Since yesterday, over half of US governors are refusing resettlement of Syrian “refugees”.
A drumbeat of opposition against allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. intensified Monday as more than half the country’s governors, citing security concerns, said they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees into their states following the Paris attacks, which President Obama said “would be a betrayal of our values.” …
By late Monday, states refusing Syrian refugees included Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.
It’s not a “betrayal of our values” to the US to refuse refugees who we view as security concerns. It’s not a betrayal of US values to refuse entrance to actual immigrants we view as security concerns. It is denying Obama his ability to ship future Democrat voters and ideological opponents to the US into the US in order to further “fundamentally change” the US and destabilize and balkanize the US. But as Jim Quinn is fond of saying “we have elected the enemy”. If you keep in mind that Obama’s ideology is to weaken the nation, suddenly it all makes sense.
The US has a long history of refusing admission to people that are antithetical to US interests. The Wikipedia entry is biased, but the historical point is still made:
Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.” This is essentially a political test, though it “should be construed … in accord with the theory and practice of our government in relation to freedom of conscience.” The statutory requirement is elaborated in the Code of Federal Regulations, which provides: “Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution.” Even still, the ideological requirement is “nebulous”; it begs the questions of what the “basic form of government of the United States” is and what the key “principles of the Constitution” are to which the applicant must subscribe.
Like I said, biased – the last sentence gives it away. The US is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, and key principles include the fundamental framework of the Constitution itself plus the Bill of Rights.
The US has restricted entry to communists, anarchists, polygamists, and other classes that are viewed as antithetical to US interests, security, culture, etc. In short, you don’t invite people in who you don’t want in.
There’s been a major discussion in recent years of how Islam isn’t just a religion, but is also a political, governmental, and social system that’s outlined by the Koran. Sharia law, which many muslims favor, comes directly from the Koran. Sharia law is antithetical to the Constitution. And when you look at populations who support it:
Why would you want to import people from countries whose populations believe in eradicating your rights, liberties, and system of government and replacing it with a rigid, violent, authoritarian patriarchal theocracy?
Answer for Obama and Valerie Jarrett and his crew is “fundamental change” of the country that they set out to bring low in order to make things “more fair” for the world by making the US a third world country… but for anyone else who lives here who isn’t an ideological leftist?
That objection to bringing in refugees is just considering the cultural shift that will harm the nation slowly, rather than immediate security concerns of bringing in radicals.
Another quick note on “radical” vs “moderate” muslims as a crybully activist interrupts a forum that wasn’t actually discussing Islam in order to say how discussing something peripheral to Islam is islamophobic:
Ted Cruz is discussing offering up a bill that will curtail importation of Syrian refugees into the US. His main reason is security concerns.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has struck back at President Obama’s implication that his rejection of Syrian refugees is “shameful,” telling CNN he will be introducing legislation banning Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the United States.
“What Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing is that we bring to this country tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash in Charleston, S.C., on Monday.
“I have to say particularly in light of what happened in Paris, that’s nothing short of lunacy.”
Asked what would have happened if his own father — a Cuban refugee who fled the island’s repressive Communist regime — had been told all those years ago by political leaders that there was no place for him because of security risks, Cruz said it was a different situation.
“See that’s why it’s important to define what it is we’re fighting,” Cruz responded.
“If my father were part of a theocratic and political movement like radical Islamism, that promotes murdering anyone who doesn’t share your extreme faith, or forcibly converting them, then it would make perfect sense.”
The US blocked active communists from entry. If you were forced to be a member of the party in order to eat, it wasn’t held against you. If you were a member of the party because you chose to be, you were blocked. If you supported communism, you were blocked. If you lived in an oppressive nation where membership was mandatory in order to get your bread ration, the US understood that you lived in an oppressive nation that forced you to either join or starve.
“When I hear folks say that, ‘Maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims,’ when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” Obama said.
Maybe we should just admit the refugees who are peaceful and fleeing conflict and who are not avowed members of a political/religious sect that demands an authoritarian theocracy that executes gays for the crime of living. Maybe we should have some kind of test to see who’s actually willing to commit to wanting to support US principles and is seeking freedom from oppression and not admit the people who are members of that same political/religious sect that demands authoritarian theocracy and is sworn to eradicate the Jews and convert everyone else to their ideology by the sword.
Maybe we could say and do that in response to his “shame on you for not agreeing with my intentionally destructive plan” garbage.
Keep in mind that we don’t keep tabs on who’s in the country once they get here.
A Syrian refugee relocated to Louisiana has already gone missing, but the group accommodating them isn’t taking responsibility.
WBRZ has learned Catholic Charities helped the refugee who settled in Baton Rouge, but said the immigrant left for another state after a couple of days, and they don’t know where the refugee went since they don’t track them.
“We’re at the receiving end,” Chad Aguillard, executive director of Catholic Charities, says. “We receive them, we welcome them into our community and help them resettle. There has been a lot of commotion and fear with Syrians. The fear is justified, but we have to check that against reality.”
This has been the case for a while. Regionally infamous Lutheran charities that pull federal subsidies have been resettling Somalis in Minnesota for decades, including terrorists with links to al Shabaab and Al Qaeda.
I’ll just let a couple of the reader comments from the American Mirror story finish this out:
Oh, we don’t track them, we just bring them in and hand them over to you! Then we walk around with fkking halos over our heads as if we actually did something and then you all have to figure out how to live with them while they start destroying your once-wonderful country. You’re welcome!