Posted on Nov 16, 2015
Do you know the reasons behind Texas, and other states refusing Syrian Refugees?
150K
210
98
15
15
0
Do you know the reasons behind Texas, and other states refusing Syrian Refugees? I'm sure many have heard about State Governors refusing to take in Syrian Refugees that are being brought in the day after the attacks in Paris. Below is an article that states the reasons for Texas refusing to accept more refugees.
Greg Abbott by the way does not lack compassion. He was Attorney General for Texas during Hurricane Katrina and worked to bring as many people from New Orleans to Houston as could be done by air and buses.
Read the article before commenting. Apparently there is standing for his and other Governor's refusal to accept refugees. http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas-news/2015/11/16/governor-greg-abbott-texas-syrian-refugees-letter-to-obama/75867476/
Greg Abbott by the way does not lack compassion. He was Attorney General for Texas during Hurricane Katrina and worked to bring as many people from New Orleans to Houston as could be done by air and buses.
Read the article before commenting. Apparently there is standing for his and other Governor's refusal to accept refugees. http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas-news/2015/11/16/governor-greg-abbott-texas-syrian-refugees-letter-to-obama/75867476/
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 37
Isn't it easier to just come here on a tourist visa? Why wouldn't the terrorists try that instead?
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree; everyone is going to be suspicious of the refugees that they turn their attention from radicalized Americans. All of the worst attacks on American soil were carried out by Americans.
(1)
(0)
accept those young men only if they are coming with their Entire Families: mom, dad, younger siblings, then you will have system of warning of my son is acting strange, younger siblings will americanize fast, however there is risk of americanized sisters driving elder brother over the edge to radicalization. and accept young men who are coming with wives and children. the refugees are running from the terrorists, if you ban the refugees, you are giving IS just what they want.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
As stated before, we aren't against all male refugees. We just want the proper background checks and vetting to be done.
(1)
(0)
SSG John Jensen
the current vetting process for Syrian refugees is so long I doubt that any one on this list could make it into the US
(1)
(0)
"Do you know the reasons behind Texas, and other states refusing Syrian Refugees?"
Plain as the nose on your face.
Americans are cowards and racists.
Walt
Plain as the nose on your face.
Americans are cowards and racists.
Walt
(2)
(1)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
Not overly informative or helpful sir. Also I don't except name calling in my discussions.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
Capt Walter Miller - You are making blanket accusations without backing yourself Capt. That isn't discussion. I'm all for hearing different sides, but you do have to justify yourself. Don't just toss around insults.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
Not really, (sarcasm on your part assumed). Conservative attitudes, more concern about costs, which DEM states often don't bother about. Example: my dear husband's home state of California.
(2)
(0)
Here is a very thorough article concerning the refugee process and the concerns about bringing Syrian refugees here. Good information. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/can-terrorists-really-infiltrate-the-syrian-refugee-program/416475/
Can Terrorists Really Infiltrate the Syrian Refugee Program?
Despite the current uproar, the U.S. has been resettling people fleeing war-torn countries for decades without trouble.
(1)
(0)
" As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.
Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.
This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. Indeed, in describing the executive branch’s broad authority to make discretionary calls regarding immigration matters, Arizona seemed to explicitly contemplate the circumstances that face President Obama today. The United States may wish to allow a foreign national to remain within its borders, the Court explained, because the individual’s home nation “may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.”
Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.
This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. Indeed, in describing the executive branch’s broad authority to make discretionary calls regarding immigration matters, Arizona seemed to explicitly contemplate the circumstances that face President Obama today. The United States may wish to allow a foreign national to remain within its borders, the Court explained, because the individual’s home nation “may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.”
(1)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
Legally, he is supposed to protect and defend the constitution and the American people. Bringing in unvetted people and then dispersing them across the country before we even know who they are is irresponsible.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next