Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
FR
There is no constitutional grounds. It does not specify that we have to take in anyone at all.
The spirit of the Constitution at the time of its writing though was that pretty much everyone was welcome, though a couple of people involved wanted to exclude Jews. That of course would never fly. But back then we had community law enforcement which included lynch mobs, and NOT the KKK, everyone had guns and quite frankly there was enough room that people were not constantly stepping on each others' toes all the time.
Things have changed. What has not changed is that the Constitution says little about immigration policy. It outlines a few things but gives no numbers, and for good reason. If we had a billion people in this country, would you let just anyone in ? Does any other country just let anyone in ?
Also realize that the US is one of the few countries that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born here. That means anchor babies, and as far as Muslims go, some of those anchor babies have become radicalized and attempted or committed acts of terror.
Of course the number is statistically insignificant, but then when you start your bullshit about gun control apply the same logic. If you want to play the numbers game, hospitals are more dangerous than texting while driving, drunk driving and a Vietnam every year. And this is medical mistakes folks, not just people they could not cure. Check the AMA figures if you don't believe me.
So that is not the point. The point is these people do not want to assimilate. And they are not being placed in bumfuct Kansas somewhere. They are being placed in population centers where a single bomb can kill many more. And places where rents are two grand a month for a shoebox.
Do we owe the a better life than they would otherwise had ? Perhaps. Maybe the OP is ignorant to this as well as many but the fact is that the US started the shit in Syria. Like in Iran i 1952 they found a small group of dissidents who were protesting, and NOT being abused AT THE TIME and funded the living shit out of them until they made a problem for the lawful government of that country. Why ? They needed a US friendly government there. They tried to do what they did in Ukraine but it didn't work this time, resulting in a bloody civil war financed by friend and foe alike.
And the misinformed talk about Russia destabilising Ukraine. Anyone who can do any logical analysis will scoff at that. Ukraine had a Russia friendly government until the US intervened ad now they have a US friendly government imposed upon them. Why would Russia fuck with them ? Why would Russia fuck with them after offering them a sweet deal that made the European offer to be a red headed stepchild look like dogshit ? You cannot answer that logically without the preise that the media and government lied. Oh dear, they lie ?
These Syrian refugees hate us. They have every reason to, the majority of them were happy enough with Assad. (and Assad DID NOT use the gas, per Porton Down, an expert in the matter, THAT is why Obama backed down though his detractors would have you think otherwise) We financed the destruction of their country and lifestyle, truthfully I don't see any reason for them wanting to come here except to get some revenge.
i don't really know what goes through a liberal mind, but I suspect NOTHING. When they locked up all the Japanese here during WWW2, you think it was just because they attacked Pearl Harbor ? No, the US goaded Japan into attacking with their embargos atc., actually really crippling that tiny island nation. Jews are ot the only ones who never forget. They had contact with their relatives back home and knew that a bowl of rice was ten bucks or whatever, because of US interference.
Would you take German and Japanese immigrants during WW2 ? Even the Jews, the US had plenty of land back then. They could have left Germany and the Nazi occupied territories, but nobody would take them, and that includes the US. That means the US was complicit at least in the holocaust.
Would you take in Iraqi refugees when the US was bombing their schools and hospitals ? Would you take in people whose entire families were killed by US weapons ? You know, the US really did Iraq a favor, they were temporarily at peace with one another because the US provided a common enemy. As Diane Feinstein worked diligently to take away our guns, Saddam passed them out to almost all Iraqis. Our welcoming as liberators was delivered in lead. And to this day it still isn't straightened out. I hope Gertrude Bell is on fire right now, because Iraq should be three countries. Some bitch draws lines on a map. You fucking people don't even know about Czeckoslovakia.
I admit my understanding of world history is not complete, but I have a valid point of view. I know what revenge is. It is a dish best served cold. Many many of these people do not want to assimilate, though refugee status is not necessarily a path to citizenship, they do not want to have a safe haven for now while we continue to wreck their country. They want to kill us.
They want to bring the war to US soil, because quite frankly we start the shit ad never see the consequences of what this government does. Obama's drones, OK. why do you want to come to the US ? Well a US drone killed my family, my Parents, Grandparents and my children and three of my cousins.
Bottom line, the President makes a rule to protect US citizens and this bitch will not enforce it. she needs to be fired immediately and it seems that is exactly what happened. good riddance. Just like the cunt that would not sign the marriage licenses for Gay couples, if you won't do your job, clean out your desk.
T^T
|
Sally Yates is a Hero - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread