immigration of German refugees of the Jewish persuasion ? I'm in no way saying you are anti-Christian. Well, OK, not at this level anyway.
This is absolutely NOT a First Amendment issue nor a religious preference issue of any kind although I'm sure some on both sides would like to make it so. It merely happens to be that this is the group of people that are presently being targeted for extinction in the ME. They would still need rigorous vetting. There are also plenty of children and old Muslims from Syria that could be vetted.-- Modified on 11/18/2015 9:42:25 PM
Lady Liberty shed a tear today as Texas Gov Abbott informed President Obama that Texas would not accept any Syrian refugees for resettlement. The reason? “A Syrian ‘refugee’ appears to have been part of the Paris terror attack.” Some 15 other Republican governors are liking closing the door to Syrian refugees.
Didn’t we go through this same kind of irrational hysteria after 9/11? Except then we wanted to ban Muslims from everywhere. That raises First Amendment problems so the thinking is we should use nationality as a cipher for religion, and maybe the state won’t get sued by the ACLU.
But let’s look at how absurd this is. Many of the Paris terrorists were French nationals – shouldn’t we ban anyone from France as well? What about guys from Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? What about the Mexicans? Remember when Gov Brewer told us the Mexicans were beheading people in Arizona? It was not true but the drug cartels do cause more problems for us than the terrorists. Why not keep all these guys out?
Of course, Texas cannot actually do anything to bar Syrians other than refuse state assistance in the relocation. So this is NOT true state action that will make anyone any safer; it is just pure fear mongering designed to score points for Governor Abbot and his Republican friends and make them seem tough on immigration.
Shame on Gov Abbot and any governor who joins his little club
Are the French more likely to go on a shooting spree or drink wine and complain about tourists? People didn't murder over a hundred people in Paris because they were French nationals. They murdered them because they were Muslims.
Any state has the right to protect it's borders. Texas is no different.
...They killed over 3,000 Americans. Why hasn't Texas "protected its borders" from the Saudis? Would it have anything to do with a hand-holding, kiss-snatching president sucking up to the Saudi king? The same BSU coincidentally was also the former governor of Texas.
-- Modified on 11/16/2015 11:40:00 PM
That Texas border control agents are specially trained to detect Saudis. So you have nothing to worry about. And everything else you said was crazy booze talk.
...if Texas did protect their borders from Saudi nationals, you'd bitch about that too.
Willy, I realize you don’t get out much but I can tell you that Colorado is not that far away from the Texas border. Colorado is accepting Syrian refugees. So, if there are any terrorists in the 10,000 we admit next September who settle in Colorado all they have to do is move into public housing in Colorado and, when they are ready to strike, simply drive down the interstate to Dallas.
Meanwhile, the Governor’s declaration that ALL Syrians are potentially dangerous means that any middle eastern looking family in Texas is potentially going to be subject to discrimination at best and possible violence at worst. Gov Abbot is the same guy btw who ordered the Texas National Guard to monitor the federal government when it conducted Operation Jade exercises in Texas.
I never thought I would miss Gov Perry but
Scholars have debated what the Founding Fathers would have to say about things if they had knowledge of this modern world (and the future world that we can only imagine).
I wonder if Emma Lazarus would revise her poem?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
But NOT the militant extremists whose sole purpose is to destroy this, my nation.
"The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
But not to the wretched fanatics who wish to extinguish my lamp
and tear down me and everything for which I stand
These are the same jerk-off fear mongers and authoritarians who continue jailing and making pariah of cannabis users while accepting campaign contributions(bribes) from alcohol distillers and Big Pharma.
Figuring out a justifiable challenge as this is far above their intellect or social/moral evolution. They'd simply rather spread misinformation, intolerance, fear and hate.
To help avoid more deaths of innocent Americans I agree with your proposal, until the Mexican drug cartels and Radical Islamist leaders and their followers are eliminated, a moratorium on all illegal and legal assimilation from south of our border and importation of Syrian refugees and their neighbor cousins, would be in the best interest of a prosperous economy and peaceful coexistence.
P.S. Have you had the time to read "Gifted Hands" and discover how Politico bamboozled you?
What about guys from Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? What about the Mexicans? Remember when Gov Brewer told us the Mexicans were beheading people in Arizona? It was not true but the drug cartels do cause more problems for us than the terrorists. Why not keep all these guys out?
and later the more comprehensive Esquire article that confirmed I was right on the mark.
But I do think we should take Mr. Carson seriously on immigration. As he points out, the Chinese built the Great Wall to keep out the Mexicans, and that is why there are no Mexicans in China today.
No one bamboozles me.
Esquire lied when they claimed Dr. Ben Carson lied.
Without reading the book you will never see how Esquire, politico and other misleading sources, left out pertinent statements in "Gifted Hands" to twist the truth to suit their own agenda and most certainly bamboozled you when you unwittingly support their lies.
in accurately quoted to support his attempted defense. Esquire said that was the final and complete statement of the West Point full scholarship offer.
If you are saying that there is more in the book about the "offer" than Esquire represented, then I would of course possibly suspend my opinion - but given the time lime Esquire laid out in conjunction with the author's description of the appointment process, I d be surprised if there is anything to change anyone's opinion that "later I received a full scholarship offer from West Point" was a false statement and that Carson knew this- therefore he lied.
Still having trouble realizing that your definition of "Later" might not be the only one, let alone the correct one?
-- Modified on 11/18/2015 1:04:31 AM
I am saying there is more in the book about Carson's college offers than Esquire represented.
For Dr. Carson To get a full scholarship to any College, West point included, I believe he would need to apply, or at least give a shout out he'd like to attend.
Carson emphatically mentions in his book he only applied to one College, he also mentions why.
In less time it took Duke to lose last night you could have easily read the book.
I'm not campaigning for Dr. Carson, I'm only trying to expose truth under flagrant misleading headlines.
Rubio 2016
If you are saying that there is more in the book about the "offer" than Esquire represented, then I would of course possibly suspend my opinion - but given the time lime Esquire laid out in conjunction with the author's description of the appointment process, I d be surprised if there is anything to change anyone's opinion that "later I received a full scholarship offer from West Point" was a false statement and that Carson knew this- therefore he lied.
as Kentucky did when they stopped the game. If you want to see what “losing”. looks like, just read Ed’s defense of Mr. Carson below.
I’m afraid you’ve been bamboozled again
(repost from above with a different subject line to, maybe, get a reply)
Scholars have debated what the Founding Fathers would have to say about things if they had knowledge of this modern world (and the future world that we can only imagine).
I wonder if Emma Lazarus would revise her poem?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
But NOT the militant extremists whose sole purpose is to destroy this, my nation.
"The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
But not to the wretched fanatics who wish to extinguish my lamp
and tear down me and everything for which I stand
........on this refugee crisis. IMHO, every Muslim immigrant has the potential to suddenly become radicalized, no one can predict exactly when that switch occurs, because it is so sudden. So, the U.S. and Europeans might just be better off allowing just Middle Eastern Christians to emigrate because you can be sure they won't be plotting to destroy us all.
Scholars have debated what the Founding Fathers would have to say about things if they had knowledge of this modern world (and the future world that we can only imagine).
I wonder if Emma Lazarus would revise her poem?
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
But NOT the militant extremists whose sole purpose is to destroy this, my nation.
"The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
But not to the wretched fanatics who wish to extinguish my lamp
and tear down me and everything for which I stand.
I don't think the First Amendment applies until they get in the country. Congress can probably exclude immigrants on any grounds whatsoever, although it would probably take a Supreme Court case to be sure
The rhyme scheme for that poem is ABBA; count the feet to get the meter.
Once you have done that, you will see why we can confidently say that Ms. Lazarus would not accept your proposed revisions of her poem as a matter of style.
As for the substance, guess who joined the lawful immigrants in those early years on Ellis Island- murders, thieves, rapist, anarchists, and other undesirables. If she did not make an exception then, I don’t think she would agree that entire nationalities should be excluded bc of a few bad apples.
Il miglior fabbro?
I think not
There ARE doors that open and close to US immigration and the laws change from time to time. Sometimes, the laws were held to be unconstitutional; othertimes, not.
Lazarus didn't say, "Open the doors and let them all in!" She saw the US as a refuge for the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, not as a refuge for religious zealots whose goal is to destroy the US, murder all non-Muslims as well as Muslims of the "wrong" stripe and to establish a global caliphate.
The US has the right to screen or limit immigration according to laws and regulations passed and approved by the government. If that means background checks, so be it. If most of the suspicious applicants happen to come from embroiled Muslim countries, so be it. If the screening keeps out some nut job from South America, that's good, too.
Regarding my poetry, I have a valid poetic license that is good until 2025. I can get it renewed then and update my photo.
Regarding historical cases of immigrant radicals, anarchists and other ne'er-do-wells, we do try to keep them out, not always successfully. We learn from those old cases. The modern world can easily and radically amplify any more mistakes. A very small but very dirty bomb? Toxins in the water supply? An infectious disease deliberately spread by just one person? A wrench in a crucial piece of grid or internet hardware? One mistake can wreak havoc upon tens of millions and cascade further.
Is it only a Syrian ISIS jihadist who can do that? Of course not (Tim McVeigh, OK City 1995; Waco; others). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop screening and even preventing enemies of the US from free entry.
The people we want to exclude are not the huddled masses, they are the murderous extremists.
Once you have done that, you will see why we can confidently say that Ms. Lazarus would not accept your proposed revisions of her poem as a matter of style.
As for the substance, guess who joined the lawful immigrants in those early years on Ellis Island- murders, thieves, rapist, anarchists, and other undesirables. If she did not make an exception then, I don’t think she would agree that entire nationalities should be excluded bc of a few bad apples.
Il miglior fabbro?
I think not.
Yes, many of the terrorists to hit Europerecently are born in Europe, such as the French ones in the latest. But they are not Jewish French, or Chinese French (yes they exist) or Italian/French. The are French Moslems.
Yes, we want to take in "refugees," but when they show a picture of the dead baby on the beach, they don't show the boat coming to Greece, with 200 refugess, 180 of whom are young men.
To my knowledge, there have been no Coptic Egyptians involved in terrorism in the west nor have there been any Christian Syrians bombing London subways.
If .5% of the "refugees" are (or are likely to evolve into) terrorists, out of 65,000 they want to bring in (not using the 100,000 figiure some are suggesting) you have just admitted over 300 terrorists
Christian refugees. Haven't heard the self=proclaimed Kin gof the USA uteer or mutter a word when Christians were being slaughtered by ISIS. His legacy is tarnished forever...since he cannot see reality staring him in the face.
Why do you only single out Texas? I think 25 other states have taken the same or similar measures, including my very own progressive Illinois.
But you are correct to be outraged that only Syrians are being singled out. The ban needs to be dramatically widened to include all illegal immigrants and all potential immigrants from certain specific geographic areas and any of those that might be funneling through other areas. This moratorium should also include student visas.
After we develop a much better way to find and vet existing residents and vet potential immigrants should the immigration resume. That is of course excepting those that such as ME Christians who can presently demonstrate their persecution and near genocide
I have a huge problem with Christians being pushed to the front of the line to the exclusion of all others. I also have an even bigger problem with potential terrorists being invited into this country and lets face it, it's radical Muslims who are the most likely to be terrorists. I would have less of a problem keeping Muslims out and allowing non Muslims in, than allowing only Christians to cross our borders. Allowing only Christians to immigrate to this country is dangerously close to creating a "state sponsored" religion with huge 1st Amendment Issues. (and yes, I realize that banning Muslims also has 1st Amendment issues, but not quite as many)
immigration of German refugees of the Jewish persuasion ? I'm in no way saying you are anti-Christian. Well, OK, not at this level anyway.
This is absolutely NOT a First Amendment issue nor a religious preference issue of any kind although I'm sure some on both sides would like to make it so. It merely happens to be that this is the group of people that are presently being targeted for extinction in the ME. They would still need rigorous vetting. There are also plenty of children and old Muslims from Syria that could be vetted.
-- Modified on 11/18/2015 9:42:25 PM