Governors all across the country are refusing to take Syrian refugees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The passport that suggests a Syrian was involved in the Paris attacks belonged to a Syrian who was killed months ago.

ISIS played us and the GOP fell for it.

So, the person who had the passport didn’t use it to cross the border as a refugee? Even though it was stolen?
Because what I heard is that the person who had that passport crossed through Turkey - fingerprints matched.

There are reports from credible media outlets that multiple passports with the same identifying info have been discovered, suggesting that it had been cloned. Did you also hear about aliens in Area 51?

[Anonymous]

OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

Fine by me. Our government shouldn't act according to "Christian" beliefs, but according to the laws and what's best for our citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I think if they would limit it to women/children/parents and old people many more Americans would feel differently.

Or if they limited to the persecuted religious minorities experiencing genocide (in this case mostly Christians, but not all) like the US did when we took in all those Bosnian Muslim refuges, most people would feel differently.

The problem with the Syrian refuges is the vast majority of them are childless young men in the most at risk demographic. Why aren't they fighting for their country? Where are the fleeing families?

[Anonymous]

Sure, that's a fine compromise. No single males. Done deal.

[Anonymous]

I understand the fear and ignorance that is driving their reactions, I really do. But I still find it absolutely appalling. Even members of my family and people I grew up with are spewing vile about Muslims and saying that all states should ban refugees.

It contradicts what this country is about, it also contradicts Christianity which is what many of them follow. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I think if they would limit it to women/children/parents and old people many more Americans would feel differently.

Or if they limited to the persecuted religious minorities experiencing genocide (in this case mostly Christians, but not all) like the US did when we took in all those Bosnian Muslim refuges, most people would feel differently.

The problem with the Syrian refuges is the vast majority of them are childless young men in the most at risk demographic. Why aren't they fighting for their country? Where are the fleeing families?

Half of them are children. There are many families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I think if they would limit it to women/children/parents and old people many more Americans would feel differently.

Or if they limited to the persecuted religious minorities experiencing genocide (in this case mostly Christians, but not all) like the US did when we took in all those Bosnian Muslim refuges, most people would feel differently.

The problem with the Syrian refuges is the vast majority of them are childless young men in the most at risk demographic. Why aren't they fighting for their country? Where are the fleeing families?

Keep up. We covered that already. The choices you have to fight for your country in Syria are 1) Assad's government forces 2) an insurgent group that may have ties to Al Qaeda or ISIS, but it's really, really hard to know, especially if you are just a foot soldier, or 3) ISIS. Don't be so surprised that so many young men are saying "None of the above."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maryland governor hogan just came out stating no Syria refugees.

So happy about this!

Everyone else that wants them, take them in your homes. I am sure some people would have loved to take in the Boston Marathon killers when they were refugees, right?

I'll do it as soon as conservatives start signing up for the wars they're calling for and paying higher taxes so we don't add another trillion of debt.

They would never do it if it meant their children would be drafted....hypocrites at their finest. They want it all, they just don't want to have to do any of the work or make a commitment.

And what do liberals do? Take a political pose to mask their cowardice in sanctimony?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I think if they would limit it to women/children/parents and old people many more Americans would feel differently.

Or if they limited to the persecuted religious minorities experiencing genocide (in this case mostly Christians, but not all) like the US did when we took in all those Bosnian Muslim refuges, most people would feel differently.

The problem with the Syrian refuges is the vast majority of them are childless young men in the most at risk demographic. Why aren't they fighting for their country? Where are the fleeing families?

Half of them are children. There are many families.

That's not what Germany is seeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maryland governor hogan just came out stating no Syria refugees.

So happy about this!

Everyone else that wants them, take them in your homes. I am sure some people would have loved to take in the Boston Marathon killers when they were refugees, right?

I'll do it as soon as conservatives start signing up for the wars they're calling for and paying higher taxes so we don't add another trillion of debt.

They would never do it if it meant their children would be drafted....hypocrites at their finest. They want it all, they just don't want to have to do any of the work or make a commitment.

Conservative here. My son recently enlisted.

Most of the enlisted men and women I know are Conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The passport that suggests a Syrian was involved in the Paris attacks belonged to a Syrian who was killed months ago.

ISIS played us and the GOP fell for it.

So, the person who had the passport didn’t use it to cross the border as a refugee? Even though it was stolen?
Because what I heard is that the person who had that passport crossed through Turkey - fingerprints matched.

There are reports from credible media outlets that multiple passports with the same identifying info have been discovered, suggesting that it had been cloned. Did you also hear about aliens in Area 51?

According to Le Monde, investigators found a Syrian passport belonging to a man named Ahmad al-Mohammed near one of the unidentified bombers’ bodies outside the stadium, then retraced the passport’s progress through Europe:

Greek authorities recorded that the man crossed through the island of Leros on October 3 after passing through Turkey. He subsequently entered Serbia through the border crossing at Presevo, where he made his asylum request before joining a Croatian refugee camp at Opatovac on October 8 and then heading to Hungary.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/who-were-the-paris-attackers/416082/

[Anonymous]

Saudia Arabia, UAE etc. have not taken a SINGLE refugee?

[Anonymous]

So much misinformation in addition to bigotry and racism

1) The Tsarnaev brothers were not refugees, they were the children of two asylees. They were home grown.

2) "vetting process" for refugees exists, and is very effective, none of the 750k refugees admitted since 9/11 has committed a terror attack

3) our immigration process is fee based. Uscis gets very little appropriated money and it's basically all for the everify system. They will not get a free or immediate ride to citizenship

Apart from all that, immigrants are the hardest working population in America. These people won't be on the government dime, that would be lazy Americans who don't want to work a menial job.

All of these "valid" reasons for wanting to keep thsee refugees out are just either blatant ignorance or racism people don't want to admit to.


"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I am agnostic. No refugees. We have enough shit going on. You are more than welcome to house and feed them at your home. You know, like Jesus would do.