21 U.S. states will not allow syrian refugees

[jenny1972]

States cannot prohibit refugees.  That power is reserved to the federal government.  It's a lesson certain states must be taught over and over.

like the federal government did when states made laws to refuse black kids to integrate in all white schools and federal troops had to made sure they did integrate schools . but on the other hand you have california and other states that have legalized marijuana despite it being illegal federally its legal in some states the feds can enforce a federal law but they dont always think its necessary to . but there could be a big issue or Obama can just say lets not make an issue out of this and there are plenty of states willing to accept incoming refugees that it isnt an issue and not worth enforcing black/white school integration involved millions of children were just talking about 10,000 here and can they settle in a dozen states i dont think that would be a problem they you could actually put all in one state if wanted . states do have rights and more ppl in the states would have an issue with the feds interfering in state decisions than actually against refugees so well see what comes of all this because 10,000 are coming by the end of this year .

[Ben Davis]

One has to wonder exactly why ISIS choose to attack France in this manner, when Europe is struggling with the refugee crisis in Syria.

As revenge for French involvement in Syria. Also because their intelligence agencies aren't as good as those in other European countries.

To me the answer Seems at least in part to discourage emigration.    ISIS doesn't just want to create a fundamentalist taliban like state for their own army of thugs and mercenaries.  It wants to rule a state.   But the state it is trying to build is being hollowed out by refugees fleeing. So ISIS is trying to strike at where the refugee is going precisely to elicit the sort of reaction we see from malrastoner, governors would not take refugees, their supporters on this forum, and other knee jerk morons, in order to make emigration from the areas controlled by ISIS less appealing.

True and also this:

Attacks like the ones tonight in Paris are committed to purposely trigger an Islamophobic backlash. That backlash is not an unintended consequence of such attacks, it is part of their logic. ISIS types want an Islamophobic backlash because it lends credence to their narrative that there is a war between the West and Islam. By strengthening and emboldening the xenophobic right-wing in Europe, they strengthen their own worldview as well. And the most tragic irony is that that backlash may target refugees who themselves had been fleeing ISIS' reign of terror.

[jenny1972]

In all honesty I can't decide which is the right call.
On one hand banning the refugees will alienate that nation and may well drive other members of that country into the arms of fanaticism while allowing some of its more rational occupants to be destroyed thanks to turning them away.
On the other hand if we accept them when theres a clear tone of fanaticism in that countries national identity right now then it could actually begin to seep into the US over the next 30-40 years and make homegrown terrorism more likely just like in the UK. Not only that if we are accepting the rational Syrians then who is left to counter the irrational ones?

It doesn't seem like either one is a solution. The opposition to the fanaticism needs to be empowered, not hidden away.

i dont think itll be a problem one state can hold all the refugees 10,000 isnt a huge amount of immigrants look at New York City thats just one city within one state easily absorbing many more than 10,000 immigrants who stayed in that city for generations descendents are still in that city and havent left NYC so its possible and makes sense to do that . most countries have taken in more refugees than what we are in what amounts to less space overall than the 7 states that are agreeing to immigrants here . i dont know why it would make sense to just spread immigrants out throughout the US .

[jenny1972]

New Jersey, Nevada, Kansas, Iowa, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina are the newest states that saying they will not allow refugees in

[jenny1972]

OFC they are, because Connecticut is a terrorist plot to destroy America - and this has long been known.  

so you live in kentucy im in indiana do you think kentucky will decide not to take in immigrants ? CNN says kentucky is still not saying either way

[The Grand Nudger]

Posted earlier.  Our current gov thinks it's ridiculous and doesn't plan on entertaining the notion of barring refugees for his remaining time in office.  Gov elect, however, has sided with the xenophobes, predictably.

(-and this is why I refuse to legitimize our charade by casting a vote, lol)

[jenny1972]

Posted earlier.  Our current gov thinks it's ridiculous and doesn't plan on entertaining the notion of barring refugees for his remaining time in office.  Gov elect, however, has sided with the xenophobes, predictably.

(-and this is why I refuse to legitimize our charade by casting a vote, lol)

is the new kentucky gov republican or democrat ?

[The Grand Nudger]

There isn't much of a difference here. Split the baby, call em all Republicrats. We're a hard drifting state. He ran as a republican.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Bevin

Tax evader, poor hater, cock-fighting afficianado, backstabber, liar, religious bigot, and all around Good Ole Boy. So....no surprise he won, eh?

His opposition....this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Conway_(politician)

[Kingpin]

Obviously there needs to be extensive background checks and passing a series of tests that perhaps most normal aliens are not subjected to, but I don't see a valid reason not to take them. Terrorism is an idealogy and not limited to a set group of people. There are members of ISIS that are from countries all over the globe. I live very near the highest population of Muslims in the U.S. in Dearborn, MI and I know a great deal of Middle Eastern folks from that area. I have a very good friend who is a Muslim and lives in this neighborhood, called me on the phone this weekend crying over the attacks. When we stereotype and generalize we find ourselves offending a great deal more than we intend to. Do not discriminate based on origin, race, gender, etc.

I disagree with the GOP on this one and actually find it ironic in a way. When we have local terrorism (crazy gunmen), the GOP is the first to say not to punish the good gun owners for the actions of the bad ones. But that is precisely the message they are sending by refusing all refugees. You are punishing those that are trying to escape from that madness themselves, because of a few crazies. Open the door, but put up a dozen checkpoints.

[MentalGiant]

It's not that I'm opposed to helping others, but we can't even help our own citizens at this point. Letting who knows how many refugees from another country in seems like a bad idea at this point in time. Where will these people be housed? How will they be fed? How many jobs will be taken from American citizens? And who will be paying for all of this? Also, how will this affect already struggling AMERICAN CITIZENS when housing pricing goes up, unskilled jobs become even more scarce and there is less money/resources for our own less fortunate citizens to go around? You should be able to take care of your own before you can help others.