Bush and Cruz - Ignoring our Constitution!

Post Reply New Topic

You are ignoring the fact that this country already has too many self-proclaimed "Christians" who rob, rape, and murder others. What exactly would it take for a person to prove his Christianity - quote the Bible and argue its finer points?

Wake up ... even Satan can do that!

And if the "Father of Lies" can fake his way into the lives of weak-minded Americans, then how much more difficult could it be for those already under his influence to lie their way past a TSA agent?

How many TSA agents hold degrees in Theology? How many are "real" Christians? Just what is a real Christian, anyway?

According to the Washington Post, the vetting process for amnesty in the U.S. takes approximately 18 months. We have already accepted some, but only 2% are men of fighting age.

The Parisian terrorists were all European. Why don't we just ban everyone?<sarcasm>

It is up for the legislature to decide if the vetting is sufficient. Legislators of both major parties believe it is not.

Let me reiterate:

Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

No, it only says 2% are SINGLE adult men.

Congress has enough votes to override a presidential veto on this matter as long as the Democrats that voted for it don't chicken out in face of the president but obviously there is huge divisions in the party. President Obama's response to all of this has been so pathetic, he really is an arrogant thin skinned man who can never admit fault. He's so defensive in everything he says, he'll be made to regret saying "we have ISIS contained" like not even 24 hours before the attacks in Paris. Could you imagine having a leader like him in real times of trouble? Republicans aren't much better.

How is it tyrannical to be cautious?

A poll of the Syrian refugees shows that only 77% had a straight-up negative view of ISIS. Another 6% had a somewhat negative view of ISIS. Assuming, and that's a big IF, that those numbers reflect an honest response, that means 1 in 6 of the refugees is indifferent or has a positive attitude toward ISIS. However, if you are aware of taqiya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya), there is a religious dispensation for blasphemy under Sharia law. That makes those poll numbers more interesting when you consider 1 in 6 ADMIT they have a positive or neutral view of ISIS.

Besides, have you ever asked yourself why there aren't hordes of refugees streaming into Jordan and Saudi Arabia? If you were forced to leave your home, wouldn't you want to find a place that was somewhat culturally similar? I'm sure the US would be willing to authorize several billion dollars to help resettle Syrian refugees in those countries. Another benefit of the cultural similarity would be countries such as Jordan would be far more capable at determining who the bad refugees are.

Before you go all sic semper tyranis on the decision of the legislature to err on the side of caution, do some research on the concept of the fifth column. And realize that just because most people in our society don't care about anything enough to die for it doesn't mean that is true of all people.

Last edited by looniverse on 20 Nov 2015, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Legislators are looking towards reelection, and in turn reflecting the public hysteria to do so. Media and personal bias towards the Middle East has lead to what is basically discrimination. As stated, we might as well tear the Statue of Liberty down while we're at it.

All this frenzy does is give more power to the terrorists. "Look how affective we are! Even the USA is quaking with fear". It also is a clear indication of the morality of some people. "Muslim ID cards! Burn the mosques!"

I think the frenzy you mention is non-existent. People are more interested in being cautious than anything.

Even if what you say is true, so what? The country still has the right to self-determination. The country still has the right to regulate and restrict immigration. The country still has the right to treat its citizens differently than its non citizens.

Ask the Romans how it worked out when they welcomed the Vandals.

Why would you bring refugees to a place they're clearly not welcome? Sending them somewhere else is the compassionate thing, what do you think would happen if another major terrorist attack happened in the US? Do you think this bad? Do you know how many of the Joe and Jill Sixpacks out there just want to "kill them all"? These are more sophisticated people than given credit, I remember some very educated family members of mine in the aftermath of 9/11 that we should nuke the entire Middle East. Americans are not a submissive people like Europeans, we will make our views known whereas in Europe there is a ticking time bomb until they just snap. The European experiment has been failure, it's all coming to an end.

No, we should not surrender our freedoms and accept even more of a surveillance police state to keep us "safe". Just don't let in the people that pose the biggest threat, stop it before it ever becomes a problem. They will use the "domestic security threat" to enslave us, we need to secure our borders and meter immigration. If you can't integrate then you should not come here.

Really?

Where else can we apply the "if even one" standard?

If even one aspie turns out to be a spree killer

If even one American turns out to be a pedophile

If even one Japanese turns out to be making WMDs...

If even one frenchman turns out to be a terrorist

If even one german turns out to be a nazi

Wait... maybe this collective guilt idea isn't really a good way to think about things.

Importing these refugees might be importing them to be interned, what do you think is going to happen if there is another terrorist attack in this country? Do you think another Kristallnacht is impossible? We need to find a place for these people were they can freely practice their religion and culture on their own, don't create the problems Europe is having here because Americans are a lot more belligerent and a lot less submissive to the government. Like if these refugees were to cross our border like they are in Europe they would be met with armed militia.

Why not South America? Why not the Arab Gulf? Why not Turkey? Why not South Africa? Why not Israel? China? Indonesia?

They can only come to 1st world welfare states? Places so far up their ass with white guilt and liberalism that they'll be allowed behave however they want while getting free government money for popping out babies? Fundamentalist or conservative Islam are not compatible with out western values and culture, no chance of integration. This isn't the only place in the world, we're not obligated to giving them 1st world lives because they're fleeing their homeland instead of fighting for it.

Go Jacoby----go Jacoby----WOO HOO!! (And, looniverse.)

Also, the "Refugee Act" says we have to employ these people:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/the-refugee-act

.....and, because I'm about to go mad trying to find a proper job, right now, I AIN'T happy about that!!

Also, whomever put the quote on here from a CEO of whatever company (CEO is not a government title) saying that Governors can't block refugees----doing a search of the document, at the link I provided, only uses the word "Governors" ONE time, and it's not in regard to them not being able to block refugees.

Also, IMO, the Constitution has nothing to do with it, cuz these people aren't citizens.

Where does it say that in this document? It says to "make available sufficient resources", and the following section says the intent is to make them self-sufficient as possible. Nothing in this document guarantees employment, just like any other employment service offered to anyone else (See how this document for Schedule A appointments is worded: https://www.dol.gov/odep/pdf/20120103ScheduleA.pdf). What you said is just scare-mongering, possibly due from your Confederate-sympathizing mindset.

As for them not being citizens -- if they have jobs through this program, that's taxable income.

Since when did a sitting president ever follow the letter, if not the spirit of the law, let alone the Constitution? Even the Founding Fathers, when they became the Chief Executive of this God-Forsaken land have circumvented the law of the land in one way or another.

First-of-all, I didn't use the word "guarantee", either. Secondly, the word "employment" is used SEVENTEEN times in the document----including:

(II) the availability of employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources (including educational, health care, and mental health services) for refugees in the area,
(D) To fulfill its responsibility to provide for the basic needs (including food, clothing, shelter, and transportation for job interviews and training) of each refugee resettled and to develop and implement a resettlement plan including the early employment of each refugee resettled and to monitor the implementation of such plan.
(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and achievement of self-sufficiency,

Those statements----plus the fact that the word "employment" is used 14 more times----doesn't sound, to ME, like someone is merely going to "make available sufficient resources"; it sounds like to me, that somebody is going to go that extra mile, making sure they're comfy in their new home (literally, since it says "To fulfill its responsibility to provide for the basic needs [...shelter...]").

As for "possibly due from your Confederate-sympathizing mindset.": If that's a cut, I imagine that's why the OP put this thread in "News and Current Events" (as opposed to PPR, where it seems it would be more appropriate), to avoid comments like that (because one can't, pretty much, in PPR), so I'll not respond to that part.

As for my last sentence: I was no longer addressing employment----I was addressing the topic of this thread; that's why I put it in a separate paragraph.