]

117. +1

This thread makes me want to puke.

[geardaddy]

143. +1

Totally disgusting.

[WinkyDink]

65. Wait; you mean my state of "PENNSYLTUCKY"? (That's for the haters.)

[Orrex]

73. Our state may welcome them...

But in my town, the residents are already grabbing their torches and pitchforks to keep the refugees at bay. Truly living up to the Pennsyltucky stereotype.

[Koinos]

79. It worries me.

After all that O'Malley did for immigrants and refugees in Maryland, I worry that Maryland Republican Governor Hogan might reject refugees. What a mess Hogan has made of my beautiful state.

Well, Reagan made "compassion" a dirty word, so I should not be surprised.

[Truprogressive85]

102. Don't care

DO NOT DARE CALL YOURSELF A LIBERAL IF SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN GOVENORS

Anyone who denies refugees during their times of need is bigot
Anyone who uses the refugees religion as a reason to bare them from coming is is xenophobic asshole

I would gladly support deporting any bigot and racist in order take as many refugees as we can.

[valerief]

104. I wonder if they're all GOP governors. Stupid-ass Massachusetts now has a

stupid-ass GOP governor. I used to feel safe in this state. Now, it might as well be fuckin' Florida.

[bunnies]

119. Our Governor in NH is a "Democrat".

Or so she says.

[sarge43]

133. She was a Democrat ... on the ballot

I just called her office and chewed on a staffer's leg about shameful, shabby Repub lite show boating. I know, waste of time, but it felt good.

Here's her number bunnie 271-2121. Let her know how you feel.

[bunnies]

134. Thank you.

I have no idea what happened to her. Its like somebody flipped a switch once she got elected. Hopefully we'll get a better choice next time.

[JEB]

107. Ought to turn the Bush "Ranch" into a refugee camp.

[flamingdem]

116. +1

[lark]

122. Of course my redneck state isn't doing the right thing.

That would never happen with Voldemort (aka Rick Scott) in charge. He's on about the same level as Ted Cruz, both are completely around the bend and traitors to the country and it's people.

[svpadgham]

125. Can I, as an individual citizen, offer to take in a Syrian refugee

Maybe as a prospect for a cultural exchange and a big middle finger to my idiot Governor Greg Abbott? (The auto fill function on the key pad gave me "Rick" as an option after I typed "idiot Governor." I wonder why?)

[pnwmom]

140. I don't know where you live but in many cities across the country Catholic Relief Services

is involved with refugee resettlement. This has been something they've been doing for decades, and now they're working with Syrian refugees.

They might be able to tell you what you can do to help.

[svpadgham]

141. I live in Texas.

And thank you for the information.

[StrayKat]

128. Virginia

McAuliffe will not seek to prohibit refugees.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_6af9dcd8-c623-5fc2-9881-818fe427c740.html

Gov. Terry McAuliffe indicated Monday that Virginia would not be among the growing number of U.S. states seeking to block Syrian refugees, despite calls from Republicans for the state to close its doors to those fleeing war in Syria as a security precaution following Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris.

[Hekate]

131. California Governor Jerry Brown will do the right thing

What a country.

[alarimer]

132. I am so deeply ashamed of this country right now.

Ignoramuses on parade, every last one of those assholes (and the ignorant IDIOTS that vote and support this). This is really not fundamentally different from turning away the Jews during WWII, to have them die in camps instead.

Of course, many Americans supported the Japanese internment camps. Sometimes I hate this country and I almost always hate most Americans.

[geardaddy]

136. I wonder when MN will join.

We already accept many refugees.

On edit: Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL) says Syrian Refugees Welcome In MN, If Given Screenings
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/11/16/dayton-syrian-refugees-welcome-in-mn-if-given-screenings/

[Koinos]

144. Update on Maryland

It looks like Republican Governor Hogan of Maryland wants to block refugees:

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/public/ap/gov-hogan-asks-feds-to-stop-syrian-refugee-settlement-in/article_313357f6-8e5e-5880-b5b3-20415b83f4d7.html

I miss Martin O'Malley.

[Koinos]

145. Great article by Juan Cole:

"Top 10 Reasons Governors are Wrong to Exclude Syrian Refugees"

http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/reasons-governors-refugees.html

Here are three of the reasons he gives:

1. The attackers in Paris were European nationals. The Syrian passport found near one of them was a fake. So are the governors opposed to Belgian immigration into the United States?

2. The attackers were not refugees. They were born in Europe. Refugees are poor and lacking in knowledge or resources about their new environment. The attackers knew exactly where everything was that they wanted to assault and were hooked in with arms smugglers and other hard-to-discover criminal networks.

4.These refugees undergo at least 18 months of background checks, contrary to what Sen. Mario Rubio (whose parents were Cuban immigrants to the US) has alleged.

But the whole article is a good read. Loaded with facts and common sense from an expert on the Middle East.

[EndElectoral]

147. Proud my state and Bernie's aren't backing down to fear and are accepting these victims.

[Ilsa]

148. A former friend resides in Washington.

She went completely Birther in 2012. She's probably arming herself to the teeth over this.

[Bluenorthwest]

150. Oregon will continue welcoming refugees, Gov Kate Brown this afternoon:

SALEM — Gov. Kate Brown broke her silence on the controversy over resettlement of Syrian refugees, saying that Oregon will "open the doors of opportunity" for displaced people.

"Clearly, Oregon will continue to accept refugees," Brown tweeted Tuesday morning. "They seek safe haven and we will continue to open the doors of opportunity for them."

Brown, a Democrat, posted a second tweet: "The words on the Statue of Liberty apply in Oregon just as they do in every other state."
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/kate_brown_oregon_will_continu.html

[leftieNanner]

151. Governor Brown of Oregon

just said "Yes!"

[Tarheel_Dem]

152. Well, we are the country that once interned Japanese citizens. We can be cruel when we want to. nt

[Maeve]

155. They are the only states who still get to call themselves 'home of the brave'

I'm ashamed of 'scared of immigrant' folk

[valerief]

156. Time to watch Voyage of the Damned again.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075406/reviews

History repeats itself, because war is a racket.

[lastlib]

158. I wonder if those GOPher governors who profess fealty to Christianity.....

...would take in this refugee:



??

[YOHABLO]

159. Yeah, check out the South. Typical. My governor, Nathan Deal (R-GA) Will not accept any refugees.

[handmade34]

160. ...

[Stargleamer]

161. It looks like Hawaii is colored yellow in the graph. . .

but I'm not fully sure.

[AngryAmish]

162. All the better for them, they get all the cultural enrichment.