[CTDex]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

I don't get the line of thinking, "so you're for clothing the homeless... are you going to give each a shirt." Regardless if I owned where I live I probably would for a bit, but I'm fairly sure that's not how it works.

As for the idea that sine of the attackers snuck theough as refugees, that's inconclusive at best and many were French and Belgian nationals which has a much higher level of proof. Syrian passportsare easy to forge and have become a favourite with gun runners from Spain to the Stans. Current anti terror procedures are notoriously bad at human intel, and biases from politicos actually inhibits collection (hang faith in police is critical for human intel to be gathered, and dragnet surveillance had been a total failure). That said though if a natural disaster happened in say Ireland would you be cautious taking in refugees because some might belong to the PIRA, or Wyoming because of the real and present dangers of white national movements and militias? I highly doubt it'd cross your mind.

What an asinine post! The increase of terrorism is the U.S. and Europe is because of the Muslim populations that exist in those countries and continue to grow. The "refugees" would turn into U.S. nationals eventually and then we would be subjected to their terror years down the road.

Wyoming a "threat" because of militias?


The U.S. is not perfect and we have plenty of criminals here. That's why it's absurd to bring more.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

I have a seatbelt to protect me from bad drivers in the case of an accident. What safeguards do I have against a bunch of terrorist storming a music theater? At the gate my [weapon] is not allowed in so my safeguard is gone.

I have Muslims friends and I have spoke with them about what is going on. I have their respect because they are good people. Not all Muslims are terrisits [and to bring it back to you're argument] not all drivers from NJ are bad drivers. The fact is that our intelligence says terrorist will get in using refugees route is a reason to stop it until we get a better handle on it.

See I respect your point, while I disagree. Should there be safegaurds? Yes certainly. safeguards with a light touch is important for anyone in the population that shows signs of such anti social tendencies. But we have to keep human intel open.

That said IS WANTS a population to exploit, giving them that would be a grave mistake. More lost boys that are searching for a war against whatever they feel is holding them back. tge number one thing we can do and promote is show through action we help those in need, even if it means a slightly higher risk to ourselves. That's true national strength. Like when I brought up Ireland... we cannot assume the worst of people just because we have been conditionedeeded to believe are more alien than they actually are.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by CTDex

What an asinine post! The increase of terrorism is the U.S. and Europe is because of the Muslim populations that exist in those countries and continue to grow. The "refugees" would turn into U.S. nationals eventually and then we would be subjected to their terror years down the road.

Wyoming a "threat" because of militias?


The U.S. is not perfect and we have plenty of criminals here. That's why it's absurd to bring more.

Ew your post is so disgusting that I need a shower reading it. Yes domestic and white nationalist terrorists have killed more people than any other group since 9/11. The terrorism threat is purely political at the higher levels. Not only that but should we close our borders to Europeans, who not to long ago killed over 40 million people in a quest for world domination? No? That's because politocal violence is that political and contextual.

[RunD1987]

I be okay with it, but this state is in an economic crisis. They will probably be taken care of worse being here. Our state does have the finances to take care of these individuals.

[JayCT]

I am closing this thread for review. JayCT, Moderator

[BPt111]

Governor Malloy said that Connecticut will continue to accept more than 1,600 refugees from Syria. Arizona, Texas, Michigan and Alabama and President Obama’s home state of Illinois is suspending the refugee resettlement.

The International Institute Of Connecticut (IICONN) located at 670 Clinton Avenue in Bridgeport has been listed as a group accepting the refugess according to the US Refugee Public Affiliate Directory Catholic Charities of Hartford and the International Refugee and Immigrant Services in New Haven will be slated to process the refugees according to the list for Connecticut.

According to IICONN’s September newsletter: “The U.S. remains the single-largest donor of humanitarian aid for those affected by the Syria crisis, having put over $4 billion toward humanitarian assistance since the start of the conflict in March 2011. The U.S. has not, however, admitted many refugees since the war began. Mark Toner (deputy spokesman for the State Department) said in an interview on PRI’s The World, that 1,500 to 1,800 Syrian refugees will have been admitted to the U.S. by the end of October. Last week, U.S. aid groups and at least 14 senators called on the U.S. government to take in at least 75,000 Syrian refugees in 2016.”



US Refugee Public Affiliate Directory
[
Malloy: Connecticut has “obligation” to accept Syrian refugees | WTNH Connecticut News

[htfdcolt]

Makes no sense. This isn't a red state/blue state issue, it's about common sense and national security at this point.

[RunD1987]

My biggest concern how is this going to effect these already overused service's. I mean most of these service's were renewed with 5 year grant's. In addition, CT is pushing to end homeless in the state I mean at the start of this year was at 4 000 down from 6 000 the year prior. Additionally, 1 000 thst are homeless are mostly veteran's. With cuts to social services, mental health, disability, and Veteran service's we rely heavily on these private social service's.

Relying on these private services going to greatly neglect those who currently need it by knocking them out of housing service's and health care service's...that is the big question. Be interesting with all these cuts can CT goverment keep its goal of Zero 2016 in the fight against homelessness.

Additionally, much health care services were cut in the state. How are we going to provide healthcare to these refugees coming in?

Also we cut about a million not sure how much in total from local agencies, but a million from Emergency Public Protection in CT. Though we are heavily scrutinizing those coming in. Our police are running sparse so how can we monitor safely to keep CT safe.

I am for helping other's, but CT can't even help it's residents at this point and time.

[HumpDay]

I heard over 90% of CT residents disapproved this move. Thats insane. I'm personally not for it but I understand Malloy's empathy. Yet at the same time it's dangerous bringing in refugees from Syria because even if they go through a background check it doesn't always mean their innocent civilians. Are there any other states that are accepting them besides CT? The only one I heard besides CT was Maine. I'm only hearing states that ARENT accepting them...MA being one of them.

[BobNJ1960]

For governors welcoming them, how many has each pledged to have live with their families?