U.S. Governors Suspend Refugee Relocation in their States

I am not blaming Christians. I am only blaming conservative Christians.

There are good people who are Christians.

You know what you just did? you just called conservatives not "good people"

This unconfirmed story is lighting up Twitter. On several levels, I hope it's incorrect - because shouts are going up for Donald Trump and this hurts the progressive cause (and attitude toward refugees).

Eight Syrians caught on Mexican border. (as I said, not confirmed by a major source.)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/18/report-8-syrians-caught-at-texas-border-in-laredo/

The Obama administration’s ability to defeat Republican legislative proposals to cut off the resettling of additional Syrian refugees hinges on maintaining unity among Democrats, who might be politically tempted after the Paris attacks to side with the GOP’s restrictionist rhetoric.

So far, it’s not going very well.

Forty-seven House Democrats sided with 242 Republicans to pass the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act on Thursday. That’s a veto-proof majority among the 426 members who voted today. One can see why: It’s a clever piece of legislation. Though it doesn’t explicitly ban resettling additional Syrian refugees or institute Sen. Ted Cruz’s “Christians only” policy, it does make the task of resettling said refugees bureaucratically arduous. The legislation requires the FBI director, the secretary of Homeland Security, and the director of National Intelligence to certify that each Syrian (or Iraqi) refugee doesn’t present a security risk. And then the DHS inspector general has to go through all of the approvals, too. The effect would be to slow the acceptance of refugees to a crawl, putting in place the freeze Republicans wanted under the inconspicuous message of “just another layer of vetting.” That’s enough cover for anxious Democrats to support it—or rather, enough pressure that they can’t vote against it.

You could see this coming.
.
.
,
'he SAFE Act will now go to the Senate where, if called up, it may surpass 60 votes—Reid is denying that it will—though hitting a veto-proof 67 would be a tougher task. What seems certain, though, is that the White House’s pitch for everyone to just calm down about refugees and visitors from countries with terrorist organizations is not working. Senate Democrats may reject the House bill, but they’re already pivoting to alternatives because they recognize that they need to do something to alleviate fears. The legislation introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jeff Flake, would block European citizens “who spent time in Syria or Iraq in the past five years” from obtaining visa waivers.

Most likely there was nothing the White House could have done to stop this post-Paris freak out. But as refreshing as they may have been, President Obama’s first comments on the refugee situation perhaps shouldn’t have been to mock the no more refugees! position. He could have done that later on, after offering an explanation for how thorough the vetting process for refugees already is. He argues that knee-jerk reactions like barring all refugees fleeing a war zone don’t represent “who we are” as a nation. Apparently they do.

There is little doubt that the bill’s Republican sponsors exploited fear aroused by the Paris terror attacks to build support for it, seeing a handy opportunity to pursue a broader anti-immigrant agenda. It is a shame that the nearly 50 Democrats who voted for this measure couldn’t find it in themselves to resist.

But not for the first time, President Obama failed to read the mood of Congress and by extension many Americans, who after the Paris attacks are fearful of admitting anybody from the Middle East. Traveling in Asia with his closest advisors, the president was hampered in his effort to lobby Democrats besieged by calls from constituents terrified that the United States is next.

In a last-ditch effort to head off Democratic defections, the president dispatched Denis McDonough, his chief of staff, and Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, to the Hill on Thursday.

They and other administration officials have struggled mightily to assure Americans of the safety of the refugee resettlement program. The United States has accepted 1,200 Syrian refugees this year, and three quarters of them are women and children. Only 2 percent of those admitted have been military-aged males not traveling with families.

Anyways, the number of military aged men that have been going to Europe this year is much higher than 2%. I saw an estimate yesterday that it is over 40% (that would be alarming if true), which does not square with the pics we get, which tend to be of women and children mostly unless they are pics of big crowds of invaders.

Quote:

Anyways, the number of military aged men that have been going to Europe this year is much higher than 2%. I saw an estimate yesterday that it is over 40% (that would be alarming if true), which does not square with the pics we get, which tend to be of women and children mostly unless they are pics of big crowds of invaders.

Would you have said the same thing about the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany? (Many people at the time said very similar things,)

With anger rising toward the West for what locals call a betrayal—they compare their plight with Libya’s, when the rebellion against Col. Muammar Gaddafi received NATO and American support—Washington’s disapproval of al-Nusra is merely adding to the esteem of the jihadist group