Kasich says Ohio won’t take refugees, mayor says city will if asked ]

[Saint Milei]

http://www.whio.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/kasich-says-ohio-wont-take-syrian-refugees/npN9P/?ecmp=whiotv_social_facebook_2014_sfp

But But Kasich is different!

[Kingpoleon]

... No, let's let in refugees three days after one of them is involved in killing over a hundred refugees. If the government thoroughly vets them, maybe Kasich will change his mind. It's idiotic to just say "Yeah, I'm not checking your vetting process. Let's agree to let them in no matter what."

Can you imagine what would happen if he let them in with "as much warning as Bush" and several of them were involved in an attack on Columbus or Cleveland?

[EliteLX]

... No, let's let in refugees three days after one of them is involved in killing over a hundred refugees. If the government thoroughly vets them, maybe Kasich will change his mind. It's idiotic to just say "Yeah, I'm not checking your vetting process. Let's agree to let them in no matter what."

Can you imagine what would happen if he let them in with "as much warning as Bush" and several of them were involved in an attack on Columbus or Cleveland?

^

Can we stop acting like thousands of partially unknown Syrians, who's homecountry is in a civil war and is known for violent fundamentalism, immigrating by the thousands to the US homeland isn't a national security threat because Rachel Maddow told you it isn't? I am NOT claiming many Syrian refugees are fleeing corruption and violence, but we are also opening ourselves to huge security gaps. If the state doesn't want to accept the thousands of people, too damn bad.

Paris in itself was nothing but a wake-up call.

[Pyro]

There is no chance that any of the GOP candidates are going to have positive things to say about Syrian refugees for a while. Even if they actually do want to admit some, it just ain't happening after Paris.

[publicunofficial]

Future generations will look at these governors the same way we look at 1930's America for refusing to take in Jews fleeing Europe.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

If the state doesn't want to accept the thousands of people, too damn bad.

Yes, it is too damn bad for the states. Not only is it unconstitutional for them to simply refuse, but also missing out on 1.) saving people, and 2.) saving people who can contribute to America's society and economy, the same way immigrants and refugees have for decades.

[Angel of Death]

Since when do individual states have a say in refugee policy?

[Blair]

Guys, the problems isn't refugees. To be a socialist the problem are inner city areas in Europe that act as breeding grounds for extremism. Tackle the fact that french/british/US citizens are happy to take up arms and kill.

Heck the concerning thing is that people are too stupid to realize that not every Syrian is Islamic (not that there's anything bad with taking in Islamic refugees)

[Lief 🗽]

Too bad for him. Governors have no control over that. Suck it, you low energy racist son of a bitch.

[EliteLX]

If the state doesn't want to accept the thousands of people, too damn bad.

Yes, it is too damn bad for the states. Not only is it unconstitutional for them to simply refuse, but also missing out on 1.) saving people, and 2.) saving people who can contribute to America's society and economy, the same way immigrants and refugees have for decades.

Did you completely disregard my entire point?

And when is this "they can contribute to the economy point" going to end. Let's drop the borders in their entirety how about it? Because the entire global population can apparently "make 'murica boom!"

Too bad for him. Governors have no control over that. Suck it, you low energy racist son of a bitch.

Oh, I'm sure our buddy John is the ol' Jim Crow. Curse the man for avoiding the massive security hole with free borders flowing in thousands of mostly undocumented refugees, two of whom just commited one of the deadliest terrorist attacks since September of '01, you halfwit. Is "low energy racist" about the only thing left in that comeback box of yours, and can anything come out of your mouth without hiding behind accusations of prejudice & muh' feelings?

[Fusionmunster]

Since when do individual states have a say in refugee policy?

They don't, this is just pandering. Once a refugee has been accepted, there's nothing a governor can really do to prevent them from living in their state.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

... No, let's let in refugees three days after one of them is involved in killing over a hundred refugees. If the government thoroughly vets them, maybe Kasich will change his mind. It's idiotic to just say "Yeah, I'm not checking your vetting process. Let's agree to let them in no matter what."

Can you imagine what would happen if he let them in with "as much warning as Bush" and several of them were involved in an attack on Columbus or Cleveland?

Innumerate idiots who don't understand how probability works, but easily fall prey to senseless fear-mongering, would get even more upset than they are already?

[Lief 🗽]

If the state doesn't want to accept the thousands of people, too damn bad.

Yes, it is too damn bad for the states. Not only is it unconstitutional for them to simply refuse, but also missing out on 1.) saving people, and 2.) saving people who can contribute to America's society and economy, the same way immigrants and refugees have for decades.

Did you completely disregard my entire point?

And when is this "they can contribute to the economy point" going to end. Let's drop the borders in their entirety how about it? Because the entire global population can apparently "make 'murica boom!"

Too bad for him. Governors have no control over that. Suck it, you low energy racist son of a bitch.

Oh, I'm sure our buddy John is the ol' Jim Crow. Curse the man for avoiding the massive security hole with free borders flowing in thousands of mostly undocumented refugees, two of whom just commited one of the deadliest terrorist attacks since September of '01, you halfwit. Is "low energy racist" about the only thing left in that comeback box of yours, and can anything come out of your mouth without hiding behind accusations of prejudice & muh' feelings?

whoa sorry guy, next time I'll put a TRIGGER WARNING before I call someone a racist lol

[EliteLX]

If the state doesn't want to accept the thousands of people, too damn bad.

Yes, it is too damn bad for the states. Not only is it unconstitutional for them to simply refuse, but also missing out on 1.) saving people, and 2.) saving people who can contribute to America's society and economy, the same way immigrants and refugees have for decades.

Did you completely disregard my entire point?

And when is this "they can contribute to the economy point" going to end. Let's drop the borders in their entirety how about it? Because the entire global population can apparently "make 'murica boom!"

Too bad for him. Governors have no control over that. Suck it, you low energy racist son of a bitch.

Oh, I'm sure our buddy John is the ol' Jim Crow. Curse the man for avoiding the massive security hole with free borders flowing in thousands of mostly undocumented refugees, two of whom just commited one of the deadliest terrorist attacks since September of '01, you halfwit. Is "low energy racist" about the only thing left in that comeback box of yours, and can anything come out of your mouth without hiding behind accusations of prejudice & muh' feelings?

whoa sorry guy, next time I'll put a TRIGGER WARNING before I call someone a racist lol

Get a trigger warning saved in that clipboard of yours then old friend, you'll be wearing out that Command V in no time.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

If the state doesn't want to accept the thousands of people, too damn bad.

Yes, it is too damn bad for the states. Not only is it unconstitutional for them to simply refuse, but also missing out on 1.) saving people, and 2.) saving people who can contribute to America's society and economy, the same way immigrants and refugees have for decades.

Did you completely disregard my entire point?

And when is this "they can contribute to the economy point" going to end. Let's drop the borders in their entirety how about it? Because the entire global population can apparently "make 'murica boom!"

What point? That you easily fall prey to the politics of fear?

The economy point will end when immigrants stop contributing, which won't be any time soon. Syrian Americans are an accomplished and established group in this country, and having a pre-existing base helps immigrants integrate more easily. We've already accepted thousands of refugees from Iraq over the past two decades and Syria; there hasn't been any trouble despite the knee-jerk paranoia over Muslims and Arabs. We already vet them, so they're not really "unknown".

But nice strawman about "open borders", which is what literally no one supports. 10,000 more refugees on top of the tens of thousands we already accept is not going to be the end of the world.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

This is coming from the view of an Arab and a Muslim. We can't take in the refugees because there are well documented ISIS/DA'ESH sympathizers among them and if we don't have a stringent requirements for them we can't let them in. It's not racist to refuse to let them in its not like we don't want them it's just we don't know who truly is a refugee and who isn't.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The blue avatars on here realize that the terrorists in the Paris Attacks were French nationals, right?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Good Job

[Cassius]

The blue avatars on here realize that the terrorists in the Paris Attacks were French nationals, right?

At least one of those men was, in fact, a Syrian 'refugee'.

In any case, the fact that the majority of these terrorists were home-grown serves as a perfect example of the dangers of failing to properly integrate and assimilate certain elements of minority groups into the broader national culture, as it were.

[EliteLX]

If the state doesn't want to accept the thousands of people, too damn bad.

Yes, it is too damn bad for the states. Not only is it unconstitutional for them to simply refuse, but also missing out on 1.) saving people, and 2.) saving people who can contribute to America's society and economy, the same way immigrants and refugees have for decades.

Did you completely disregard my entire point?

And when is this "they can contribute to the economy point" going to end. Let's drop the borders in their entirety how about it? Because the entire global population can apparently "make 'murica boom!"

What point? That you easily fall prey to the politics of fear?

The economy point will end when immigrants stop contributing, which won't be any time soon. Syrian Americans are an accomplished and established group in this country, and having a pre-existing base helps immigrants integrate more easily. We've already accepted thousands of refugees from Iraq over the past two decades and Syria; there hasn't been any trouble despite the knee-jerk paranoia over Muslims and Arabs. We already vet them, so they're not really "unknown".

But nice strawman about "open borders", which is what literally no one supports. 10,000 more refugees on top of the tens of thousands we already accept is not going to be the end of the world.

I'm not pulling a 9/11 scare everyone invade iraq. This is literally common sense and a completely different scenario.

These refugees are in the midst of an extremely violent and dangerous crisis and there are fundamentalist sympathizers among the thousands of them. We truly do not have well documented sources to find out who is a refugee and who isn't, causing it to be a massive security threat, and even I'm not a major foreign interventionist or gauged hard right on foreign policy by any means. I used a strawman to contrast that letting tens of thousands of undocumented people from a hell hole containing sympathizers looking to exploit an open system is just like an open border and a poor idea.

I'm fine for temporarily housing refugees and family in a crisis, but only in an ordered manner. There needs to be extremely precautionary checks and research on every single one of them. Our feelings being hurt is not a reason to irresponsibly migrate people en masse to the United States. If it's going to be done, it needs to be done responsibly and with national security as the most extreme concern. We need to quit using "ur fear mongering!!1" and our feelings as a source of irresponsible decisions as well as murky & weak foreign policy.

From 2001 to today, the pendeleum has swung from both sides. We need a fine middle ground of not playing Collapse Governments for Democracy Tycoon but not running a foreign policy inspired of a fifteen year old girl's Tumblr posts.

[Xing]

Wonderful. Still lots of people who think that Middle Eastern/Muslim = terrorist. It's seriously messed up to blame all Syrian refugees for something that a minority group did.

[CapoteMonster]

The blue avatars on here realize that the terrorists in the Paris Attacks were French nationals, right?

At least one of those men was, in fact, a Syrian 'refugee'.

In any case, the fact that the majority of these terrorists were home-grown serves as a perfect example of the dangers of failing to properly integrate and assimilate certain elements of minority groups into the broader national culture, as it were.

That's not even true. French officials think that the card is fake and other intelligence agencies find it to be highly questionable.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'm fine for temporarily housing refugees and family in a crisis, but only in an ordered manner. There needs to be extremely precautionary checks and research on every single one of them. Our feelings being hurt is not a reason to irresponsibly migrate people en masse to the United States. If it's going to be done, it needs to be done responsibly and with national security as the most extreme concern. We need to quit using "ur fear mongering!!1" and our feelings as a source of irresponsible decisions as well as murky & weak foreign policy.

This is what we already do. We have a 12 - 24 month screening process. This is how it has been for years. The ony change that happened was we increased the total number of refugees we would take by 10,000.


You really don't know what you're talking about. You are suggesting a "solution" that already exists. You're just reacting, like these Governors.

[Asian Nazi]

Kasich isn't, never has been, and never will be a "moderate" by any stretch of the imagination.  Then again neither are 90% of the sh**tty moderate hero blue avatars on this forum.   

[Likely Voter]

Yes one of the Paris attackers had a fake Syrian passport, but it is quite possible that person was yet another European national traveling back from Syria. Someone like that could never get a US refugee visa. Also the refugee process takes a year of vetting. If ISIS wanted to infiltrate the US it would it would be much faster, cheaper and easier to inspire/radicalize US citizens/residents and/or bring in European citizens/residents who have been trained in Syria/Iraq (who could get into the country on student or tourist visas).

But of course the right position for any GOPer running for president now will have to be to tap into the fear and be as bellicose and jingoistic as possible. That means calls for being the most anti-refugee as possible like how Chris Christie today said he would turn away a 3-year old orphan.