Concerns Following The Attack On Paris
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:
Americans watched in horror last week as ISIS launched an attack on one of our closest allies. Families were at the national soccer stadium watching the exhibition match between France and Germany. College students were gathered in cafes. Young people were at a concert hall listening to a California band. An ordinary Friday night in Paris turned deadly when Islamic extremists invaded these spaces and took the lives of more than 100 innocent people.
Following the attack on Paris, Americans are left with legitimate concerns. One of those concerns is the President’s plan to accept Syrian refugees. While many of these refugees are seeking to escape terrorism, the sad events in Paris remind us that terrorists can take advantage of refugee programs to gain access to western nations.
Since 2011, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has referred 23,092 Syrians to the U.S. Refugee Program. Of those, the Department of Homeland Security interviewed 7,014, and approved just over 2,000 for admission to the United States. Under the federal Refugee Act of 1980, states do not have a legal role regarding refugees. Governors do not have the authority to ban refugees from their states, or to refuse to accept refugees. These decisions are made by the federal government.
Still, I share the concerns for our national security. That is why I am joining many other governors in calling on the federal government to re-examine our process for background checks of refugee applicants seeking asylum and to reconsider whether the United States should continue to accept refugees at current levels. Sen. Thune, Sen. Rounds and Rep. Noem have also called on the federal government to take these actions.
Ultimately it is very unlikely that any Syrian refugees will be resettled in South Dakota. Our state has not received a single Syrian refugee in the last three years, and has not received notice that it will receive any Syrian refugees. The federal government resettles refugees in places that already have populations of the same nationality or ethnicity, and there is no sizable Syrian population in South Dakota.
On the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty there is a plaque of a well-known poem by Emma Lazarus with a line that reads, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . .” Those inscribed words near the monument gifted to us by France remind us that the United States is a nation of immigrants that seeks to help those who seek asylum.
In order to continue this tradition of helping the tired and the poor from other nations we must first exercise prudence and be confident that adequate safeguards are in place to protect against terrorism. Our greatest priority as a nation, and my first priority as Governor, is to keep our people safe.
-30-
Our state has not received a single Syrian refugee in the last three years, and has –not received notice that it will receive any Syrian refugees.
The Refugee Act of 1980- requires consultation & approval by states receiving refugees–not just “notice”.
–On the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty there is a plaque of a well-known poem by Emma Lazarus with a line that reads, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . .”
The words were added years after the statue was erected, on a plaque, INSIDE the pedestal.
–Those inscribed words near the monument gifted to us by France remind us that the United States is a nation of immigrants that seeks to help those who seek asylum.
100% IRRELEVANT. A sovereign country, full of immigrants or not, is entitled to determine who to admit, if anyone. That debate regarding the wisdom of whom to admit is one that needs to occur NOW; even if Obama,–the most anti-American president ever–thinks he alone knows best.
Like Lady Liberty, STAND UP GOVERNOR! STAND UP FOR AMERICA!
Get a backbone!
This what I consider a “Stance”
Gov. Robert Bentley @GovernorBentley
I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way. We refuse Syrian refugees.
Sounds like not much of a stance Denny, you Rino
Thank you Governor for listening to the people of South Dakota, It means a lot!
Of the 2,000 Syrians who have been admitted since 2011, barely 50 have been Christians and the rest Muslims. So members of the oldest Christian congregations on earth, who truly are being persecuted and deserve refugee status, are left behind while Muslims — who aren’t being persecuted, but have the bad luck to be caught in a hellish civil war like many other peoples worldwide — are given the green light.
This much is certain: ISIS promises to bring mayhem to the U.S. I believe them. Also, consider that Muslim transplants in Europe have refused to assimilate, to disastrous effect. Why import trouble here?
I take no comfort that the governor believes that there’s little chance Syrian Muslims will be resettled in South Dakota. While that is likely true, that’s still bad for the rest of the nation where they’re taken. And there’s nothing to keep future Muslim refugees from starting in another state and moving.
What a royal mess.
1) Like it or not, Governor Daugaard reacts to everything with measure, thought and little emotion. Personally, I think this is a positive trait.
2) I agree we should admit no Syrian refugees who can’t be vetted.
3) I agree we are a nation that admits refugees with welcome arms.
4) And, most importantly, I think the emotion around admitting or not admitting Syrian refugees is a distraction from the big issue: The ISIS/Assad/Iranian/ chaos in the region which is creating refugees. In the last 7 years, we’ve had chaos in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. forcing people to flee their homes and homeland. The problem isn’t refugees (they are a symptom) but the chaos and killing by people who adhere to radical Islam which is anathema to American values and any values which value human dignity.
Thus, it is point #4 why I think Trump/Fiorina/Bush’s concurrent discussion of refugees is appropriately shifted to the cause of why there is a refugee crisis. Carson/Cruz/Christie’s focus on the symptom feeds a distraction which is not helpful.
#4: Only partially accurate.
Much of the “emotion” on Syrians refugees has to do with the frustration with a president who largely behaves in ways unrestrained by the US constitution or laws. The Refugee Act of 1980 requires the feds to consult and obtain permission of states to settle refugees within the state.
Combined with the president calling his opponents un-American–the emotion is understandable and justified.
Much of the present chaos in Libya, Syria, and Egypt is of the president’s own making. He wants to burden the rest of the US with his problems?
No thanks.
Why doesn’t he join Mike Rounds, John Thune and Kristi Noem?
How out of touch are his advisors?
Troy, what position are you brown-nosing for! Did you run your response past the defacto-governor, Tony Van Nepotism?
I know…let’s not get emotional that Sioux Falls has 5 mosques (one built by Avera…thanks, Matt)…which according to Team B II, Center for Security Policy, Lt General William Boykin and Lt General Edward Soyster, is FOUR TOO MANY FOR OUR population. I asked them what that meant. They said we probably have Muslim operatives in Sioux Falls.
So then let’s applaud the weak, “I-can’t-bring-myself-to-say-NO-Syrian-immigrants” reply from the governor, right? You like his milquetoast message of, “tisk tisk…we better just listen to the Feds when they make an unconstitutional request.”?
No, we don’t have to ask “how high” when the Feds say “jump!” We can show some strength and invoke our SD constitution and the US 10th amendment when we are burdened with onerous opinions from the Feds. Evidently Denny doesn’t want to bite the hand that feeds him. He gets MILLIONS of “free money” (that is what Pierre calls Federal funds) to play with in his Economic development for Cronies. How to get ahead in Daugaard’s “economic development schemes”? Just file an LLC or non-profit corporation and he will filter Federal grants to your corporation for you to “manage” so it won’t look like he is giving money to actual people. Since the intended recipients of the money have no idea they are entitled to it…no one will cause a stir when the allotted money goes to his favorite cronies, rather than what the grant writers said we needed it for.
I think its time to call the FBI with all the corruption in SD. Note how this all is part of the same corrupt picture. EB5 had elements of illegal immigration in it also….and, no, Im betting the FBI has not been called to help with the EB5 murder and the Platte murders…BOTH cases were a result from the Governor’s office of Economic Development
Well said Troy.
Trump / Fiorina / Bush are at least espousing the Powell Doctrine of “Don’t go to war unless you plan to win.” The Obama Doctrine seems to be that his pacifism justifies staying out of even the genocidal wars that Clinton intervened in, let alone fighting an enemy that is a clear and present danger to us like ISIS.
The Cruz / Carson / Christie Doctrine is pretty much “say whatever gets me on TV, cause my campaign’s going South”.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá’í Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism, Heathenism (German paganism), Semitic neopaganism, Wicca, Kemetism (Egyptian paganism), Hellenism, Italo-Roman neopaganism are all world religions we are well aware of. Only one mentioned above has repeatedly stated their objective in wiping out every other religion as a mandate. Why would any member of any other religion allow members of that religion to enter a home or country is beyond me. FYI not even the country’s of said religion allow these people into their oil rich countries; but we of lower standards are expected to allow them all unfettered access.
When the suicide bomber yells Allah akabar before blowing up your friends in a shopping mall this fall it will be way too late to say I told you so.
Charlie, you make some good points there. You may not find solace knowing that you agree completely with ultra-liberal Bill Maher on this point.
You know, we hear so frequently people wanting the US to lead. And the US always leads by its example – and money. We really don’t have that great a track record in leadership around the world. I won’t go into the gory details, but we all know we have supported murderers and thieves around the world.
A lot of people don’t know this, but back when the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan, as part of Charlie Wilson’s initiatives we printed millions of Korans (right in Lincoln, NE) that “modified” the meaning of Jihad and dropped them all over the place there. For a couple generations now, those people have been learning the wrong definition of Jihad. Of course we did that to help our buddy Osama Bin Laden rouse the people to fight our proxy war with the Soviets.
So today does our example match our message? I’m not so sure about that.
As far as I know, we still try to promote America around the world as an open society with opportunity for all.
So on one hand, people here can have the false sense of security that they will be safe, if we don’t let refugees in. But terrorist attacks will happen regardless of how many of these refugees we keep out. It’s a law of numbers now on what percentage of attempts will be successful. The terrorists are already here and our law enforcement people have done an incredible job so far of keeping attempts at a minimum. So far we’ve been lucky because the few who have leaked through the security net have been incompetent. But that won’t last forever. People will die while shopping in the mall one day no matter how much we don’t want that. It’s already too late, although I do respect your opinion expressed here.
It could be that this will never end, but I think the only answer is for the non-radical Muslims to rise up against the radicals and terrorists. But they don’t seem too interested in that position at this point, although they express disagreements with the radicals and terrorists.
At this point, actions would speak far louder than their words. Just like ours do. Our actions – not allowing any refugees speaks to the basic need to feel safe. But a lot of people would argue that the message it sends is that we won’t help ten thousand good people to keep out one bad one.
J Heisenberg it matters not what any Governor does on this issue as has been proven with the non-existing borders the EU have proven allowing unfettered travel anywhere once upon said countries soil.
The ineptitude begins and ends on the Federal level.
Islamic Terrorists dropped off in Kentucky can rent a van and be in South Dakota in 36 hours.
Governor, when bombs start going off in the U.S., we will count you among the traitors who failed to value American blood. You won’t be able to shrug your shoulders to this one.
Takes that long to come out and toss all the blame on Feds? Sometimes you have to have a set of nuts and take a stance on behalf of the safety of the American people.
You make a GREAT point! The safety of the American People!
Question. You have two problems concerning the safety of the American People. As best as we can tell, from 2001 – 2013, Problem 1 killed 406,496 Americans and Problem 2 killed 3,380 Americans.
Which problem deserves the most attention?
Are you referring to the 2nd Amendment? Please be clear when you are trying to attack my constitutional rights.
Heisenberg we cannot ever go back and undo wrongs; we can only go forward and justify actions of known positive outcomes.
Hiw did such a wuss get elected to govern a state full of hard working and courageous patriots?
Anonymous 6:47:
Emotion might be justified but I ALWAYS want people in power to act with thought and reason. Acting/Reacting with emotion is for the immature. What we need is a well-reasoned comprehensive solution.
Trump might be using passionate rhetoric but his point is grounded in reason vs. emotion. Carson: I’m not sure what he is saying. Cruz is just appealing to emotion. Christie is talking like this is a “super-law enforcement” issue.
In my mind there are three candidates addressing this like adults. Trump, Fiorina and Bush. And three like children: Carson, Cruz, Christie. The rest in between.
Mr. Jones, I reread the governor’s word salad statement this morning, and it reads worse than ever. His first responsibility as South Dakota’s chief executive is safeguarding the people’s liberty. Yet he insists he has no legal recourse to prevent Syrian resettlement here, and oh, by the way, he reassures everyone that it’s “unlikely.”
Huron — my home — and Sioux Falls are among the 180 cities that are designated for refugee resettlement. I believe ISIS when it warns that they’re coming to the U.S. I do not believe anything the Obama administration says on this subject. It would be good to know that our governor believes both these things, as well.
Bottom line; Unlike 30 other governors, Gov. Daugaard failed to make the moral case for not admitting Syrians at this time. That moral case is entirely reasonable and trumps legalities that the administration will ultimately ignore in order to advance a ruinous policy.
1. You (and Jeff) called it “emotion”. I did not. People tend to use the dismissive “emotion” for others when they wish to elevate their own “well thought out” reaction over all that “emotion”.
2. Acting or reacting with emotion is not “immature” as a rule. Often, reacting with emotions is 100% appropriate, logical (yes indeed), and potentially life saving. Emotions can drive appropriate action. For example, observing a distressed child in a burning house should lead to an emotional response that drives ACTION–like moving to rescuer the child. A “well-reasoned” solution (wait for the fire dept. to arrive; wait for the fire to subside and enter when cooled; not my child, not my responsibility) under such circumstances is wholly INAPPROPRIATE. Most folks would find the emotionless choices to be not only IMMATURE but INHUMAN.
In the present situation, most folks recognize that a well-reasoned solution (pause and thoroughly screen ALL potential refugees) to be the proper way to go. Unfortunately, we have a president who acts without regard to logic, laws, security, or considerations of ordinary, thoughtful Americans. Thus, there is also a need to be decisive and prompt in this situation. That’s not “emotional”–that’s a well thought out solution, based on a long experience with this president, that requires quick action.
Your efforts to separate the views of candidates into “adults” and “children” is little more than a vain effort to elevate your views above those so-called children, and to align your high-minded views with the thinking adults. When, in reality, your views on issues and candidates are often immature and sometimes adult. In the end, they’re simply your views. Yet, at no point in your post, have you told us of the views of those candidates on this issue (“passionate rhetoric”; “appealing to emotion” is begging the question; “I don’t know”: “super law enforcement”–they’re all 100% emotion) or why you may or may not agree with them. Since you’ve provided no substantive whys or why nots, you’ve done nothing more than what you accuse the candidates of doing: separating those candidate into two groups based on nothing but your emotional impressions of them. That’s not very adult or well though out, now is it?
Running for president has rarely been about much more than “emotions” and sloganeering. That’s the history. That’s what voters vote upon. That’s what candidates of all parties for at least a century and a half have catered to.
To expect something else at this point is immature indeed.
Don’t agree on Cruz. He is more of a statesman than all the rest. He also has more honor than the rest.
Obama made it about the emotional appeal to widows, children, elderly fleeing danger. Cruz, Christie, Carson bit and responded in kind. That is a loser politically in my mind long-term so long as they keep focused on taking refugees or not as it is incidental (or just a symptom) compared to the larger issue.
The American people know it is a frickin’ mess and want a response that solves the bigger problem (which is why there are refugees). I am not a fan of Trump but I can discern his larger solution via his rhetoric. Same with Bush and Fiorina.
That is my point.
–That is a loser politically in my mind long-term
While I fully understand your pojnt and your deisire to be more rational polically speaking , we have a president who was elected & re-elected based on little more than emotion and sloganeering. Before Obama, we had Clinton who “felt your pain” and pal;yed the sax. GW only survived because Gore and Kerry were so incompetent and stiff emoters.
Emotional appeal IS a winning political strategy. Political rationality has passed us by.
–The American people know it is a frickin’ mess and want a response that solves the bigger problem (which is why there are refugees).
Again I must quibble. Most Americans do see this as a mess, but they want it papered over and out of sight. They do not care about solutions (largely)–they just want it to go away in the least painful way as soon as possible. Cost? Well, that’s always someone else’s problem. It IS again, largely emotional–they don’t want to hear or see the misery and if Obama can make it go away without a solution or an acknowledgement that HE is the source of the problem, they’ll accept it.
–I am not a fan of Trump but I can discern his larger solution via his rhetoric. Same with Bush and Fiorina.
You & I can try to discern these candidates’ efforts to solve this problem and assess them accordingly, but in the long run, it just doesn’t matter to most voters. They want to see video clips of another person pulling on Trump’s hair while John Oliver or Colbert scrunch their faces.