I don't think a full blown background check is going to do much good when Isis is manufacturing fake passports. Who is it you think they will get cooperation from in Syria to do the background check? Assad? Not a really well thought out plan you have now is it. You must work for the current administration.
List of Maryland Cities/Communities to get "refugees"
- Thread starter Hessian
- Start date
I don't think a full blown background check is going to do much good when Isis is manufacturing fake passports. Who is it you think they will get cooperation from in Syria to do the background check? Assad? Not a really well thought out plan you have now is it. You must work for the current administration.
luvmygdaughters
Well-Known Member
Sure did, emailed him this morning. Suggest all Maryland residents do the same!!
That is completely stupid.
That's what I was thinking: that the state can refuse to assist in any way. That means funding, because it's not like these folks are going to be coming here with one month's rent deposit or money for food, not to mention utilities and other living needs. Landlords can also refuse to rent to them - insistence on credit and background checks can take care of any pesky discrimination complaints. When a governor takes a stand like that it emboldens the population to take a stand as well, so this might be just blather but I'm thinking it's more a call to action.
It's interesting to see the Left engage in this cognitive dissonance. On one hand, they want to do more for the poor in this country; on the other hand, they want to bring in poor from other countries who will siphon funds away from the poor already here. Forget the terrorism aspect, we simply can't afford to feed and shelter the whole world.
^^this^^
Vince
......
Now Congress is saying something about a Bill to block incoming refugees until stricter controls are met. What don't the idiots in Congress understand about the economy not being able to support more people on welfare, more on healthcare, more free handouts. I know I'm not the only one that understand basic math.....well, some of the kids coming out of high school today probably don't.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Vrai nails it again. Sadly there are LARGE elements of the left that
a) Do not understand economics
b) Are laboring for a Marxian transition
c) Want to implode the whole system,...and just hope something positive will come out of it.
d) Scream "RACISM" at every possible problem...again, without looking at intelligent solutions.
e) Get their only news from Comedy Central.
So,...the thinking part of America shakes its collective head at this undesirable residue and considers if there is any way to reason with them. I say ....NO,...don't waste your time.
littlelady
God bless the USA
Thanks, Tilt! This forum relies on you more than you will ever know. Might there be something like a 2/3 majority that can override; like in Congress? The state count was up to 34 last I heard. Just wondering. Thanks!
BlueBird
Well-Known Member
If our President says we should take in these refugee's then we should, he's the greatest!. Heck we should all bake cookies and have them ready to hand out at the airport. Lets show our new guests that we love them and welcome them no matter what even if a few of them want to blow themselves up. Hey has anyone seen Habib? Oh didn't you hear? He blew himself up yesterday. That's too bad I really liked Habib and he said my cookies were the best.
littlelady
God bless the USA
Considering your latest thread, and your comments now, you made me laugh out loud! Thanks!
Last edited:
littlelady
God bless the USA
Hey, Tilted. One more thing. Hub was doing some research. What about Section 412.B of the Immigration and Nationality Act; updated in 2013. Or, what about filing an injunction in court that would tie this whole refugee thing up until decided?
the entire matter was covered pretty simply when Middle Eastern Countries refused to take in Syrians .... ya know fellow Muslims - you would think they would look out for their own
NO they don't want to import problems - political, sectarian, nationalistic ... etc
Tilted
..
Yeah, the various letters and declarations from governors have some real world effect. But the intent in framing their assertions as some of them have - to the effect, e.g., that they (the states) won't accept any of these refugees - is mostly just to endear themselves to their constituents (an perhaps a wider audience) politically. They know that they can't refuse to accept the refugees; they're puffing.
When it comes to the states not helping with the refugees' settlement: It matters, but in the grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal. There will be private actors - e.g., churches - that will be glad to help. And there are organizations that exist to do these kinds of things, they'd be shouldering much of the load on that front anyway. State assistance would no doubt be welcomed, but it isn't needed. We aren't talking about that many people really, they'll be able to find places for them to go and the resources needed to help them get settled.
The landlord thing opens up another can of worms, but I'm not going to get lost in it for now. I don't think it's as simple an issue (when it comes to the legality of refusing to rent to them) as you suggest, though smaller (rental) operations would likely be able to get away with it fairly easily. There's a difference between a given conduct being illegal and someone being able to (or caring enough to try to) prove that it is. At any rate, I don't think that much matters - again, big picture - as they'll be able to find places for these people to live. If we were talking about a million people over the next few years rather than 10,000, that would be a different situation.
Sure. I think there's a reasonable position that can be taken that we shouldn't allow these refugees to come here that isn't based on what happened in Paris and terrorism concerns in general. That's why in my previous post I characterized as misguided only the belief that, in the wake of what happened in Paris, we should refuse to take these refugees in. I wasn't characterizing any position that we shouldn't take them in as misguided. It's not a position I would take myself (i.e. that we shouldn't take them in), but I can understand (and perhaps accept) some reasons for it. Terrorism concerns as a reason, however, are balderdash if you ask me. That's near to the exact opposite of how we should react in the face of terrorism. And the notion that it would make us any safer to not accept them is very naive I think. It seems to me that we let ourselves be lead around by the nose by our enemies as a matter of course. I wish we, as a society (and, for that matter, as various political ideologies), had more self awareness and thought more substantively about the decisions we make and the actions we take. As it is, saying that our collective decision making is based mostly on superficial thinking and often amounts to misguided and counterproductive knee-jerk reactions, might be giving it more credit than it deserves.
Tilted
..
You're welcome.
Sure, Congress can change our refugee laws if it wants to. Or it could pass specific provisions which might block these refugees from coming in. (I would note though that the President has considerable constitutional power when it comes to foreign affairs; whether that power could somehow be used here in the face of statutory limitations on what he wants to do is another matter - I'd have to give that more thought.) There'd of course be the veto problem though.
Just to be clear, my previous statements related to whether states could refuse to accept refugees, not whether there was anything that anyone could do to try to stop these refugees from being allowed to come here. I don't think Congress will be able to block them, but in theory it could.
Someone can (almost always) try to challenge something in court. I don't think they'd be able to get an injunction (other than perhaps a very temporary one) in this case though. It isn't clear to me what grounds they'd have which they'd be likely to ultimately prevail on, so I don't think they'd be able to get a federal appeals court to uphold an injunction while a case was being heard. (When it comes to lone federal district court judges, I suppose we shouldn't put anything past one of them - find the right one and you might even be able to get them to do something that's clearly wrong under existing law.)
What is it about our refugee laws that you think might be used to block this? If you have something in particular in mind I might be able to offer my thoughts. As it is I think what the President is doing is legal. Our immigration laws provide the executive branch with a lot of discretion; that's especially true when it comes to our refugee laws.
I assume you're referring to Section 412(b) of the INA, which is 8 USC 1522(b). (Small (b) not big (B) - an important distinction when it comes to reading statutes.) I'm providing a link to the laws in question in case you want to look them over yourself and, perhaps, find something that you think is relevant.
There's always Bob's Sunoco in Callaway. You can get gas, beer, AND guns there. Murica!!!
So_what
Yes I'm an MPD, But who's
No thanks. Too many other places to buy them. :shrug:
What I don't understand is why are they running and not fighting. If they are outgunned than the US should give the healthy male refugees guns. It would be much cheaper than giving them a house, food, and medical care. If the amount of men and even healthy women that fled banded together, with a little money and weapons from the countries they are now inhabiting, they would be a huge force. Look at the US during the revolutionary war and the Civil war. I am sure there are some that ran but the majority stayed and fought. If someone tried to overrun the USA on our soil I would take up arms and fight even though I am technically handicapped. You would not see me running for the Canadian or Mexican border.