Governor Baker Opposed to Helping Refugees (Boston, Wellesley: crime, racism, gas)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by MMS02760

Obama has mentioned taking 10,000 Syrian refugees within the next year. If that number were apportioned based on state populations, Massachusetts (a state with a population of over 6 million) would get 200 refugees.

Something tells me MA will be receiving more than it's share, that's generally how it goes.

Originally Posted by pennyone

What's strange is that the US actually does not import much oil from the Saudis...

Most Americans think the US gets its oil from Saudi Arabia

We are stuck protecting them for what? Many Saudis secretly fund various sunni extremist movements, like ISIL etc

It's mostly all controlled by US oil companies and other western interests.

Originally Posted by timberline742

Which came over as a child. They are, home grown, like most all terrorists.

So you mean to tell me a home grown Syrian born (or descended) refugee is no more prone to terrorism than in immigrant from Ireland (or Mexico or China)? I'm not advocating for denying refugee status to one on zero grounds, but come on people...

Originally Posted by MMS02760

It is sad when Massachusetts is in the same company of backward states like AL, MS, AR, OK, LA, and KS. I expect better here.

MA has joined the majority of states by speaking up against an administration that at least appears to be working against the states' interests. The only states missing from that list are "models" such as RI, NY and CA. Would you like to join them?

[Nadal]

If ISIS is contained, why are there refugees to begin with?

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

Why is it our responsibility to take in any refugees at all?

Seriously? The same reason it's your "responsibility" to check and see if everyone's OK when you happen to be the first person to arrive at a terrible car accident. Because it's the decent thing to do when someone else is in need. I mean, sure, you're not obligated by any laws to do anything at all in either situation, but there has to be something inside of you telling you that it's the right thing to do. Are people really so paranoid about the "threat" (quoted because it's not at all a big threat to Americans) of terrorism or the "impact" (quoted because there isn't much of one at all) that 200 people scattered around the Bay State will have on taxpayers that they're more than OK with turning away people displaced by war and horrors beyond which we have ever experienced? Kind of sickening if that's really the attitude.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by massnative71

So you mean to tell me a home grown Syrian born (or descended) refugee is no more prone to terrorism than in immigrant from Ireland (or Mexico or China)? I'm not advocating denying refugee status to one on zero grounds, but come on people...

It hasn't been all that long since terrorism was a serious issue in Ireland. Although the motivation is different (drugs), Mexico experiences its share of violent terrorism as well.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by lrfox

It hasn't been all that long since terrorism was a serious issue in Ireland. Although the motivation is different (drugs), Mexico experiences its share of violent terrorism as well.

That was part of my point.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Nadal

If ISIS is contained, why are there refugees to begin with?

You're joking, right? It's a multi-pronged Civil War largely between those loyal to Bashar al-Assad and those seeking to overthrow him. ISIS adds complexity to the situation, but it could be argued that they're an opportunistic group taking advantage of the existing turmoil between rebels and the existing government.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by massnative71

So you mean to tell me a home grown Syrian born (or descended) refugee is no more prone to terrorism than in immigrant from Ireland (or Mexico or China)? I'm not advocating for denying refugee status to one on zero grounds, but come on people...

More prone to violence? Absolutely not.

With the Irish person they just won't call it terrorism. That's part of the conservative narrative perpetuated by the corporate owned media.

Just because someone has brown skin doesn't make them more prone to aggression. Most everyone understands that. But this being a right wing forum we see the outliers that really believe it still.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Seriously? The same reason it's your "responsibility" to check and see if everyone's OK when you happen to be the first person to arrive at a terrible car accident. Because it's the decent thing to do when someone else is in need. I mean, sure, you're not obligated by any laws to do anything at all in either situation, but there has to be something inside of you telling you that it's the right thing to do. Are people really so paranoid about the "threat" (quoted because it's not at all a big threat to Americans) of terrorism or the "impact" (quoted because there isn't much of one at all) that 200 people scattered around the Bay State will have on taxpayers that they're more than OK with turning away people displaced by war and horrors beyond which we have ever experienced? Kind of sickening if that's really the attitude.

Something tells me that many of these people wouldn't bother and say it isn't their business... and ***** about the delay in commute it causes.

Never mind that we're the richest country in the world.

[Nadal]

Originally Posted by lrfox

You're joking, right? It's a multi-pronged Civil War largely between those loyal to Bashar al-Assad and those seeking to overthrow him. ISIS adds complexity to the situation, but it could be argued that they're an opportunistic group taking advantage of the existing turmoil between rebels and the existing government.

No, but perhaps the POTUS is, as he stated ISIS was contained, on Nov 13, 2015.

CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey have both made recent comments with regard to vetting these refugees.

If you want to go with what the deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, Rhodes, has to say, be my guest.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

With the Irish person they just won't call it terrorism. That's part of the conservative narrative perpetuated by the corporate owned media.

Can you provide an example of this, whatever it is you're talking about?

Originally Posted by timberline742

Just because someone has brown skin doesn't make them more prone to aggression. Most everyone understands that. But this being a right wing forum we see the outliers that really believe it still.

Right wing forum, LMAO!!! In all seriousness, I'd say it's a fairly centrist forum if anything. Most of what goes on here isn't even right or left, it's arguing over whether Weston or Wellesley has better schools, etc.

But the fact is, that immigrants from Ireland do not have a history of mass random deadly attacks against innocent civilians on US soil. Ever. Start paying attention to the key words here.