# Why America needs to welcome Syrian refugees



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Amidst this growing anti-Syrian sentiment, Phil Klay, author of "Redeployment" and veteran of the US Marine Corps posted a moving series of tweets explaining why the United States should be opening its doors, not closing them. 

http://www.techinsider.io/syrian-re...tm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-ti


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

That was extremely moving, and he said it exactly right.

I'd add only this, which is something I was thinking about as I worked this morning.

What's the operative word in the tactic of terrorism?

It's terror. The goal is to create terror. And that's what I see when I look around me and listen to how so many in my country are reacting. They're terrified. Hiding in their bunkers, picking up a few more boxes of ammo, hunkering down. Want 100% guarantees of safety, which is never possible. Scared of their own shadows.

Then I watch the Parisiennes, who gathered together at the very time of day and in the very place as where the terror attack occurred on their soil just a week ago... and they sang. No weapons, fear kept in check. They have many more Syrian and Iraqi refugees in their country, people who haven't been vetted at all -- unlike those who are proposed to come here. It was beautiful, and I was inspired.

I guess the terrorists win here in America.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Would you feel the same way if one of your loved ones had died in the Paris attack?

Would you take a Syrian refugee family into your home, no questions asked, just because they had a child?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Would you feel the same way if one of your loved ones had died in the Paris attack?
> 
> Would you take a Syrian refugee family into your home, no questions asked, just because they had a child?


I would feel the same if one of my loved ones had died in the Paris attack, yes, because I can draw the distinction between a terrorist and a refugee. With one exception -- and there is still much uncertainty surrounding this one -- ALL the other terrorists who committed the unspeakable act of terror in Paris were from within the EU. Some were French natives. The now-dead ringleader was Belgian.

I have already said I would take a Syrian refugee family into my home, but I don't understand why you think it would ever be, "no questions asked." I've researched the vetting process pretty thoroughly, and I'm comfortable with it. Their need outweighs the almost infinitesimal risks to me.

I'm also aware that one of our greatest tools against terrorism in this country are Muslims who are already in our country under our protection and sanctuary. When they hear chatter of plots against Americans within, they're the ones who report them to the appropriate authorities. I think they're one of our first lines of defense -- and we should be cultivating more of that, not less.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Would you feel the same way if one of your loved ones had died in the Paris attack?
> 
> Would you take a Syrian refugee family into your home, no questions asked, just because they had a child?


I like to think I'd feel the same way about a kid even if I had lost someone to terrorism. The kid had nothing to do with it. I haven't, so I can't honestly say yes or no. I do like to think I'd do the right thing. 

I'm not set up to have another family live with me. I have a very small cabin and I live in the sticks. I think it's rather silly to ask people if they'd take in refugees because the majority of people aren't able due to a multitude of issues, language being the largest. So, I do (and will continue) to donate to local agencies that can actually help refugees. The small city near me will probably receive some refugees, as they have in the past. The closest bigger city (Syracuse) has said they'll take more due to the response of other states.


----------



## farmsteader6 (Dec 19, 2014)

When it comes to my family i will err on the side of caution. If that makes me a bad person then so be it. 

When i became a husband, a father, i gave an oath to always love, take care of and protect them. So i have that extra box of ammo. I have that extra box of food. Not becaused im terrified, because its what a husband and father should do. Be able to take care of their own!!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Did you know that there are 73 TSA workers that are on the US's terrorist watch list?

You might trust the government to do a proper job, but I don't.


----------



## KentuckyDreamer (Jan 20, 2012)

This is not meant to be a thread hijack so please correct me if it is. I am one of those people who cry when I see the refugees running from a bombed city, a father crying as he holds his child when they reach safety. 
But I think there are issues other than safety that are not being addressed.

I live in the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio. Years ago we gained a huge Somali Muslim population. Now, we have significant Middle Eastern Muslim population. In my area there is a private school for children, some attend martial arts with my son; I am guessing their parents are professionals.

But..that is not the majority here. They live in poverty. Areas that were once fairly safe we avoid at all cost. It is not their religion or ethincity, it is the area, the poverty, the drugs, etc. Our welfare office waiting rooms are brimming with the different ethnicity and languages. To say there is going to be a turf war (and likely already is ) is a reality. There is always going to be "the other". We are always going to need to blame someone for taking the limited resources ( for us it is going to be affordable housing, rent subsidies, lousy jobs, or even drug territory ). We have a terrible problem with homelessness and mental health. Heroin is an epidemic. 

Things are going to get worse here....and I am moving. It is more than the ethnicity, it is the poverty and rhetoric that is breeding hatred.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Would you feel the same way if one of your loved ones had died in the Paris attack?
> 
> Would you take a Syrian refugee family into your home, no questions asked, just because they had a child?


My cousin's best friend was beheaded by Daesh and he doesn't think the refugees should be shut out (of the UK).

If I had the room, I would, over 18 agencies are conducing the vetting.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I like to think I'd feel the same way about a kid even if I had lost someone to terrorism. The kid had nothing to do with it. I haven't, so I can't honestly say yes or no. I do like to think I'd do the right thing.


They aren't all kids


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Raeven said:


> I've researched the vetting process pretty thoroughly, and I'm comfortable with it.





Tiempo said:


> over 18 agencies are conducing the vetting.


Please share with us this vetting process.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Did you know that there are 73 TSA workers that are on the US's terrorist watch list?
> 
> You might trust the government to do a proper job, but I don't.


How do you "vet" people who fled a country with nothing? Can you explain, please?

That's why so many people are saying that "vetting" refugees is worthless.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> They aren't all kids


I have no problem with letting women and kids in now, and "vetting" the men to come later. My concern is mainly kids, but we are talking about human beings.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you "vet" people who fled a country with nothing? Can you explain, please?
> 
> That's why so many people are saying that "vetting" refugees is worthless.


That's what the terrorists are counting on


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you "vet" people who fled a country with nothing?


Bingo!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no problem with letting women and kids in now, and "vetting" the men to come later.


So you don't care if families are torn apart?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Bingo!


So, due to no paperwork we should admit no one? Just let them starve because they were forced to run for their lives? SMH


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

popscott said:


> Please share with us this vetting process.


Nah. No one ever reads my links anyway and I get tired of chasing them down for you all for nothing. Bet you've got Google, same as me. You can look it up. Here's one link to get you started:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-does-the-refugee-vetting-process-work/

You all seem to think we just wave them through the border with a little pat on the hiney for good luck. In fact, about 50% of applications referred from the UN are denied. Only 2% of the applications approved to date have been for young men of "terrorist" age.

While you're Googling, you might want to look up the total number of people killed by ISIS/ISIL in worldwide terrorist attacks in 2015. You'll find it's a pretty small number. Put it this way: If you learned that number of children died in Bangladesh from starvation, you'd yawn.

The Boko Haram terrorist organization has killed more worldwide in 2015 than ISIS/ISIL. Do you know who they are? If not, why not? And why don't you care?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> So you don't care if families are torn apart?


Not if it means that kids are kept in what amounts to concentration camps. It's a better option to me.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no problem with letting women and kids in now, and "vetting" the men to come later. My concern is mainly kids, but we talking about human beings.





Cornhusker said:


> That's what the terrorists are counting on





Txsteader said:


> Bingo!


I'm saying that they aren't going to have passports or the documentation that you (collective you) will deem acceptable. 

As Raeven said, there are procedures implemented to find out as much as possible about each individual.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> The Boko Haram terrorist organization has killed more worldwide in 2015 than ISIS/ISIL. Do you know who they are? If not, why not? And why don't you care?


Boko Haram has been around awhile. ISIS is just getting started.

Boko Haram is relatively localized in their destruction. ISIS is clearly spreading.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Boko Haram has been around awhile. ISIS is just getting started.
> 
> Boko Haram is relatively localized in their destruction. ISIS is clearly spreading.


I disagree with your characterization. ISIL is trying to provoke their own personal version of End of Days. They WANT to draw the Western world into a massive conflict in their region. They're doing everything they can to provoke it.

In fact, they are weakening. If you think your days are numbered, don't you try to take out as many as possible while the ship is sinking? That's what they're doing at this point.

And I'm not saying we're anywhere close to defeating them. We're not. It is going to take a sustained, measured, relentless and multi-faceted approach. It's not a video game.

Nothing will work as a more powerful recruitment tool to radicalize ALL Muslim refugees for ISIL than being able to demonstrate through their very effective social media propaganda how Americans don't care if they live or die.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

popscott said:


> Please share with us this vetting process.


This is from FB, I hope you can see it

https://www.facebook.com/BryanScottHicks/posts/1187326084630475?fref=nf&pnref=story


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> I disagree with your characterization. ISIL is trying to provoke their own personal version of End of Days. They WANT to draw the Western world into a massive conflict in their region. They're doing everything they can to provoke it.
> 
> In fact, they are weakening. If you think your days are numbered, don't you try to take out as many as possible while the ship is sinking? That's what they're doing at this point.


There are some that are putting forth that argument. Then there are some that are saying that ISIS is _not_ weakening but actually gaining strength......and resources, which makes them even stronger.

Judging by current events, I'm inclined to believe the latter.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> There are some that are putting forth that argument. Then there are some that are saying that ISIS is _not_ weakening but actually gaining strength......and resources, which makes them even stronger.
> 
> Judging by current events, I'm inclined to believe the latter.


So what's your answer? How do we defeat them?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> So what's your answer? How do we defeat them?


I know doing nothing isn't going to stop them. 

On a sidenote: DHS confirmed that 8 Syrians (two 'family units') were caught at the US entry point in Laredo on Monday. The day before, 5 Pakistanis and 1 Afghan were caught near the Arizona border. 

Those were caught. How many have managed to slip through? Is it possible that any of them could be terrorists?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> So what's your answer? How do we defeat them?


Start by cutting off their funding, and any country that is caught funding them shall be punished by economic sanctions that are meaningful and enforced. Those that are captured will be given a trial and if found guility, public exicution.

What would you do?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

What about all the kids in North Korea? Or China? Or India? Why are these Syrisn children special? I can name a dozen places that children are victims. I don't understand why these are more special than others. Can someone explain the difference?


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Raeven said:


> So what's your answer? How do we defeat them?


Don't think we can defeat them completely. 

The objective of war is to render your opponent incapable of continuing the fight. I think we should bomb their source of money, the oil wells and refineries in territory they control. Also destroy any vehicle that moves in their territory. Put them afoot in the desert.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

.............

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hud8EVpDU[/ame]


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> What about all the kids in North Korea? Or China? Or India? Why are these Syrisn children special? I can name a dozen places that children are victims. I don't understand why these are more special than others. Can someone explain the difference?


I'm going to assume this is a serious question. I genuinely hope it is.

Their entire country is under siege. Assad has been conducting warfare against his own citizens because they wanted to depose him as their despot ruler. So they are at war -- serious war -- with their own government.

On the other side is ISIL, fighting to expand their territory and create a nation state for themselves. Syria is easy pickin's. As the Peshmerga Kurds push them to the west, ISIL has encroached more and more into Syria. The Syrian people are literally caught in the crossfire of a very active war, none of their making.

People say they should stay and fight. For whom? Armies move on their stomachs and require support. There is no support for them there.

And anyway, do we want them to fight to keep Assad in power? LOL, that's contrary to our own interests. Or would it be better for them to join ISIL? And we know how we all feel about ISIL (with good reason!).

They have nothing. Their homes and cities have been bombed to smithereens. They are not the terrorists, and they despise (understandably) their government.

Now Russia has joined the party, along with us -- and understand, we have been there in an intensive campaign, if quietly, for the past 15 months. France is finally getting involved. But none of this has any good outcome for a run-of-the-mill Syrian. They're just active cannon fodder. That's the difference.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Start by cutting off their funding, and any country that is caught funding them shall be punished by economic sanctions that are meaningful and enforced. Those that are captured will be given a trial and if found guility, public exicution.
> 
> What would you do?


O should quit arming ISIS and the FSA ,then get out. Russia is doing just fine without O hindering them more .


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> This is from FB, I hope you can see it
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/BryanScottHicks/posts/1187326084630475?fref=nf&pnref=story


Where are the refugee camps?


----------



## pmondo (Oct 6, 2007)

Raeven said:


> I would feel the same if one of my loved ones had died in the Paris attack, yes, because I can draw the distinction between a terrorist and a refugee. With one exception -- and there is still much uncertainty surrounding this one -- ALL the other terrorists who committed the unspeakable act of terror in Paris were from within the EU. Some were French natives. The now-dead ringleader was Belgian.
> 
> I have already said I would take a Syrian refugee family into my home, but I don't understand why you think it would ever be, "no questions asked." I've researched the vetting process pretty thoroughly, and I'm comfortable with it. Their need outweighs the almost infinitesimal risks to me.
> 
> I'm also aware that one of our greatest tools against terrorism in this country are Muslims who are already in our country under our protection and sanctuary. When they hear chatter of plots against Americans within, they're the ones who report them to the appropriate authorities. I think they're one of our first lines of defense -- and we should be cultivating more of that, not less.


lets us know when you take a Syrian family come live with you


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> I know doing nothing isn't going to stop them.
> 
> On a sidenote: DHS confirmed that 8 Syrians (two 'family units') were caught at the US entry point in Laredo on Monday. The day before, 5 Pakistanis and 1 Afghan were caught near the Arizona border.
> 
> Those were caught. How many have managed to slip through? Is it possible that any of them could be terrorists?


They turned themselves in. So no, probably not.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Administration officials have acknowledged that checking the accuracy or authenticity of documents provided by refugee applicants against foreign government records can be especially difficult involving countries that don&#8217;t cooperate with the U.S. government, such as Syria. It can also complicate U.S. efforts to check foreign government records for local arrests or lesser bureaucratic interactions, such as bank records, business licenses or civil filings. &#8220;We do the best we can with the information we have,&#8221; one U.S. official said.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Start by cutting off their funding, and any country that is caught funding them shall be punished by economic sanctions that are meaningful and enforced. Those that are captured will be given a trial and if found guility, public exicution.
> 
> What would you do?


Whose funding?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Sawmill Jim said:


> O should quit arming ISIS and the FSA ,then get out. Russia is doing just fine without O hindering them more .


Source for your information? I've heard nothing of that sort.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

popscott said:


> .............
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hud8EVpDU


No one has said there is no risk. The risk is minimal. You're cherry-picking your information. Do you ever look at anything that doesn't support your world view? I saw this, too, and I don't find anything that says we're incapable of a thorough vetting process.

You want 100% safety, and there isn't that in anything.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> Where are the refugee camps?


Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. You can Google this for yourself -- if you're genuinely interested.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

pmondo said:


> lets us know when you take a Syrian family come live with you


As a practical matter, it probably won't happen for a variety of reasons. But if it happens, I will keep you posted. Won't bother me at all.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

I think its time America stops tending to the world and take care of our own people. Lots of Americans cant make ends meet. Try living on $40 dollars a month in food stamps. Housing cost are way way up, electric well Obama said in 08 that the cost of electric must go up to make people use less.. remember that? Our American vets hard having a hard time readjusting to all they had to deal with in wars to free all the people that needed saving in the worlds. I dont want my tax dollars to feed, house,school and pay for medical for refugees. Sorry but If my tax dollars the few as they are neeed to help I want to help the people all ready here. I think the world should clean out an area in Africa and start building little towns. Just saw a commercial for a gravity lamp that is being handed out to 3rd world people so they have less chance of catching on fire then using an oil lamp, same with the heating and cooking stove that have been built free ofcourse. You can afford to buy the products that they give away over seas. I have tried. I would like some how to be able to vote for every tax dollar that our government spends. Seems to me that the Ebola out break started with a church bring refugees to the US. If it always in the past took 12-18 month for vetting of refugees how can we even attempt to shorten that time frame and bring them today? Sorry but it's time to stop taking care of the world and take care of our own. How many homeless people do you see? How many kids only eat from the free lunch programs? How many vets need help? The list gos on. I need help I cant get it, lady down the street gets $18 a month in food stamps, she is 82 years old and her income is $659 a month. If the government wants to bring more people into the country that need help well thats fine but the people that run our government needs to take them in to their homes, feed clothes and tran them. Mayors, senators, governors all have big home they have the means and extra rooms I am sure. Help them in their own country with some other governments money for a change .:hair


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Raeven said:


> No one has said there is no risk. The risk is minimal. You're cherry-picking your information. Do you ever look at anything that doesn't support your world view? I saw this, too, and I don't find anything that says we're incapable of a thorough vetting process.
> 
> You want 100% safety, and there isn't that in anything.


I'm not cherry picking anything, just trying to educate the uneducated. It is what it is. Bad people want to kill us and the refugees are the way they can get in to do it. We are playing Russian roulette. 

"""""Do you ever look at anything that doesn't support your world view? """"""
You see, my "world view" is to keep my children and your children alive. If I don't ever waiver from that objective then so be it. We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> This is from FB, I hope you can see it
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/BryanScottHicks/posts/1187326084630475?fref=nf&pnref=story


A valid point from the comment section:


> Karen Morton Davis In the time it would supposably take to vet these people, the Syrian government could be overthrown and Saudi Arabia and the other Middle East Countries could fund the rebuilding of the war torn areas & homes.


Another point that I made in another thread is the fact that, according to the UN, the majority of Syrian refugees are male......72% in fact. Why such a disproportionate number of males? Where are their wives, mothers, children?

There's just a lot of things that don't feel right about the whole thing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow... knock me down. People are in here espousing Christian values with regards to the refugees. It all boils down to intent. If you are a family from a strife torn land and seek to escape that strife, if there is no one to allow you refuge, then there is no where to go. What does the inscription on the Statue of Liberty say? ...or is that Ellis Island, "Bring me your tired, your weary..." This once was what America stood for. From those people that received refuge here - for the most part, we were made better.

I say Christian values, as Jesus taught, I've seen others that were not Christian who valued this premise. But what is unique to the idea is that Christians are compelled to do so without worrying about the life that they have here on earth. Sure, some refugees might be bad, might commit monstrosities, but in the end, who really gets out of this life alive?

Life on this spinning chunk of dirt is way overrated.... Let's just be kind to others, do what we can to relieve suffering, seek to be that Shining Light on the Hill. Love will win out, in the long run.

As far as dying, I'd like to go out like my uncle who passed away peacefully in his sleep, not like the three other guys that were screaming like sissies when his car went through the guardrail on Lookout Mountain....


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I figure I'm living on borrowed time, anyway. Weren't we all supposed to be dead from Ebola by now?


----------



## farmsteader6 (Dec 19, 2014)

Look at how well the training of the iraqi soldiers went. Look at how well the fast and furious program went. Look at the IRS. look at the postal service. How many of the companies that received bail out money went bankrupt anyway. Why would anyone have faith in our Govt to be able to clear people with zero documentation? When the Govt starts proving its capable then maybe we will have a different story here.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

so were to all the refugees stay while the USA is vetting them for the 18 months? How do they get to the US? If we can move that many people then why cant we send home all the people here elegally ?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Whose funding?


Whoever is funding them, follow the money trail. They need to but ammo and equipment, sanction whatever countries provide it to them.

I don't recall a solution from you yet? Got one?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You bet we don;lt need to take pity on these. Women and children give me a break. Not one is in some of those that have been taken in by Obama, but by golly let not wait for vetting these people. git your heart OFF YOUR Selves and SEE what is happening to this country. And this is not going to end well at all.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Raeven said:


> I figure I'm living on borrowed time, anyway. Weren't we all supposed to be dead from Ebola by now?


LOL! :drum:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> You bet we don;lt need to take pity on these. Women and children give me a break. Not one is in some of those that have been taken in by Obama, but by golly let not wait for vetting these people. git your heart OFF YOUR Selves and SEE what is happening to this country. And this is not going to end well at all.


After multiple links have been provided to the "vetting process" you still don't understand that all refugees go through an 18-24 month step by step process before they are even brought to the US? Dang.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


>


That's the total Syrian refugees registered *worldwide*.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

arabian knight said:


>


And only 2% of the young men you're so afraid of have survived the vetting process to get into the United States to date. Which means they're highly unlikely to be "terr'ists."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34848248


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

But... But... Trump saw a 23 second video clip, so he definitely knows what he's talking about.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


>


This chart shows that there are actually more women than men. It also shows that the difference is negligible.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

sure you can believe the lies coming out of the liberal media I don't care if you never do want to hear the truth. But SOMEDAY YOU MAY just regret it~!

*United Nations says 72% of Syrian ârefugeesâ are MEN, only 13% are children!*

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/united-nat...s-are-men-only-13-are-children/#ixzz3sA8spK1N


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> sure you can believe the lies coming out of the liberal media I don't care if you never do want to hear the truth. But SOMEDAY YOU MAY just regret it~!
> 
> *United Nations says 72% of Syrian ârefugeesâ are MEN, only 13% are children!*
> 
> Read more: http://therightscoop.com/united-nat...s-are-men-only-13-are-children/#ixzz3sA8spK1N


LOL, well, since my sources came directly from information compiled by UN, and yours came from some site calling itself "Right Scoop," and I already know the cherry-picked link it's resting on... I think I understand who is taken in by propaganda.  The links stand for themselves and people can decide which offers the most reliable information.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> sure you can believe the lies coming out of the liberal media I don't care if you never do want to hear the truth. But SOMEDAY YOU MAY just regret it~!
> 
> *United Nations says 72% of Syrian ârefugeesâ are MEN, only 13% are children!*
> 
> Read more: http://therightscoop.com/united-nat...s-are-men-only-13-are-children/#ixzz3sA8spK1N


You're the one who posted the graph.... You should think about that, long and hard.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

wiscto said:


> This chart shows that there are actually more women than men. It also shows that the difference is negligible.


 And there are women terrorists, (two dead in Paris).


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

scooter said:


> And there are women terrorists, (two dead in Paris).


Terrorists. Not Syrian refugees.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

They haven't said yet where they are from, but, they all have a common cause and that is ISIS.

Whose to say where all these women are from and what they are?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

"America needs to welcome Syrian refugees"

George Soros thinks so too....


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

scooter said:


> They haven't said yet where they are from, but, they all have a common cause and that is ISIS.
> 
> Whose to say where all these women are from and what they are?


It's early days and there is much information to be learned. But indisputably, the mastermind of the attack was a Belgian *citizen*, not subject to screening of any kind, and at least 2 more were *native-born* French. Obviously they wouldn't have been screened even by lax EU standards -- which are nothing compared to our standards. 

What I'm trying to get across to you is, knowing the difference *matters a lot*. ISIL is *counting* on Americans not learning to tell the difference, because displaced, war-ravaged Syrian refugees with no place to go, who learn they are hated and not considered worthy of mercy by the West merely because they are Muslims, will be a very fertile recruiting ground for them. They're running out of recruits -- unless we help create more for them by being so unreasonably afraid.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

You really really like this meme, don't you?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

The Syrians deal with bombings and airstrikes from thier own government on a daily basis. The basically endure Paris-style violence and worse on a DAILY basis and have done so for 4 years now. And Assad doesn't worry about 'collateral damage'. Collateral damage IS the GOAL. Russia and Assad drop bombs on residential areas every single day, and people wonder why there is an exodus from Syria.
People say 'they should fight back', and many of them are. BUt many others don't feel they can 'fight back' against barrel bombs, filled with explosives and shrapnel, dropped onto residential neighborhoods. FIghting back implies you have a steady source of weapons, ammo, food, and money. And courage, which not all possess.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

wiscto said:


> You're the one who posted the graph.... You should think about that, long and hard.


 It would appear he didn't actually read the graph, only the misleading anti-immigrant headline from his partisan website. If you dig into the info, it exposes the headline as complete BS. Perhaps they think most won't actually take the 30 seconds to look up the real info.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> LOL, well, since my sources came directly from information compiled by UN, and yours came from some site calling itself "Right Scoop," and I already know the cherry-picked link it's resting on... I think I understand who is taken in by propaganda.  The links stand for themselves and people can decide which offers the most reliable information.


Here ya go. From UNHCR - the UN refugee agency. Just had to click the link in the RightScoop article.


http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Here ya go. From UNHCR - the UN refugee agency. Just had to click the link in the RightScoop article.
> 
> 
> http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php


You're about the fourth person today to post this misleading link. Please parse the data you're being given in it. It's cherry-picked.

Not going to type it all out again. Refer to this post, please: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/545727-story-syrian-refugees-2.html#post7593348


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

At some point you have to face the fact that even the world's "golden child", America, has its limits. We are already "home away from home" for millions of what could also be described as refugees, illegals from Mexico and further south who came through Mexico. We haven't figured out how to deal with them yet! And we have race issues erupting again like hasn't been seen in years. We are almost 20 trillion-with-a-T in debt and our economy isn't growing as fast as the debt and so it becomes an ever more dangerous percentage of the GDP.

So even before you consider the risk of importing terrorists, it's not like we are in a good position to absorb tens of thousands of homeless broke people who will need a lot of TLC to adapt to this country.


----------



## farmgal (Nov 12, 2005)

Ok. I'm going to speak my mind here. So if your tender heart maybe skip my post. 

Our open door policy of refugees is being riddled with abuse. Many of these refugees arent even Syrian. And many aren't in any conflict area. They are claiming Syrian to get free ride in the states. 

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NXSnm4H5DiU&feature=youtu.be[/ame]



The bleeding heart liberals don't realize they are funding Isis. They do little research. We weren't going to get involved with this war but the liberals cried for us to save people. So we went in, trained Syrian men and gave them weapons, they are now Isis. Good job! Is the blood on your hands? Maybe. 

Keep whining without research and you can continue doing damage. Watch those videos. See how these clowns are using your kindness. 

We need to get out of the Middle East and let them figure their own stuff out. We should have stayed out of it to begin with.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. You can Google this for yourself -- if you're genuinely interested.


So they show up and get vetted and then walk all the way across Europe?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Yeah, that might could maybe have had something to do with two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies for Medicare. 

Iraq alone was costing us *$17 B*illion dollars *per month*, just so the instigators could have fun pretending they were playing a video game with our soldiers and materiel. I always wondered why the American people let them get away with that.

As for migration by Mexicans, you're probably not aware that net migration between Mexico and the USA is now ZERO. In fact, more Mexicans and Americans are now heading to Mexico than the opposite.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

ETA: My response is in reply to *MO_cows*' post.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

"A shadowy group of elitesâmainly international bankers but also George W. Bush, Barack Obama, the Clintons, most of the mainstream media, the Saudi royal family, and Googleâis trying to enslave the Earthâs population through orchestrated terror attacks and revolutions, vast economic manipulation, vaccines and fluoride, and an ever-widening system of surveillance that includes Facebook."

Read more at http://nymag.com/news/media/alex-jones-2011-4/


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmgal said:


> Ok. I'm going to speak my mind here. So if your tender heart maybe skip my post.
> 
> Our open door policy of refugees is being riddled with abuse. Many of these refugees arent even Syrian. And many aren't in any conflict area. They are claiming Syrian to get free ride in the states.
> 
> ...


Alex Jones is a fan of hers? So what are we secretly importing lizard people? You know you can find a fruit loop saying just about anything on youtube. Doesn't make it true.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> So they show up and get vetted and then walk all the way across Europe?


1. Flee Syria.

2. Register at a UN camp sponsored by and paid for by the UN.

3. Endure 18 months' to two years (and now more likely three) of scrutiny to determine refugee status.

4. If one of the fortunate 50% to receive refugee status, sent to a country not of your choosing to become a refugee.

I dunno. If I was a terrorist, I'd probably just get a fake Greek passport and enter the USA on a visitor's visa. Seems a lot easier than "faking" being a refugee.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> "A shadowy group of elitesâmainly international bankers but also George W. Bush, Barack Obama, the Clintons, most of the mainstream media, the Saudi royal family, and Googleâis trying to enslave the Earthâs population through orchestrated terror attacks and revolutions, vast economic manipulation, vaccines and fluoride, and an ever-widening system of surveillance that includes Facebook."
> 
> Read more at http://nymag.com/news/media/alex-jones-2011-4/


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Raeven said:


> LOL, well, since my sources came directly from information compiled by UN, and yours came from some site calling itself "Right Scoop," and I already know the cherry-picked link it's resting on... I think I understand who is taken in by propaganda.  The links stand for themselves and people can decide which offers the most reliable information.


Do they include the ones that walked across Europe or just the ones that go through refugee camps?


----------



## farmgal (Nov 12, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Alex Jones is a fan of hers? So what are we secretly importing lizard people? You know you can find a fruit loop saying just about anything on youtube. Doesn't make it true.



Watch the whole video. That's the problems with liberals. They close their ears to quick. So what about Alex jones. Syrian girl is in Syria. She tells what is actually going on. But close your eyes cuz the bloods continues to be shed because bleeding hearts are funding Isis. They have funds set up for those " refugees" dead in the water. And every dime goes to their army. Good job!!!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmgal said:


> Watch the whole video. That's the problems with liberals. They close their ears to quick. So what about Alex jones. Syrian girl is in Syria. She tells what is actually going on. But close your eyes cuz the bloods continues to be shed because bleeding hearts are funding Isis. They have funds set up for those " refugees" dead in the water. And every dime goes to their army. Good job!!!


Do you have a credible link? One that doesn't involve Alex Jones or an unknown "Syrian Girl"? Please?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> You're about the fourth person today to post this misleading link. Please parse the data you're being given in it. It's cherry-picked.
> 
> Not going to type it all out again. Refer to this post, please: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/545727-story-syrian-refugees-2.html#post7593348


OK, I see your point now. And I agree, the link does not say that the 72% male refugees are Syrian.......only that 72% of all refugees from that region are male.

ETA: I don't think I've made the claim that they were Syrian in my other posts using that link but am trying to show that a great majority of ME refugees are male, which strikes me as curious......why they'd leave their women and children behind.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Raeven said:


> 1. Flee Syria.
> 
> 2. Register at a UN camp sponsored by and paid for by the UN.
> 
> ...



When you post links and facts you're spot on, but on this I think you're wrong.

Terrorist will blow them self up ! 

They might also see this as a breeding ground. When dealing with religion, anything is possible and 3 years ain't that long.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> OK, I see your point now. And I agree, the link does not say that the 72% male refugees are Syrian.......only that 72% of all refugees from that region are male.
> 
> ETA: I don't think I've made the claim that they were Syrian in my other posts using that link but am trying to show that a great majority of ME refugees are male, which strikes me as curious......why they'd leave their women and children behind.


Thank you, thank you for taking the time to look and understand what I was saying. Really -- you've no idea how much I appreciate it!

In fact, more women are trying to leave than men. A lot of "statistics" have been ginned up in an effort to sway public opinion against the refugees. The link you posted is one I've seen over and over again. It's not inaccurate for what it's stating -- but it's highly inaccurate with respect to the big picture.

Again, as I've said before, I think it's pretty understandable why men might leave their women and children behind on a journey so perilous. The risks of drowning are substantial and quite real. Would you willingly bring your own family along on such a journey? Or might you take the journey yourself, try to leave the wife and kids with family members if there was a measure of safety, then send for them for a safer passage once you were able to do that? People are endlessly hopeful. Syrians are no different.

Again, you and others are focused on the refugees who are presently leaving Syria in a big wave because the bombings have been stepped up since our involvement 15 months ago, Putin's entry into the conflict (for entirely selfish purposes, I will add) and now France's efforts in the air. As new refugees, they are *not* the ones who are contemplated to be coming here in 2016. Since the vetting process takes a minimum of 18 months to two years (and probably now three years), the ones who would be coming here would have arrived at the UN camps in mid 2013 at the latest. More like mid to late 2012. So the ones coming over on the boats through the Mediterranean are entirely beside the point.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

oneraddad said:


> When you post links and facts you're spot on, but on this I think you're wrong.
> 
> Terrorist will blow them self up !
> 
> They might also see this as a breeding ground. When dealing with religion, anything is possible and 3 years ain't that long.


I was merely trying to summarize in as few words as possible the process of being a refugee trying to enter the US for Old Vet.

Yes, terrorists will blow themselves up. Refugees genuinely seeking asylum will not.


----------



## Jlynnp (Sep 9, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> So, due to no paperwork we should admit no one? Just let them starve because they were forced to run for their lives? SMH


We let our own citizens starve, thousands of American children go to bed hungry every day. Many our own veterans have no where to live. Until we take care of our own sorry but we do not need more people here..


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jlynnp said:


> We let our own citizens starve, thousands of American children go to bed hungry every day. Many our own veterans have no where to live. Until we take care of our own sorry but we do not need more people here..


There are starving citizens in the US? If this were true, wouldn't there be outrage? Wouldn't it be a media frenzy? There _are_ people that are food insecure and that's not right, but what are you doing about it? 

What have you done for veterans in the last six months? Has it just become an issue for you? 

Why can't we take care of our own and refugees? Why does it have to be an either/or?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

arabian knight said:


>


The photograph on the right was taken in Australia in 2013

Also, refugees don't have to be starving, they can also be in danger of physical harm and or death due to persecution and other factors.


----------



## farmsteader6 (Dec 19, 2014)

I saw the report about the mexican immagrants returning to mexico. I dont remember where but in the last day or so. Why do you think that is? Maybe because life here isnt actually all that its cracked up to be? Maybe the jobs really arent here? Maybe they see and feel all the tension brewing and are getting out before the storm hits? Maybe just due to the fact that winter is coming. I have worked in construction for over 20 years. I encounter a lot of migrant mexican workers. I know for a fact that they come here for 6 to 8 months then take the remaining few months through the winter and head back to warm sunny mexico and live like kings ( their words ) til the following spring and do it all over again.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> Thank you, thank you for taking the time to look and understand what I was saying. Really -- you've no idea how much I appreciate it!
> 
> In fact, more women are trying to leave than men. A lot of "statistics" have been ginned up in an effort to sway public opinion against the refugees. The link you posted is one I've seen over and over again. It's not inaccurate for what it's stating -- but it's highly inaccurate with respect to the big picture.


You're welcome. I'm not intentionally trying to be belligerent just for the sake of being belligerent. Most times, we simply disagree. 

Let's just hope that none of those vetted males (or females) that _do_ come here go all 'jihadi' and murder anyone here. This administration is walking a tightrope of appeasement that could easily backfire. Personally, I have zero confidence in their judgement or abilities. JMO.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

I am praying that our elected officials use wisdom in this matter. And I pray that should my Christian brothers and sisters have a chance to minister to these refugees that they share the Gospel of Salvation through Jesus Christ.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This short video explains it in very easy to understands terms why we should not be doing this refugee program and it should be suspended in total, because it is TOO EXPENSIVE and it costs BILLIONS we do not have.

https://www.facebook.com/numbersusa/videos/1015218541868174/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Interesting information regarding Numbers USA and Roy Beck. 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/numbers-usa

Refugees, or as I like to call them-people, are not gumballs, they are human beings just like we are. Some really need to think about that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmsteader6 said:


> Look at how well the training of the iraqi soldiers went. Look at how well the fast and furious program went. Look at the IRS. look at the postal service. How many of the companies that received bail out money went bankrupt anyway. Why would anyone have faith in our Govt to be able to clear people with zero documentation? When the Govt starts proving its capable then maybe we will have a different story here.


Post of the day award.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Interesting information regarding Numbers USA and Roy Beck.
> 
> http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/numbers-usa
> 
> Refugees, or as I like to call them-people, are not gumballs, they are human beings just like we are. Some really need to think about that.


I just looked at the site posted, it seems to just be a rant site focused on Republicans. I can't take seriously any site from either side that plays those games.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Here's an idea:

How about we stop the flow of illegals coming in, so as to have a better grip on the situation? At some point, the burden is going to become too great on the system & it'll collapse. 

If we're going to take in refugees/immigrants, let's at least do it in a controlled manner instead of the insanity that passes for immigration and customs these days.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmsteader6 said:


> I saw the report about the mexican immagrants returning to mexico. I dont remember where but in the last day or so. Why do you think that is? Maybe because life here isnt actually all that its cracked up to be? Maybe the jobs really arent here? Maybe they see and feel all the tension brewing and are getting out before the storm hits? Maybe just due to the fact that winter is coming. I have worked in construction for over 20 years. I encounter a lot of migrant mexican workers. I know for a fact that they come here for 6 to 8 months then take the remaining few months through the winter and head back to warm sunny mexico and live like kings ( their words ) til the following spring and do it all over again.


Dunno but one reason could be this Idiotincharge has no idea how to run a country. Even the freebies given to them are not enuf for them to stay.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Yeah, that might could maybe have had something to do with two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies for Medicare.
> 
> Iraq alone was costing us *$17 B*illion dollars *per month*, just so the instigators could have fun pretending they were playing a video game with our soldiers and materiel. I always wondered why the American people let them get away with that.
> 
> ...


Yep, most of the ones I know leaving don't see the upside to staying in the US. The ones staying are generally the criminal element as they see such a fertile field.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Yeah, that might could maybe have had something to do with two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies for Medicare.
> 
> Iraq alone was costing us *$17 B*illion dollars *per month*, just so the instigators could have fun pretending they were playing a video game with our soldiers and materiel. I always wondered why the American people let them get away with that.
> 
> ...


Complaining about what money was spent on doesn't make debt go away. It doesn't matter if it's wars, social programs, whatever, the point is we're broke. 

Even if illegal immigration is now slowing or reversing, the millions and millions who came in haven't all left. We were at estimated 11 million. If we're lucky we're down to 10. Oh, yeah, that problem is solved - not. How much money do ya suppose was spent dealing with all those young people who showed up not long ago? I guess they didn't get the memo.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

The ones that came in recently don't count they were no from Mexico.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> I just looked at the site posted, it seems to just be a rant site focused on Republicans. I can't take seriously any site from either side that plays those games.


I said interesting information, not that you had to believe it. A counterpoint to what I consider idiocy. 

Did you believe the Roy Beck video?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Here's an idea:
> 
> How about we stop the flow of illegals coming in, so as to have a better grip on the situation? At some point, the burden is going to become too great on the system & it'll collapse.
> 
> If we're going to take in refugees/immigrants, let's at least do it in a controlled manner instead of the insanity that passes for immigration and customs these days.


You don't realize that there are immigration caps in place for decades? At least for legal immigrants. There have been several links posted. 

There are also step by step procedures in place for all immigrants/refugees. Several links have been posted about that as well. I think a 18-24+ month wait is controlled, don't you?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I said interesting information, not that you had to believe it. A counterpoint to what I consider idiocy.
> 
> Did you believe the Roy Beck video?


Didn't watch it, like I said neither side.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Didn't watch it, like I said neither side.


I did. Well, at least as much as I could stomach. I do at least try to read everything linked.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I did. Well, at least as much as I could stomach. I do at least try to read everything linked.


I don't if I open a link and it is decidedly a rant side I don't waste my time, I also tend to get bored easily.


----------



## farmsteader6 (Dec 19, 2014)

Unfortunately for the refugees/people, until we can get a properly(big word) functioning govt whether it be republican, democrat or independent. It wouldnt matter what the vetting process is. I have zero faith that our govt could stay the course and pull it off. As i said before. What govt run agency or program has been successful or has improved in the last 10, 20 years?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't realize that there are immigration caps in place for decades? At least for legal immigrants. There have been several links posted.


Yes, I'm aware. And as you said, it only applies to legal immigrants.


> There are also step by step procedures in place for all immigrants/refugees. Several links have been posted about that as well. I think a 18-24+ month wait is controlled, don't you?


The problem, as has been discussed in countless threads, is that DC isn't following standard procedures. The illegal immigrant situation is the most glaring example. 

I have no confidence in DC, period. Nothing but a bunch of megalomaniac borderline tyrants that truthfully don't give a rat's rear about 'the people'.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Yes, I'm aware. And as you said, it only applies to legal immigrants. The problem, as has been discussed in countless threads, is that DC isn't following standard procedures. The illegal immigrant situation is the most glaring example.
> 
> I have no confidence in DC, period. Nothing but a bunch of megalomaniac borderline tyrants that truthfully don't give a rat's rear about 'the people'.


In what way isn't DC following standard procedures?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

If some don't go to the other refuge thread, her's the info about not being able to vet these folks-

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/no-ability-to-vet-syrian-refugees--568060995781

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/fbi-says-there-no-way-vet-incoming-syrian-refugees

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...icial-confirms-no-way-to-vet-syrian-refugees/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...icial-confirms-no-way-to-vet-syrian-refugees/


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> In what way isn't DC following standard procedures?


Not deporting illegals, for one.

*Under Obama's New Policies, 87 Percent of Undocumented Immigrants Won't Be Targeted For Deportation*


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Not deporting illegals, for one.
> 
> *Under Obama's New Policies, 87 Percent of Undocumented Immigrants Won't Be Targeted For Deportation*


So *all* illegal immigrants were deported prior to the Obama administration?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> So *all* illegal immigrants were deported prior to the Obama administration?


On this one I will comment. Deportations still are sadly low but the key problem is the border is more porous than I can remember.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the companies who bring them in and work them for dirt cheap. The immigrants just want a job. If the companies hiring them really can't find American labor, then they can pay immigrants real wages and they can stay here on real work visas. Otherwise everyone is cheated. The immigrants. Americans who lost out on the labor without ever knowing it existed. Everyone....except the companies and the shills they put in office.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

no really said:


> On this one I will comment. Deportations still are sadly low but the key problem is the border is more porous than I can remember.


As *wiscto* points out, you have to remove the impetus for them coming. In other words, do more than pay lip service to penalizing companies who employ them.

Of course, when Alabama tried it, their crops rotted in the fields.

No matter. To do anything other than remove the reasons for them coming over, you're just treating the symptom, and not the actual cause.

Back to the subject at hand, however: Everyone needs to learn to tell the difference between legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and legal refugees seeking asylum. Three different types of entrants into the USA, and each with vastly different concerns and considerations on how best to address them. In this thread, I believe the subject is legal refugees seeking asylum.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I think we're at the point where we have to protect migrant workers, because we need them and they need us. But that whole system killed small farmers and local markets. Great for our pocket books at the grocery store, maybe, but in general it was never going to be a sustainable system. California depends on people in Mexico being mostly unemployed there, and needing to come here for work....and then going home so that no one here has to pay them for half the year.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Raeven said:


> As *wiscto* points out, you have to remove the impetus for them coming. In other words, do more than pay lip service to penalizing companies who employ them.
> 
> Of course, when Alabama tried it, their crops rotted in the fields.
> 
> ...


I have always advocated harsher punishment for businesses who hire illegals, more for the workers than anything. If they do the job they should get the pay. I was not the one who brought up illegals just making a comment.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

no really said:


> I have always advocated harsher punishment for businesses who hire illegals, more for the workers than anything. If they do the job they should get the pay. I was not the one who brought up illegals just making a comment.


I know... I just grabbed your comment because it was handy. Sorry -- it must really feel like I'm picking on you the last couple of days! I'm not.

I think *Txsteader* raised it. It's a diversion from the issue at hand. Important to discuss, but off-topic for this thread.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> So *all* illegal immigrants were deported prior to the Obama administration?


So you think that drunk driving is good since we cant get all of them?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I'm not familiar w/ Canadian laws but it appears that the vetting process takes much less time than US process.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...le-un-diplomats-express-concern-over-timeline



> BEIRUT, Lebanon â The timing of Canadaâs crash program to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of the year keeps sliding, according to two officials familiar with aspects of the planning.
> The original goal had been to begin the airlift by Thursday of this week, but as no charter aircraft have been booked yet, it would now be at least one more week before flights got underway, one of the officials said. When the flights reach their peak next month, about 1,000 refugees will be arriving in Canada every day.



This article says they plan to resettle 25,000 Syrians by the end of the year.

And here's a comforting thought:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...ada-idUSKCN0T727520151118#CoUrXpHKuAdhLAoL.97


> Canada's government will inevitably have to cut some corners on security screening to achieve its ambitious goal of bringing in 25,000 Syrian refugees by year-end, said current and former security sources.
> 
> 
> The plan by newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seeks to complete in six weeks a process that can take up to two years in the United States, where last Friday's attacks in Paris have sparked a political backlash against plans to allow in 10,000 Syrians over the coming year.
> ...


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wiscto said:


> The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the companies who bring them in and work them for dirt cheap. The immigrants just want a job. If the companies hiring them really can't find American labor, then they can pay immigrants real wages and they can stay here on real work visas. Otherwise everyone is cheated. The immigrants. Americans who lost out on the labor without ever knowing it existed. Everyone....except the companies and the shills they put in office.


I have advocated a 10 year Federal prison sentence for the Owner of any company employing an illegal. 10 years for each employee. And not a manager or employee but the owner. But I have yet to get much support. Maybe one day.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I have advocated a 10 year Federal prison sentence for the Owner of any company employing an illegal. 10 years for each employee. And not a manager or employee but the owner. But I have yet to get much support. Maybe one day.


Who are you petitioning for support? I'm on board with that. Look at contracting right now. It's a rough market, and people are out of the job. And we would all be kidding ourselves if illegal immigrants weren't a huge reason for that. I would bet all the money in my account that one of the reasons so many companies are building factories and other buildings in Texas over other states right now is because Texas is ironically turning a blind eye to illegals. I only have one direct source, but he went down there as a lead contractor and came home with no tools and a huge chip on his shoulder...no love for the great blowhard state government of Texas and their hypocrisy. When he tried to get his crew of illegals to work when they decided to take extended breaks, they threatened him. When he tried to find out who stole his tools, they threatened him. When he complained to the company that hired him, they shrugged. Meanwhile, the governor of Texas brags about the booming economy and all those businesses moving their operations to Texas; and in the same appearance he complains about Obama and immigration. Yet certain people here just want to talk about Hillary. Lift the curtain a little higher, folks. The wizard is back there lying to your faces.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yeah, here in Florida we are flooded with Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and people of miscellaneous Asian decent. A high degree of these groups are unable to speak english yet most of them are working...

Need some labor? Go to Lowe's or Home Depot early in the morning, you have workers to pick and choose from....


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Who are you petitioning for support? I'm on board with that. Look at contracting right now. It's a rough market, and people are out of the job. And we would all be kidding ourselves if illegal immigrants weren't a huge reason for that. I would bet all the money in my account that one of the reasons so many companies are building factories and other buildings in Texas over other states right now is because Texas is ironically turning a blind eye to illegals. I only have one direct source, but he went down there as a lead contractor and came home with no tools and a huge chip on his shoulder...no love for the great blowhard state government of Texas and their hypocrisy. When he tried to get his crew of illegals to work when they decided to take extended breaks, they threatened him. When he tried to find out who stole his tools, they threatened him. When he complained to the company that hired him, they shrugged. Meanwhile, the governor of Texas brags about the booming economy and all those businesses moving their operations to Texas; and in the same appearance he complains about Obama and immigration. Yet certain people here just want to talk about Hillary. Lift the curtain a little higher, folks. The wizard is back there lying to your faces.


Yep, that wizard is there and sometimes it has a D behind it's name and others an R. They are complicit in playing the people all for their own enrichment.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

no really said:


> Yep, that wizard is there and sometimes it has a D behind it's name and others an R. They are complicit in playing the people all for their own enrichment.


Exactly. It doesn't change because no one with a real vote wants it to change.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Who are you petitioning for support? I'm on board with that. Look at contracting right now. It's a rough market, and people are out of the job. And we would all be kidding ourselves if illegal immigrants weren't a huge reason for that. I would bet all the money in my account that one of the reasons so many companies are building factories and other buildings in Texas over other states right now is because Texas is ironically turning a blind eye to illegals. I only have one direct source, but he went down there as a lead contractor and came home with no tools and a huge chip on his shoulder...no love for the great blowhard state government of Texas and their hypocrisy. When he tried to get his crew of illegals to work when they decided to take extended breaks, they threatened him. When he tried to find out who stole his tools, they threatened him. When he complained to the company that hired him, they shrugged. Meanwhile, the governor of Texas brags about the booming economy and all those businesses moving their operations to Texas; and in the same appearance he complains about Obama and immigration. Yet certain people here just want to talk about Hillary. Lift the curtain a little higher, folks. The wizard is back there lying to your faces.


Just local small fish. No access to those with power. But I keep hoping one of the small fish might become a keeper one day. One has to dream right?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> OK, I see your point now. And I agree, the link does not say that the 72% male refugees are Syrian.......only that 72% of all refugees from that region are male.
> 
> ETA: I don't think I've made the claim that they were Syrian in my other posts using that link but am trying to show that a great majority of ME refugees are male, which strikes me as curious......why they'd leave their women and children behind.


Because their mothers beg them to leave. If they are young and able bodied and can flee it is best for them and the whole family. Staying there either means being forced to fight or being killed. Far better to get your sons out and hope they can find a place and survive. Most of these people want to go home once the war is over. They don't want to be exiles forever.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jlynnp said:


> We let our own citizens starve, thousands of American children go to bed hungry every day. Many our own veterans have no where to live. Until we take care of our own sorry but we do not need more people here..


You must have missed the thread about starving children in America we had this summer. Turns out they don't actually exist.  Everybody in America is fat and happy. 

Weirdly enough the people who claimed that are now trotting them out as being in need of food. Sometimes this place can be very confusing. :spinsmiley:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MichaelZ said:


> I am praying that our elected officials use wisdom in this matter. And I pray that should my Christian brothers and sisters have a chance to minister to these refugees that they share the Gospel of Salvation through Jesus Christ.


Sadly it has come to my attention that the Gospel won't work on anyone born to a Muslim father. Tricky Grama can explain it.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...media/ar-BBqLxXn?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=ansmsnnews11


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

Raeven said:


> I would feel the same if one of my loved ones had died in the Paris attack, yes, because I can draw the distinction between a terrorist and a refugee. With one exception -- and there is still much uncertainty surrounding this one -- ALL the other terrorists who committed the unspeakable act of terror in Paris were from within the EU. Some were French natives. The now-dead ringleader was Belgian.
> 
> I have already said I would take a Syrian refugee family into my home, but I don't understand why you think it would ever be, "no questions asked." I've researched the vetting process pretty thoroughly, and I'm comfortable with it. Their need outweighs the almost infinitesimal risks to me.
> 
> I'm also aware that one of our greatest tools against terrorism in this country are Muslims who are already in our country under our protection and sanctuary. When they hear chatter of plots against Americans within, they're the ones who report them to the appropriate authorities. I think they're one of our first lines of defense -- and we should be cultivating more of that, not less.


O-k I get it now, if you own a bank you should invite bank robers in to make your bank safer, or-or better yet, if I don't want my pretty young 16 year old daughter to not get pregenant I should invite 6-7 teenage boy over to live with us and leave to got to work every day and feel safe, I see it all clearer now.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

itsb said:


> , I see it all clearer now.


 Its pretty obvious you don't.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

itsb said:


> O-k I get it now, if you own a bank you should invite bank robers in to make your bank safer, or-or better yet, if I don't want my pretty young 16 year old daughter to not get pregenant I should invite 6-7 teenage boy over to live with us and leave to got to work every day and feel safe, I see it all clearer now.


 Is this you, attempting to draw some sort of nexus between the ghastly events in Brussels and the tragedy of nationless Syrian refugees, thereby justifying your xenophobic, racist views against all Muslims? 

You should probably contact the authorities in Brussels and let them know that you have definitive proof that the ISIS terrorist operatives who carried out these terrible attacks entered Brussels as Syrian refugees. Since the attacks appear to flow from the same terror cell that carried out the attacks in Paris and all but one of those terrorists were shown to be European nationals born and bred, the authorities will be most surprised and grateful for your evidence of this, I&#8217;m sure. (Especially since we've learned that the suicide bombers who acted in Brussels were natives of Belgium. We should probably start keeping the bloody Belgians out of the USA, too, eh? )


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Is this you, attempting to draw some sort of nexus between the ghastly events in Brussels and the tragedy of nationless Syrian refugees, thereby justifying your xenophobic, racist views against all Muslims?
> 
> You should probably contact the authorities in Brussels and let them know that you have definitive proof that the ISIS terrorist operatives who carried out these terrible attacks entered Brussels as Syrian refugees. Since the attacks appear to flow from the same terror cell that carried out the attacks in Paris and all but one of those terrorists were shown to be European nationals born and bred, the authorities will be most surprised and grateful for your evidence of this, I&#8217;m sure. (Especially since we've learned that the suicide bombers who acted in Brussels were natives of Belgium. We should probably start keeping the bloody Belgians out of the USA, too, eh? )


how can you call me a racist for wanting to protect our border, when you lock you door at home :hysterical: or do you get it.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

itsb said:


> how can you call me a racist for wanting to protect our border, when you lock you door at home :hysterical: or do you get it.


I live in a 98% white community and I lock my door. 
And I am white.
So am I a racist?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

itsb said:


> O-k I get it now, if you own a bank you should invite bank robers in to make your bank safer, or-or better yet, if I don't want my pretty young 16 year old daughter to not get pregenant I should invite 6-7 teenage boy over to live with us and leave to got to work every day and feel safe, I see it all clearer now.


Neither of those cases involve humaniatrianism, and the latter case is merely lame.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> You must have missed the thread about starving children in America we had this summer. Turns out they don't actually exist.  Everybody in America is fat and happy.
> 
> Weirdly enough the people who claimed that are now trotting them out as being in need of food. Sometimes this place can be very confusing. :spinsmiley:


Apparently indentured child labor is all right as well. It's just a "natural process." Barf.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

itsb said:


> how can you call me a racist for wanting to protect our border, when you lock you door at home :hysterical: or do you get it.


 'Locks just keep an honest man honest'... they don't stop determined criminals, just as a giant fence won't stop anyone who is determined to get to this country.


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

greg273 said:


> 'Locks just keep an honest man honest'... they don't stop determined criminals, just as a giant fence won't stop anyone who is determined to get to this country.


So do you lock your doors ? do you have fences around your property ? Do you put up no trespassing signs ? No fences don't stop determined criminals, but it does, make it a lot harder. Let me ask this, would it be easer to walk across a border or clime a 20 ft high fence with razor wire and elect. I wander why the white house has a fence, the polp, I wander why jails have fences ? 
So now you and others keep saying this wont work that wont work, but I don't here you giving any anserwes. do you think the honor system will do it ?
Another ? would you be willing to protect your family any way you could, or would you try to beg for your life. I think I know the answer but I would like to here you say it


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

itsb said:


> So do you lock your doors ? do you have fences around your property ? Do you put up no trespassing signs ? No fences don't stop determined criminals, but it does, make it a lot harder. Let me ask this, would it be easer to walk across a border or clime a 20 ft high fence with razor wire and elect. I wander why the white house has a fence, the polp, I wander why jails have fences ?
> So now you and others keep saying this wont work that wont work, but I don't here you giving any anserwes. do you think the honor system will do it ?
> Another ? would you be willing to protect your family any way you could, or would you try to beg for your life. I think I know the answer but I would like to here you say it


 You bet, and that is why we must have to protect and let in only people that will not only do America good, but make America grit. And that is why we have, OR HAD migrations LAWS, and can LIMIT it to those that will continue America as it was seen out to be. We MUST protect that integrity of what The Constitution and Bill of Rights states. Period~! No ifs and or buts about it.
Or another way of putting it is, the basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity.~!
And was ARE on the books to do exsatly that IF the government would only enforce them~!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

itsb said:


> No fences don't stop determined criminals, but it does, make it a lot harder.


 So even with a lock, you admit it won't stop a determined criminal. Nor will a border fence stop those determined to get into this country. You gonna fence off the ocean, too? The Canadian border? Give me a break, this 'great wall of trump' is just another big-government boondoggle, designed to win votes from scared white folks. Looks like its working.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If only a few with really know facts. OR live up to the facts that they know but just on here to argue and be a pest.
The FACTS are the Wall WILL GET BUILT. 700 miles is already In Place.
LREADY passed the bill that says Build A fence.
AND THE FUNDING HAS ALREADY been passed. Just that we have a a so so president that doesn't want to go and get the Wall Built~! But it has already been approved by Congress. So what Trump is wanting to do is nothing more then WHAT HAS ALREADY been put in Motion And PASSED.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

greg273 said:


> So even with a lock, you admit it won't stop a determined criminal. Nor will a border fence stop those determined to get into this country. You gonna fence off the ocean, too? The Canadian border? Give me a break, this 'great wall of trump' is just another big-government boondoggle, designed to win votes from scared white folks. Looks like its working.


So how do we control the border?
Obama's tactic of ignoring it and making fun of those who are concerned isn't working.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> So how do we control the border?
> Obama's tactic of ignoring it and making fun of those who are concerned isn't working.


In reality, it looks like what our President is doing is working pretty well. 

Since 9/11, we've lost 45 Americans here in the States to violent Jihadist attacks. That's over the past nearly 15 years. In comparison, we've lost 48 Americans to homegrown far right wing attacks in just the last decade.

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

But hey. Don't let actual facts get in the way of your slavish hatred of President Obama.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> In reality, it looks like what our President is doing is working pretty well.
> 
> Since 9/11, we've lost 45 Americans here in the States to violent Jihadist attacks. That's over the past nearly 15 years. In comparison, we've lost 48 Americans to homegrown far right wing attacks in just the last decade.
> 
> ...


Hey, like you said don't let facts gets in your way of promoting leftwing rags as truthful. Some that were listed most certainly were not right wingers. Pretty sad that you felt the need to use this site as "factual". Slavish hatred of those on the right seems to be what your all about.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Raeven said:


> In reality, it looks like what our President is doing is working pretty well.
> 
> Since 9/11, we've lost 45 Americans here in the States to violent Jihadist attacks. That's over the past nearly 15 years. In comparison, we've lost 48 Americans to homegrown far right wing attacks in just the last decade.
> 
> ...


And how many terrorists were thwarted? How many Jihadists were stopped? And how many of them were recently in contact with FBI seeds?

It isn't easy to prove a negative and that is just what you have asked us to do... What if there were no real and concerted efforts to attack our country?

Are you OK with counting up made-up attacks?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Hey, like you said don't let facts gets in your way of promoting leftwing rags as truthful. Some that were listed most certainly were not right wingers. Pretty sad that you felt the need to use this site as "factual". Slavish hatred of those on the right seems to be what your all about.


Do you have any *factual *information about additional deaths of Americans within the United States as a result of Jihadist attacks? If not, you're just spouting more rhetoric and adding nothing but noise to the discussion.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Shine said:


> *And how many terrorists were thwarted? How many Jihadists were stopped?* And how many of them were recently in contact with FBI seeds?
> 
> It isn't easy to prove a negative and that is just what you have asked us to do... What if there were no real and concerted efforts to attack our country?
> 
> Are you OK with counting up made-up attacks?


 (emphasis mine)

If I understand you correctly -- and I have some question about that -- then you've exactly discerned my point. What we are doing is, for the most part, working.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> So how do we control the border?
> Obama's tactic of ignoring it and making fun of those who are concerned isn't working.


 As Arabian Knight said, there are already fences and walls along the border, but you could spend $500 billion on a super-high tech concrete and steel barrier, electrified with concertina wire, moats, crocodiles, landmines and gun emplacements every 100 yards and still not control the border, because until you take away the incentive for people to come here, they will find a way. Fence off the land, they will go over, under, or around it when there is something they want on the other side. For 99.999% of them that is a good paying job. For the minsicule percentage that want to do you harm, sorry, life can be dangerous anywhere. Thats what the border partol is for, and failing that, your second Amendment rights as the ultimate hedge.
Around 40% simply come on temporary visas and overstay it, so a big old wall wouldn't stop a single one of those people. 

I don't know if you realize how valuable American money is to people from Mexico. ONE of our dollars buys the equivalent of TEN dollars worth of stuff in Mexico. So most come up, work the summer, then go back home, the pockets stuffed with American dollars, then they live like kings for the winter. THERE is the incentive right there, and until you crack down on people hiring illegals, they're going to keep coming.

If you're worried about ISIS, they could just as easily slip over the Canadian border, or pay for fake documents and slip right through the most stringent of checkpoints.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

greg273 said:


> As Arabian Knight said, there are already fences and walls along the border, but you could spend $500 billion on a super-high tech concrete and steel barrier, electrified with concertina wire, moats, crocodiles, landmines and gun emplacements every 100 yards and still not control the border, because until you take away the incentive for people to come here, they will find a way. Fence off the land, they will go over, under, or around it when there is something they want on the other side. For 99.999% of them that is a good paying job. For the minsicule percentage that want to do you harm, sorry, life can be dangerous anywhere. Thats what the border partol is for, and failing that, your second Amendment rights as the ultimate hedge.
> Around 40% simply come on temporary visas and overstay it, so a big old wall wouldn't stop a single one of those people.
> 
> I don't know if you realize how valuable American money is to people from Mexico. ONE of our dollars buys the equivalent of TEN dollars worth of stuff in Mexico. So most come up, work the summer, then go back home, the pockets stuffed with American dollars, then they live like kings for the winter. THERE is the incentive right there, and until you crack down on people hiring illegals, they're going to keep coming.
> ...


My boss once sent me out of his office with stern words, Do not come to me with a problem unless you have a way to try to solve it.

In light of that, I would ask you then, do you have a solution better than staunching one vastly open vista to those that would cross the mexican border freely?

And if the Border Patrol is failing, who's responsible for that?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Do you have any *factual *information about additional deaths of Americans within the United States as a result of Jihadist attacks? If not, you're just spouting more rhetoric and adding nothing but noise to the discussion.


World trade center, 9/11. That needs to be include, right? I mean, that's really what started the whole deal. To exclude it is wrong. Jerad Lochner(SP) was included and he was a fanatic liberal. He shot Gifford because she wasn't liberal enough. Seems like your just parroting liberal talking points. Nothing like being able to have thoughts of your own! :hysterical:

There is the truth out there if you seek it and stay away from propaganda. It's your mind!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

greg273 said:


> As Arabian Knight said, there are already fences and walls along the border, but you could spend $500 billion on a super-high tech concrete and steel barrier, electrified with concertina wire, moats, crocodiles, landmines and gun emplacements every 100 yards and still not control the border, because until you take away the incentive for people to come here, they will find a way. Fence off the land, they will go over, under, or around it when there is something they want on the other side. For 99.999% of them that is a good paying job. For the minsicule percentage that want to do you harm, sorry, life can be dangerous anywhere. Thats what the border partol is for, and failing that, your second Amendment rights as the ultimate hedge.
> Around 40% simply come on temporary visas and overstay it, so a big old wall wouldn't stop a single one of those people.
> 
> I don't know if you realize how valuable American money is to people from Mexico. ONE of our dollars buys the equivalent of TEN dollars worth of stuff in Mexico. So most come up, work the summer, then go back home, the pockets stuffed with American dollars, then they live like kings for the winter. THERE is the incentive right there, and until you crack down on people hiring illegals, they're going to keep coming.
> ...


And there's your fence right there. 

Crack down on the employers. 

Bet ya didn't think I'd ever agree with you did you. Stranger things have happened tho. 

Cracking down on employers will *add* to the coffers. Not take away. It will put them on notice that this will not be tolerated any more. We could do away with that ugly fence there now.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wiscto said:


> Who are you petitioning for support? I'm on board with that. Look at contracting right now. It's a rough market, and people are out of the job. And we would all be kidding ourselves if illegal immigrants weren't a huge reason for that. I would bet all the money in my account that one of the reasons so many companies are building factories and other buildings in Texas over other states right now is because Texas is ironically turning a blind eye to illegals. I only have one direct source, but he went down there as a lead contractor and came home with no tools and a huge chip on his shoulder...no love for the great blowhard state government of Texas and their hypocrisy. When he tried to get his crew of illegals to work when they decided to take extended breaks, they threatened him. When he tried to find out who stole his tools, they threatened him. When he complained to the company that hired him, they shrugged. Meanwhile, the governor of Texas brags about the booming economy and all those businesses moving their operations to Texas; and in the same appearance he complains about Obama and immigration. Yet certain people here just want to talk about Hillary. Lift the curtain a little higher, folks. The wizard is back there lying to your faces.


[not so] Funny story......

My father and I back in my twenties bid a government job for a mid size city here in Texas. This was back in the 90's.

But anyway we were about middle to low end of the pack when the bids were opened. Lo and behold a wildcard from out of the blue won the bid. Our bid was 28k. His bid was 37k. He was a minority I was told and got special privilege and consideration. 

9K privilege? 

When it all panned out his company was from Mexico City _MEXICO_ and he did the job as a minority here in the states (Thanks Bush Sr. AND whispering Bill C.) under NAFTA. BUT, he used all Mexican citizens as workers and none of the money was taxed under our tax laws. It was a multi million dollar business set up after NAFTA was in place just to play the market. But it left out all the American business's out in the cold. This was a Reagan idea but signed by Bush and prioritized by Clinton. 

And here we thought there were always two sides of the coin.....


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> World trade center, 9/11. That needs to be include, right? I mean, that's really what started the whole deal. To exclude it is wrong. Jerad Lochner(SP) was included and he was a fanatic liberal. He shot Gifford because she wasn't liberal enough. Seems like your just parroting liberal talking points. Nothing like being able to have thoughts of your own! :hysterical:
> 
> There is the truth out there if you seek it and stay away from propaganda. It's your mind!


Oh, we can include 9/11 if you want to. But I thought you were trying to conjure a basis for criticizing President Obama for the "huge" number of Americans who have died on American soil on his watch as a result of what you assert are his ineffective tactics in battling terrorism here at home.

Who was at the helm on 9/11, again?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Raeven said:


> In reality, it looks like what our President is doing is working pretty well.
> 
> Since 9/11, we've lost 45 Americans here in the States to violent Jihadist attacks. That's over the past nearly 15 years. In comparison, we've lost 48 Americans to homegrown far right wing attacks in just the last decade.
> 
> ...


You may want to go over that list again, there were some significant events that were left out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Also, note the increase in those attacks since the mid 2000's.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> You may want to go over that list again, there were some significant events that were left out.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
> 
> Also, note the increase in those attacks since the mid 2000's.


No. The discussion at hand is about protecting Americans *on American soil*. There have been many attacks on Americans abroad, but that is not the issue here. You need to read what I posted more carefully. The question I answered had to do with "controlling the border."


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Raeven said:


> No. The discussion at hand is about protecting Americans *on American soil*. There have been many attacks on Americans abroad, but that is not the issue here. You need to read what I posted more carefully. The question I answered had to do with "controlling the border."


They were in there with the little American flag next to them, most of them I remembered, but I posted that link so I would have that much sought after "proof" in case it was refuted.

D.C. sniper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad
Ft. Hood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting
Machete attacks in NY and OH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Queens_hatchet_attack http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/columbus-machete-attack/
The assault in Texas over cartoons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack
Does any of that ring a bell?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> They were in there with the little American flag next to them, most of them I remembered, but I posted that link so I would have that much sought after "proof" in case it was refuted.
> 
> D.C. sniper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad
> Ft. Hood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting
> ...


Please. 

The D.C. sniper killings were never shown to have anything to do with a Jihadist affiliation. Similarly, there was no such affiliation with Hasan at Fort Hood. In both cases, they were *Americans* who committed their atrocities. No border fence would have kept them out. Do you honestly not get this? You really don't draw the distinction that virtually every slaughter event of Americans within our own borders was perpetrated by *American citizens* who were radicalized here?

Did anyone die in the machete attacks? Or the assault in Texas? Were those attacks perpetrated by those who slipped through our border controls? Or were they, like the above instances, *Americans* who happened to have some tangential Muslim affiliation?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Raeven said:


> Please.
> 
> The D.C. sniper killings were never shown to have anything to do with a Jihadist affiliation. Similarly, there was no such affiliation with Hasan at Fort Hood. In both cases, they were *Americans* who committed their atrocities. No border fence would have kept them out. Do you honestly not get this? You really don't draw the distinction that virtually every slaughter event of Americans within our own borders was perpetrated by *American citizens* who were radicalized here?
> 
> Did anyone die in the machete attacks? Or the assault in Texas? Were those attacks perpetrated by those who slipped through our border controls? Or were they, like the above instances, *Americans* who happened to have some tangential Muslim affiliation?


I see. 
I was going by the guidelines from your link. I didn't realize the rules about foreign and domestic jihadists were changed in my case.
What was that you said about not letting the facts get in the way?

From your link.....
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/terror-plot.html?id=1540

*Maj. Nidal Hasan was a U.S. Army psychiatrist who opened fire in a medical facility at the Fort Hood military base on November 5, 2009, killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others. He was sentenced to death by a military court-martial in August 2013. Hasan was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan a few weeks after the shooting took place. He had shouted &#8220;Allahu Â¬akbar!&#8221; (&#8220;God is great&#8221 before opening fire with a high-powered, high-capacity handgun with laser sights. After firing more than 200 rounds, he was shot by military police and was paralyzed from the waist down. Medical school classmates interviewed after the incident said that he had voiced strong opinions against the war in Afghanistan.*


And from mine on the D.C. sniper......

*"Phase Three was to take place very shortly after, if not during, Phase Two. The third phase was to extort several million dollars from the United States government. This money would be used to finance a larger plan to travel north into Canada, stopping along the way in YMCAs and orphanages recruiting other impressionable young boys with no parents or guidance. John Allen Muhammad thought he could act as their father figure as he did with Lee Boyd Malvo. Once he recruited a large number of young boys and made his way up to Canada, he would begin their training. Malvo described how Muhammad allegedly intended to train the youths with weapons. After their training was complete, Muhammad would send them out across the United States to carry out mass shootings in many different cities, just as he had done in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore.[28][29][30]"*


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

*farmerbrown*, I don't know what your point is supposed to be. 

I wasn't changing any rules. You seem fundamentally incapable of grasping that just because someone has a Middle Eastern name doesn't mean they have ties to jihadist terrorists. Your bolded quotes only demonstrate that Mr. Muhammad was nuts, not that he had any direct ties to jihadists. Don't you see the difference?

Similarly, having opinions about the war in Afghanistan is not the same thing as having ties to jihadists outside the country. Mr. Hasan was still an *American* who visited his anger on other Americans. Again, no direct ties to jihadists. Just another nutter.

The discussion at hand for the entire thread has been about protecting Americans on American soil. There are those who advocate for building a border wall along our common border with Mexico. *greg273* explained very well exactly why it is futile to build it. You're only treating the symptom, not the actual causes.

I pointed out that the people in your additional examples were *Americans* killing other Americans. They did not come in through any border.

I'm not saying the people in your examples weren't radicalized. * I'm saying they weren't jihadists who entered the country from abroad to visit harm on Americans. They were radicalized from within.* Can you not draw this distinction? That's what we're discussing here.

So what exactly is your point?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Oh, we can include 9/11 if you want to. But I thought you were trying to conjure a basis for criticizing President Obama for the "huge" number of Americans who have died on American soil on his watch as a result of what you assert are his ineffective tactics in battling terrorism here at home.
> 
> Who was at the helm on 9/11, again?


It's not that "I" want to, it's we need to include it of course! My basis for terrorist ties to Obama are very clear, and no one can say otherwise, unless facts don't pertain. I haven't stated here that Obama has been ineffective at all, yet, so I'm not sure why your saying I was doing that? Wishful thinking? 

Anywho,

Do you know who Bill Ayers is? Pretty clear right there. Bomb maker, cop killer, etc...
Bernadine Dorn? Same same again.
Eric Holder? Yup, nice fro!!!!

I'm sure there's more, their enough for me, and the easiest to research and prove their past. They are, after all, very proud of their own history.

I'd say Obama has closer, more personal relationships with known terrorists than any other president. 

On 9/11 Bush was president, but you thought it would be cute to see it post here, so, there ya go. I'm not sure why that matters here, unless you think he's responsible for it? Do you? If so, what could be have done differently?

But, he had ties to Bin Laden. Supposedly he wasn't a terrorist back then, really? (very sarcastic "really") And I'm sure his Saudi friends were all good too. Right!! But, were they really known terrorists at the time?

So, let me ask you the following;

Who was president the first time the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists?

How well did his policies work to prevent it from happening again? Maybe he was more interested in cigars!

Obama IS however, bringing unknown terrorists into America, when he doesn't even have to. Some may be known to others, but not our government. That just happened in Brussles didnt it? That's inexcusable for a world leader.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Please.
> 
> The D.C. sniper killings were never shown to have anything to do with a Jihadist affiliation. Similarly, there was no such affiliation with Hasan at Fort Hood. In both cases, they were *Americans* who committed their atrocities. No border fence would have kept them out. Do you honestly not get this? You really don't draw the distinction that virtually every slaughter event of Americans within our own borders was perpetrated by *American citizens* who were radicalized here?
> 
> Did anyone die in the machete attacks? Or the assault in Texas? Were those attacks perpetrated by those who slipped through our border controls? Or were they, like the above instances, *Americans* who happened to have some tangential Muslim affiliation?


Well, yes, a lady died before that guy screaming "Allah Akbar" was shot by the company owner that time. When was that again? Just a jihadist though, so he's good.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> *farmerbrown*, I don't know what your point is supposed to be.
> 
> I wasn't changing any rules. You seem fundamentally incapable of grasping that just because someone has a Middle Eastern name doesn't mean they have ties to jihadist terrorists. Your bolded quotes only demonstrate that Mr. Muhammad was nuts, not that he had any direct ties to jihadists. Don't you see the difference?
> 
> ...


Your link included one shot here one shot there as right wingers. Why didn't it show any of the liberals that have killed one or two, or many too? Or any of the liberal killers for that matter, don't they count, or is it just right wingers? Be fair!


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> It's not that "I" want to, it's we need to include it of course! My basis for terrorist ties to Obama are very clear, and no one can say otherwise, unless facts don't pertain. I haven't stated here that Obama has been ineffective at all, yet, so I'm not sure why your saying I was doing that? Wishful thinking?
> 
> Anywho,
> 
> ...


 Well, I think youâve peeled off into unintelligible dithering and conspiracy theory nonsense, so far off topic that it has no bearing at all. Iâm not going there. Glad you got all that off your chest, though.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Well, I think you&#8217;ve peeled off into unintelligible dithering and conspiracy theory nonsense, so far off topic that it has no bearing at all. I&#8217;m not going there. Glad you got all that off your chest, though.



See what I did there, answered your questions without any insults, why can't you do that too?

The truth hurts and you can't handle it, so you turn to your usual insults. Dithering? Off topic, really? And just what "conspiracy" theories have I posted, none. All factual and verifiable. 

Just admit you don't want to answer truthfully because it refutes a lot of what you said, it is after all, the truth your afraid of.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> And how many terrorists were thwarted? How many Jihadists were stopped? And how many of them were recently in contact with FBI seeds?
> 
> It isn't easy to prove a negative and that is just what you have asked us to do... What if there were no real and concerted efforts to attack our country?
> 
> Are you OK with counting up made-up attacks?


But aren't the thwarted attacks and disrupted plots evidence that this administration is paying attention and being effective not ignoring threats and those who are concerned about them? Isn't that what was claimed? Thanks for proving that claim false.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Raeven said:


> *farmerbrown*, I don't know what your point is supposed to be.
> 
> I wasn't changing any rules. You seem fundamentally incapable of grasping that just because someone has a Middle Eastern name doesn't mean they have ties to jihadist terrorists. Your bolded quotes only demonstrate that Mr. Muhammad was nuts, not that he had any direct ties to jihadists. Don't you see the difference?
> 
> ...



I thought I was clear, but I'll say it again.
YOUR link listed the Ft. Hood attack by Hassan as an Islamic terrorist attack. I even quoted from it.
I realize the original topic was foreigners coming in and border protection, but when you posted that to make your point, I simply acknowledged the change in topic and replied.
It's not that I don't understand the difference. 
Can you at least admit it wasn't I that shifted the discussion?
I just thought that it was important to include ALL the facts if it was going to be discussed.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

We can't have this happening is the USA. Now schools will be having prayer brought back but Only for Muslims. Bring it back YES but to ALL with Christians number one on top of things.
In the district&#8217;s middle and high schools, Muslim students have access to private rooms with prayer rugs for the five daily prayers. Hmmm wonder if they would abject if the room and a few toilets in them. LOL


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> We can't have this happening is the USA. Now schools will be having prayer brought back but Only for Muslims. Bring it back YES but to ALL with Christians number one on top of things.


Where?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> I thought I was clear, but I'll say it again.
> YOUR link listed the Ft. Hood attack by Hassan as an Islamic terrorist attack. I even quoted from it.
> I realize the original topic was foreigners coming in and border protection, but when you posted that to make your point, I simply acknowledged the change in topic and replied.
> It's not that I don't understand the difference.
> ...


If my link contained the information, then it did. But it's still beside the point. 

My initial response was to *Cornhusker*'s question in Post 143 about how we *control the border* -- his exact words -- and subsequent statement that President Obama is employing a "tactic" of "ignoring it and making fun of those who are concerned it isn't working." My response showed that both his assertions are untrue, based on the *facts* that terrorist plots *coming in from abroad* have been successfully thwarted on his watch and that only 43 people have died in such attacks since 9/11. The loss of those lives is tragic, but a sense of proportionality is important, too. Obviously Obama has not "ignored" the threat, and his tactics are working for the most part -- and that's without walling off a border or denying entry to properly vetted refugees.

You then entered the discussion and attempted to muddy the waters by talking in a general way about attacks on Americans on American soil* by Americans*, which I have never denied -- *but they were not as a result of jihadists who had infiltrated this country through our borders*. So still not germane to the discussion, no matter what my link stated.

So no; I don't think I shifted the discussion. I think you did, and you're still trying to. You seem to want me to concede a point I was never trying to make.

If you have facts to show that more people have died on American soil *as a result of infiltration of jihadists from abroad*, then show them. Anything else really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion I was having or the topic of this thread.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Raeven said:


> If my link contained the information, then it did. But it's still beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As you wish.
:shrug:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

There is nothing in the original article about 'praying in class'. The article mentioned the Muslim students have access to rooms with prayer rugs, it doesn't say anything about any other students being barred from them. There is a difference between allowing students to pray, and LEADING students in prayer. One is legal, the other is not. 

​


----------

