WTF?

[Cnasty]

Just saw the uncensored pic of the concert hall aftermath that has been circulating. Yeaaaaaaaa, I am not gonna post that and let you guys decide if you wanna take a peek.

[GeorgesGoons]

So now some Republican governors are getting press by stating they won't aid any/want to ban Syrian refugees placed in their state. Presumably this is because they feel the refugees pose a risk to their constituents and could cause harm or death in their state in the unlikely event one is a terrorist.

I am 100% behind Nebraska Gov. Ricketts for not wanting to allow Syrian refugees into the state.

A quote from the letter Gov. Ricketts sent out:

Until the Department of Homeland Security has conducted a full review of screening measures and taken every necessary step to strengthen them, my admistration will oppose any effort to resettle Syrian refugees in our state.

We need to ensure we are weeding out anyone with bad intentions before allowing them into this country, plain and simple!

Through simple logic, these governors must also be planning to announce that they're going to ban guns in their state for the same reason, right?

Not sure where you are going with this statement. There are more murders by gun violence in left leaning states than right leaning states; California (1257 gun murders), Texas (805), Florida (669), New York (557), Pennsylvania (457) and Michigan (413)


Red=The Republican candidate carried the state in all four most recent presidential elections (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012).
Pink=The Republican candidate carried the state in three of the four most recent elections.
Purple=The Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate each carried the state in two of the four most recent elections.
Light blue=The Democratic candidate carried the state in three of the four most recent elections.
Dark blue=The Democratic candidate carried the state in all four most recent elections

[dakshdar]

So now some Republican governors are getting press by stating they won't aid any/want to ban Syrian refugees placed in their state. Presumably this is because they feel the refugees pose a risk to their constituents and could cause harm or death in their state in the unlikely event one is a terrorist.

Through simple logic, these governors must also be planning to announce that they're going to ban guns in their state for the same reason, right?

Why would any of our states allow these refugees in without normal screening, requirements that we expect from all other immigrants coming here? I read the Louisiana governor didn't even know they were receiving 10,000 of these refugees with no plan, screening, or any other form of surveillance.

You're ok with that?

I live in California. We probably get 10,000 unscreened immigrants a month if not more.

[GeorgesGoons]

So now some Republican governors are getting press by stating they won't aid any/want to ban Syrian refugees placed in their state. Presumably this is because they feel the refugees pose a risk to their constituents and could cause harm or death in their state in the unlikely event one is a terrorist.

Through simple logic, these governors must also be planning to announce that they're going to ban guns in their state for the same reason, right?

Why would any of our states allow these refugees in without normal screening, requirements that we expect from all other immigrants coming here? I read the Louisiana governor didn't even know they were receiving 10,000 of these refugees with no plan, screening, or any other form of surveillance.

You're ok with that?

I live in California. We probably get 10,000 unscreened immigrants a month if not more.

That doesn't mean you should be okay with it. Close the borders to the Syrian refugees until they can make sure no terrorist come in. USA and all it's allies needs to force Saudia Arabia to step up to the plate. They aren't taking any in, this is their region and they need to be a leader on this.

[dakshdar]

Through simple logic, these governors must also be planning to announce that they're going to ban guns in their state for the same reason, right?

Not sure where you are going with this statement. There are more murders by gun violence in left leaning states than right leaning states; California (1257 gun murders), Texas (805), Florida (669), New York (557), Pennsylvania (457) and Michigan (413)

Are those numbers per something or just total? Kind of hard to compare with varying populations.

And I was just pointing out that if a governor is going to stand up against something because of a possibility then they should also stand up against something else simply because of a possibility.

I also don't know where these numbers are coming from or where the idea of "unscreened" is coming from.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world ... .html?_r=0

Unless the NY Times is in the business of printing out and out lies, there are plans for 10,000 total refugees this fiscal year (not 10,000 for Louisiana or anything near that for any one state) -- yes, they're currently talking about whether the number could go up -- and all are highly screened:

“Refugees have to be screened by the National Counter Terrorism Center, by the F.B.I. Terrorist Screening Center. They go through databases that are maintained by D.H.S., the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. There is biographical and biometric information that is collected about these individuals.”

Further, USA Today reported in an article that we've resettled 140,000 Iraqi refugees since 2009.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /32520855/

So... to me the Republican Governor's chiming in now is all about grandstanding and trying to get public approval/notice.

[dakshdar]

So now some Republican governors are getting press by stating they won't aid any/want to ban Syrian refugees placed in their state. Presumably this is because they feel the refugees pose a risk to their constituents and could cause harm or death in their state in the unlikely event one is a terrorist.

Through simple logic, these governors must also be planning to announce that they're going to ban guns in their state for the same reason, right?

Why would any of our states allow these refugees in without normal screening, requirements that we expect from all other immigrants coming here? I read the Louisiana governor didn't even know they were receiving 10,000 of these refugees with no plan, screening, or any other form of surveillance.

You're ok with that?

I live in California. We probably get 10,000 unscreened immigrants a month if not more.

That doesn't mean you should be okay with it. Close the borders to the Syrian refugees until they can make sure no terrorist come in. USA and all it's allies needs to force Saudia Arabia to step up to the plate. They aren't taking any in, this is their region and they need to be a leader on this.

Doesn't seem like Saudi Arabia isn't taking any:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_ ... by_country

Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia has offered resettlement only to for Syrian migrants that had a family in the kingdom, and has an estimated number of Syrian migrants and foreign workers that reaches 100,000 living with their families[8] and has sent aid worth $280 million to help Syrian refugees.[250] Saudi Arabia, like all of the Gulf states, is not a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.[9] According to the Saudi official, Saudi Arabia had issued residency permits to 100,000 Syrians.[8] The BBC reported that "most successful cases are Syrians already in Gulf states extending their stays, or those entering because they have family there."[182]

And:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... misleading

And we've got screening in place. It's just interesting that we suddenly don't think it is good enough, which just means it either wasn't good enough all along or we're irrationally judging it now.

[dakshdar]

i guess a better point would be that I don't think any of the Governors that are for or against continuing to settle refugees are stating that due to any good, logical reason. If you look at the "against" list:

Alabama (R)
Arizona (R)
Arkansas (R)
Florida (R)
Georgia (R)
Idaho (R)
Illinois (R)
Indiana (R)
Iowa (R)
Kansas (R)
Louisiana (R)
Maine (R)
Michigan (R)
Mississippi (R)
Nebraska (R)
New Hampshire (D)
North Carolina (R)
Ohio (R)
Tennessee (R)
Texas (R)
Wisconsin (R)

You're seeing all Republicans with the exception of New Hampshire.

The list of governors that have come out for are all Democrats:

Connecticut
Hawaii
Kentucky
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Washington

So rather than this being about good or bad or real issues, it has all the appearances of a bunch of governors on one side told by their party leaders to go say you're against this and fewer (but probably a growing number) on the other told to go tell everyone you support it.

Rather than it being about determining whether there really is a problem with the screening system and moving forward to fix it and help tens of thousands of people fleeing a world of horror we can't comprehend, it's party politics and "look at me and what I'm saying on Twitter!" bullshit.

I hate all politicians.

[Cnasty]

And I was just pointing out that if a governor is going to stand up against something because of a possibility then they should also stand up against something else simply because of a possibility.

Reaching hard here.

And of your 10,000 a month how many are coming from a hotbed of terrorism and ISIS territories and not Mexico/Asia?

I see what you are saying about party lines making a decision and such but you are really ok with these refugees coming with no screening measures in place? The Louisiana ones had none at all and the governor wasn't even aware they are coming. Could he be lying, sure.

[dakshdar]

And I was just pointing out that if a governor is going to stand up against something because of a possibility then they should also stand up against something else simply because of a possibility.

Reaching hard here.

And of your 10,000 a month how many are coming from a hotbed of terrorism and ISIS territories and not Mexico/Asia?

I see what you are saying about party lines making a decision and such but you are really ok with these refugees coming with no screening measures in place? The Louisiana ones had none at all and the governor wasn't even aware they are coming. Could he be lying, sure.

I guess I'm not seeing how there is evidence there is no screening when reports are they're screened by counter terrorism organizations within the FBI and the DHS.

Here's a great article describing the process for screening as well as other details on the refugee issue:
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-how- ... ees-2015-9

It's becoming pretty clear that the talk about the New Orleans refugees and all the numbers were completely fabricated:
http://www.fox8live.com/story/30522880/ ... s-in-la-us

Louisiana got 14 refugees. 14. None can arrive in the US without screening (unless they were illegal immigrants brought over on back channels -- which doesn't seem to be the case here).

There is also a list of the 180 resettlement centers in the US (http://www.wrapsnet.org/Portals/1/Affil ... ectory.pdf). All refugees, regardless of where they come from, go through one of those. If the governor wasn't aware of the ones in his state... I don't know what to say.

[GeorgesGoons]

You have said it best about politicians. All are about reelection. The Republican governors saying no to allowing the refugees are only stating what their state is saying as a whole. I'm against allowing more people in this country till we can fix Americans getting jobs to support their families. As a 21 year army veteran it shouldn't take a defense contractor to hire me with all these so called veteran friendly companies. Trust me I know, it was a last ditch effort to apply with a contractor, I didn't want to be away from my family for another year after just getting home from being gone for 9 months.

[GeorgesGoons]

The problem is that you cannot 100% say no terrorist will Ever make it in.

[dakshdar]

I agree, we have plenty of problems here to fix as well.

But if we didn't allow refugees and/or stopped helping other countries in an isolationist shift to focus on our internal problems, we'd never go back since we'll never have every internal problem "fixed".

[dakshdar]

The problem is that you cannot 100% say no terrorist will Ever make it in.

We can't say that even if we declared we would be taking 0 refugees.

[GeorgesGoons]

Even with the "fail safes" in place now, who is to say they don't become radicalized once they get here. The FBI said they are investigating over 900 possible isis connections here in the USA (saw that on CNN so I can't find a link to substantiate it)

[GeorgesGoons]

Thanks dak for being mature in debating this, nothing worst than trolls

[dakshdar]

Are the refugees any more likely to become radicalized than another Muslim already living in the US? Or another US citizen that is disillusioned and converts and tries to flee the country to join ISIS? That was happening already and it wasn't Syrian refugees then. With the size and diversity of our population, whether we let in Syrian refugees or not we're going to continue to have people that try to connect to ISIS and that harbor bizarre or misplaced anger/hatred toward the country. ISIS doesn't need us to let in Syrian refugees for them to make connections within our borders.

[dakshdar]

It's a bit of an older link, but it's a good reference with some details about American links to ISIS:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/04/ ... cans-isis/

What it screams to me is that you're looking at a lot of teenagers or people in their early 20s that are primarily male and, in many cases, appear to be lost or disillusioned youth that are recruited by people that can prey on their emotions.

[ReignOnU]

It's a bit of an older link, but it's a good reference with some details about American links to ISIS:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/04/ ... cans-isis/

What it screams to me is that you're looking at a lot of teenagers or people in their early 20s that are primarily male and, in many cases, appear to be lost or disillusioned youth that are recruited by people that can prey on their emotions.

Odd... that's basically the demographic I see for liberal voters. Democrat = ISIS!!!

(just poking fun)

[packsyd2284]

just seeing this all now but nick blaming the US for this takes the cake for his stupidity.

[Cnasty]

Anonymous has waged war on ISIS.

One Day Later, Anonymous Already Takes Down 3,824 Pro-ISIS Twitter Accounts