More Syrians will be Admitted to Texas Today

Post Reply New Topic

I think that the whole question is NOT whether or not to allow harmless individuals into the country, as America welcomed thousands of Vietnamese boat people and Hmong who would have been slaughtered by the North Vietnamese.

I believe that the whole point is to carefully and thoroughly investigate each individual requesting asylum, to insure that no dangerous person is allowed in.

Last edited by Sylkat on 08 Dec 2015, 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree. The entire system has broken down. Remember, Farook spouse was into this country on a Fiancee Visa. The entire visa system needs to reflect the times that we currently live in. This includes a possibility of creating a database and closer monitoring of mosques here in the United States that promote radical Islam.

I am afraid.

Whoever cleared that b1tch Tashfeen Malik didn't do his or her job. And Tashfeen entered the United States from Saudi Arabia, where she appears to have had residency. Neither SA nor Pakistan is suffering from any sort of upheaval which would have made background checks difficult. But the monster passed, came into the country and bit the hand that welcomed her.

Syria is a very different animal at this point of time. I don't know how anyone could do a reasonably solid background check on anyone who claims to be a Syrian refugee. Civil war is a b1tch. It displaces people, and I assume - given the large scale displacements and the chaos - that it would be fairly easy to pass muster under these circumstances, even if you have had a pretty lengthy rap sheet wherever you hail from and have lived in, for the past several decades.

Someone observed a while ago that many of the "refugees" from Syria looked like able-bodied young men who didn't appear to have missed a meal for even a day in their lives. They also sported iPhones and other expensive looking electronics. One SOB even wore a T-shirt that said (in English) "be afraid for your wives". Like it's a big joke.

If I was Deash or Al Nusra or Al Qaeda, *this* (free entry of Syrians into America) would be my opportunity to send in my Jihadis. Even if those b@stards couldn't immediately access guns and assault weapons, they can work with sleeper cells within the country and radicalize losers like Rizwan to carry out their bidding.

Call me a bigot - name calling is cheap - but I am afraid. This is why America should have mandatory military service for able-bodied males and females ages 15 and above, and should adopt some practice of *responsible arming* of every responsible and legally cleared, citizen and lawful resident. That would have resulted in monsters like Tashfeen and Rizwan being taken out *at* the Christmas party, and not allowed to escape alive from the premises.

BTW, when and where are those monsters going to be buried ? I hope they are cremated and their ashes are tossed over the Pacific. No shaheed shrines for either of those @ssholes.

Dear HisMom,

You have made an extremely good point.....I had not thought about it, but you are right; Syria is in such chaos that the kind of background checks that would work with criminals or radicals entering from a more stable country just would not/will not work in this case.

So there is no sure way of knowing WHO is sneaking in amongst groups of innocent people who really need refuge.

Identity theft must be VERY popular with Syrian criminals who want out of that country by any means.

Sure, the founders had intended the states to reign in the power of the possibly tyranical federal government, but history has demonstrated how the federal government has had to reign in the power of the states in order to ensure the rights of unpopular citizens.

But history also shows how far the federal government can push the states to the brink such as the Kentucky- Virginia Resolutons of 1798-1799 like the Nullification of 1832 and the Civil War. In the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

But that use of nullification by the states should be used only to defend genuine liberty, not to step on the rights of other people. In such cases, that's when the feds have to step in to counter the states to protect the rights of all citizens, and even non citizens.

Nullification should be left up to the people and the states legislatures. Nullification laws are already happening with the passage of hemp laws in your state and in Colorado

Even if it means discriminating against fellow Americans, or people who are visiting our country?

If you look at American History that has been done since Christopher Columbus landed in he New World in 1492. In the 1940s we interned Japanese Americans in camps under a Democratic President. I also point out the draconian immigration laws of the Gilded Age and the Progressive age. My great grandparents had to jump through more hoops to enter this country in the early 1900s. They had to pass a series of tests such as medical and proving to the government that they would be able to be self sufficient to live in this country. If they did not pass these tests they would be deported.

My uncle Joe had to change his last name to teach in Michigan because he was Italian. He had to change it to a more "anglo" name. At that time there were anti-discrimination laws in Michigan. Michigan at that time chose not to follow federal anti-discrimination rules. And this was in the 1960s. He allowed to change his name back until the mid-1970s.

Yes, the internment of Japanese Americans by the federal government was indefensible, though I think it's fair to point out that a great many Americans had racist feelings against Japanese Americans without the feds egging it on. Immigration laws of the past were equally indefensible. That said, the federal government had to step in with the civil rights act in order to secure rights for black Americans, despite resistance from white southerners, and their arguments for states rights. Today, it's a battle of the feds against the states in defense of LGBT rights, in which the states invoke states rights and Biblical law. The fact is, while the federal government had done oppressive things in the past, they have in recent history defended individual and minority rights against bigoted power at the state level. But the granddaddy example of the federal government stepping in against the tyranny at the state level was Lincoln's emancipation of black slaves.

I would like to remind you that Lincoln belonged to the American Colonization Society that wanted to expel blacks to Africa.

I would like to remind you that Lincoln belonged to the American Colonization Society that wanted to expel blacks to Africa. He also had a very liberal view on bringing back ex-Confederates back into government. It was called the ten percent plan.Lincoln announced the terms of his Ten Percent Plan on December 8, 1863. The proclamation was threefold. First, Lincoln offered a presidential pardon and amnesty to any rebel who vowed loyalty to the United States and its laws involving slavery. This was not applicable to Confederate government officials or military officers. Second, when any state in rebellion had ten percent of its registered voters as of 1860 swear allegiance to the United States, a new state government could be formed and recognized by the Union. Finally, Lincoln encouraged states that returned to pro-Union rule to create policies in dealing with free blacks so long as they were not returned to bondage. The Radical Republicans wanted more from Lincoln

Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably.Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.

Yes, Lincoln had originally favored colonization of freed blacks, but by the end of his life he was talking about extending full citizenship to blacks. It was in fact that speech in which he announced this plan that very probably cost him his life, as a very enraged John Wilkes Boothe had been in the audience.
And yes, Lincoln had originally excluded states remaining in the Union from having their slaves freed, but it must be remembered, Lincoln would have lost border states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri had he emancipated slaves there. The truth was, ending slavery was a complicated issue as people were willing to kill and die for it's continuation, and so Lincoln had to do it in stages at the opportune times.
And yes, the Radical Republicans had been much more fired up publicly than Lincoln was, but Lincoln understood that he simply couldn't go charging in like a bull in a china shop, like the radicals had wanted. Ultimately, though, Lincoln accomplished emancipation taking his time, rather than just blowing the whole situation by angrily blundering in.