List of states refusing Syrian Refugees now up to seven… nine… Now fifteen.

@SoDakCampaigns

From Reuters:

Five U.S. governors on Monday said they would not allow Syrian refugees to be settled in their states, joining Alabama and Michigan and contending it is too dangerous to let in people from that war-torn country following Friday’s deadly Paris attacks.

Republican Governors Greg Abbott of Texas, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mike Pence of Indiana, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Phil Bryant of Mississippi said their states would no longer help support the Obama administration’s goal of accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees in the coming years.

Read it all here.

Now Nine: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/16/alabama-refuses-syrian-refugees-paris-terror-attack/75857924/

And now 15 –

The resistance at the state level is coalescing at a rapid clip. So far, governors in at least 15 states have moved to suspend or restrict the refugee resettlement, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin.

Read it here.

and add Terry Brandstad for Iowa to make 16.

56 thoughts on “List of states refusing Syrian Refugees now up to seven… nine… Now fifteen.”

  1. Now at 13

    States saying no
    Texas
    Michigan
    Louisiana
    Indiana
    Arkansas
    Alabama
    Massachusetts
    Ohio
    Arizona
    Mississippi
    Iowa
    Illinois
    N Carolina

  4. We should email Gov. Daugaard and encourage him to join the above states in refusing to accept these refugees in the interest of national security. I heard that Huron and Sioux Falls were on the list to get some of these refugees.

    1. There are way more important things to email Daugaard about. Why don’t we start with all the corruption in the South Dakota government. The government corruption impacts every single person in South Dakota. Every day.

      To open our hearts to Muslim people fleeing torture and death obviously disagrees with the Republican character. But I would hope that at least some Republicans would be against government corruption.

      So my email to the governor tomorrow is going to ask him to reach deep inside and do the right thing about government corruption in South Dakota. I invite all of you to join me. Thanks for the email idea, springer.

      1. Somehow I think that there are just a few more dangerous things in the world right now than your supposed corruption in our state government, and I think most people would agree. But you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine.

        1. springer, you are right about all the danger in the world. There is much out there. But I can’t imagine anything more dangerous to our way of life than to have an out-of-control corrupt government like South Dakota’s.

          I know you don’t particularly like looking at actual evidence, but I’m going to invite you to inform yourself with the following facts:

          1. How many people from the Middle East who were displaced by war have been taken in to the US in the last fifteen years?

          2. How many terrorist attacks have taken place as a result of that?

          I think that if you are competent enough to find this information and intellectually capable of digesting it, you will come to a stunning conclusion.

          South Dakota’s corrupt government is far more dangerous to our way of life – including yours. But unfortunately it is acceptable to you because it is Republicans who are pushing their corrupt ways on everyone. In essence, Republican corruption fits nicely in your comfort zone.

            1. OUCH! That cut deep.

              Nailed hard once again by a very, very clever Republican who thinks a corrupt Republican government is A – OK!

                1. They weren’t. But they weren’t killed by refugees, either. News reports say they were all home-grown terrorists from France or Belgium.

                  Very telling that you could make a joke of the slaughter of a bunch of innocents. Very. Republican.

      2. You go ahead and email the governor about whatever corruption you think is in the state government. I will email him about doing something that might help prevent someone from ending corruption in state government permanently. I believe you have to prioritize your concerns. I am more concerned about people posing as refugees looking to cause havoc in our state. ISIS has made it clear they want to infiltrate our country with fake refugees. Our government cannot guarantee the vetting process. We can open our hearts to people fleeing groups like ISIS, but that does not mean we have to have them live here. The best thing to do is to join France and the rest of the world to make the place they live in safe. I sometime wonder about the naivety of some of our liberal friends.

      3. 1. To open our hearts to Muslim people fleeing torture and death obviously disagrees with the Republican character.

        To choose 1 refugee to enter the US necessarily condemns 12 others who could have been housed, fed, and protected for the same cost (according to the UN) in place, is immoral. Morality disagrees with the Democrat character.

        2. But I would hope that at least some Republicans would be against government corruption

        Refugee resettlement in the US is largely contracted out to private groups, thereby continuing and expanding the corruption and lack of accountability you rant against Pat.

      4. Republican are the cause of said corruption. Why would they want to make any changes, other than MORE corruption?

    2. Why all the hate? These Syrian refugees would be a blessing to the state of South Dakota. They are struggling to exist in a world that we created. Our government destabilized their region with the blunderus Iraq War. Now it is time for us to care for our brothers and sisters.

  6. Now it’s up to 20! And before anyone says that the 1980 Refugee Act prevents states from doing this, there are also federal laws against sanctuary cities, against illegal immigration, etc. but the federal govt refuses to enforce these. So how can they deny states the right to refuse potentially dangerous immigrants?

  9. Good to hear that our Governor and presumably our AG know how to read the Constitution. States have no control over who can cross their borders. Any refugee allowed into the US can live anywhere they want to, just as any South Dakotan can move to any other state. (That’s why Montana’s been overrun by all those pesky Californians.;-)

    Now Ms. Noem, Mr. Thune and Mr. Rounds actually do have some say in the matter, and we should expect them to take a good hard look at the vetting process. But just to be clear, that’s their job, not the Gov’s.

    1. It is nice that you like people who read and follow the Constitution. If only we had a President that can do that. Since when does he get to have the sole say in how many refugees we let in?

    2. — States have no control over who can cross their borders.

      What an idiotic statement to make.

      Yes, states do have a lot of control–it’s called the Congress:

      Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

      I gues soem folsk splet through civics class.

      1. Yes the sates collectively can change federal law, but the Governors individually can’t decide who can cross their borders. Had you read my whole comment, you would have seen that was my whole point. Unfortunately, you appear to have flunked both civics and reading comprehension. One more good reason to remain an anonymous meat puppet on the internet. Do you really think anyone here is interested in the garbage you spew, Per Curiam? You make Sibby look like a genius.

        1. Per Curiam: Can’t read, can’t write, can’t think straight, can’t be nice to people… can’t even tell anyone his/her name. Sad.

          1. Per Crapium = Julie Gross (NE) = Andrew Shear

            Apparently Per/Julie/Andrew was released recently from the institution and is back after a wonderful absence here.

        2. –States have no control over who can cross their borders.
          –but the Governors individually can’t decide who can cross their borders.

          Which governor claimed that he could control who crosses the state’s borders?

          Idiocy is idiocy.

            2. Strike two:

              1. NOT ONE governor claimed that he/she could stop people from “crossing their borders” as you stated. NOT ONE.

              2. Not participating in the federal resettlement program, or not assisting the feds, or not cooperating with the feds is not equivalent to your statement that the governors “won’t allow refugees in their state”. NONE OF THEM SAID anything of the sort.

              You’ve twice lied about what the governors are saying.

              And nice touch with the name-calling; its so becoming.

            3. Bill:

              Please read the Refugee Act of 1980.

              “With respect to the location of placement of refugees within a State, the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) shall, consistent with such policies and strategies and to the maximum extent possible, take into account recommendations of the State.”

              http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/the-refugee-act

              It requires (as in “shall”) the federal government to consult with the states and gain their approval as to location of the resettlements.

              The law is already in place that gives governors approval of refugee resettlements in their states.

              Before posting again, please study the law and what the governors are saying.

              Otherwise, your name-calling comes across as the rantings of sullen child caught lying.

  10. The Governor’s lack of a timely stance on this issue and several others, creates a notion of lack of leadership to South Dakotans. His absence continues to be disappointing. Yes Denny we all know you work hard, but pull your head out of your office and take a look around at what’s going on.

  12. Topic of the Thread: State’s refusing Syrian refugees because refugees can’t be vetted on whether they are true refugees or trojan horse terrorists.

    Heisenberg Red Herring (logic fallacy) Response: South Dakota GOP corruption is bigger threat than terrorism/Syrian Refugees

    Anonymous response: Heisenberg is logic is crazy.

    Heisenberg response: Anonymous thinks corruption is “A-OK.”

    My conclusion: Heisenberg has adopted the Obama strategy on criticism of any aspect of his Middle East strategy- Change the subject and assert opponents advocate something they don’t. The Presidents rambling response saying his strategy (I can’t even discern that strategy) is working, ISIS is contained, and those who oppose him want to put 50,000 US troops in Syria (even though nobody has advocated 50,000 troops).

    1. Nice stuff there, Troy. I was really trying to directly respond to the point about the Muslim refugees endangering South Dakota, and that being the reason for turning our backs on people who are trying to escape the torturous and murderous environment in Syria.

      So to carry on a legitimate discussion, let me suggest that we have only two real choices here.

      1. We can agree that this thread was about keeping South Dakota safe.

      2. We can’t agree that #1 is the thread topic and then admit that this thread was really about keeping more brown-skinned people out of South Dakota.

      So if the foundational theme of this thread was, in fact, about keeping South Dakota safe, I maintain that my post was spot-on with the assertion that the corrupt Republican government is far more dangerous to our way of life than any Muslim refugees who might be sent here for their safety.

      If the thread was strictly about keeping Muslim refugees out of South Dakota then I apologize for my assumption that the thread was about keeping South Dakota safe and move along.

      By the way, have you emailed your Pope and demanded that for the safety of the Vatican and Catholicism that he get rid of the Muslim refugees he is protecting?

  13. Heisenberg,

    I could accept what you say above as true until one contemplates your statement “Nailed hard once again by a very, very clever Republican who thinks a corrupt Republican government is A – OK!”

    There is a big distinction between rejecting your premise (Syrian refugees is not as dangerous as something else) or wanting to focus on the issue at hand to your conclusion they endorse corruption. And that distinction is what exposes you lack of intellectual honesty or vigor.

    1. Very happy that the hard-hitting anonymous has you stepping up to the plate for them. Anyone in here mentioning tin foil hats definitely needs your help.

      What is it then?

      Don’t you agree with me that a corrupt government is a larger danger to the American way of life than some Muslim refugees who are trying to flee the torturous, murderous environment in Syria?

      I can remember a few times when you stated that our country’s greatest enemy would come from within. So we must agree that a corrupt government is more dangerous to our way of life than some Muslim refugees.

      Of course, being the type of logically-organized person who likes to tackle tasks in order of importance (in this case dangerousness), I would endorse that the governor address the corruption in South Dakota first and foremost. Since we agree that our greatest enemy comes from within and therefore a corrupt government is very dangerous to our way of life – far more dangerous than a few Muslim refugees.

      It’s too bad this time that it’s a Republican government that is mired in scandal and corruption. I suppose you would be all-in on this with me if it was a Democratic government.

      Still wondering how you’re feeling about your Pope protecting all those Muslims. That could make some people feel kind of squirmy inside. I’m sure that with the proper amount of editing you can clear that up in under 25,000 words, though.

      1. “that our country’s greatest enemy would come from within” doesn’t mean necessarily that it is from a (in your mind) corrupt SD state govt. Terrorists who get into our country and then commit acts of barbarism constitute a “threat from within” and that is what most of the country wants to prevent by stopping potential terrorists before they set foot in our country. Most of these Syrian refugees would probably be much happier if they could be resettled in a nation that is compatible with their way of life. Note that I believe most fleeing refugees are probably good people, but is it worth the chance that some of these would be essentially Trojan horses? Protecting our nation, both now in for our children, should be the utmost priority, and it doesn’t mean that we are islamophobes or selfish.

        1. springer, quite a disingenuous response. Unless, of course you actually believe your example is a solid one. Let me give you another couple of examples:

          Enemy from within:
          Timothy McVeigh and his sideman killed 168 in Oklahoma (1995). Remember that? Well, he was the enemy from within. Homegrown. US Military.

          Enemy from without:
          The Blind Sheik (1993) was an Egyptian cleric living in New York City and led the effort for the first World Trade Center bombing. Even though he was within the borders of the US, only a moron would believe that we was an “enemy within.”

          So you can see how far off your example really is. Are you the Bush staffer who tried to jack the homeless statistics by saying that people sleeping in boxes under bridges weren’t “homeless” but actually just “houseless” because the box constituted a “home?”

          1. Another example of the enemy within – the Boston bombers. They were US citizens as a result of their parents seeking asylum here in the US. But despite getting all the advantages of living in the US, they were radicalized, traveled abroad, honed their “trade,” and did the unspeakable. But they were the enemy within – they were US citizens.

            No, I’m not a Bush staffer as you asserted in the last paragraph, and searched for info on it even to no avail, but what does that have to do with the topic anyway? BTW, are you the Obama staffer that claimed that Al Queda and ISIS were JV? That ISIS is contained? How is that working out for you?

            1. Are we really going to start stacking dead babies here? As you may or may not know, it is an old collegiate debate term that signifies two opposing sides stacking up evidence cards. There are instances after instances of evil acts from American citizens – far more instances than from people who did not grow up here.

              That I asked (but did not assert) that you were the clumsy Bush staffer who made that ludicrous comment was completely germain to this part of the thread. You were trying to take an intellectually-lazy way out by asserting that just become a person was inside the borders that they could be considered an enemy from within.

              Lazy. Very lazy.

              And I didn’t think that in the interest of a good faith argument that you should be allowed to get away with it.

              No. I am not an Obama staffer. I am just a person who wants to use my power to help people that need it. To show people who need help that America can, in fact, have some empathy for their position. To expose the lies of their recruiters by showing them we are not that way.

              But you keep foiling my project because it seems like your position here is to show these people who so desperately need help that America won’t help them because America is afraid of them. Just like the terrorist recruiters are telling them.

              You earn a crap-colored star today! Congratulations.

      2. 25,000 words? If only!!!!

        He is well known for long diatribes full of pithy Christian maxims about not judging others and pseudo-theology found in a wikipedia entry, and then promptly judging and attacking and lying about those dare to disagree with him.

        I think he has even deleted posts from commenters that don’t suit his feelings of superiority. Too fragile to be challenged!

        As you can see Heisenberg, he’s very good as dismissing what he knows he cannot defend –“reject your premise” is one of his usual boorish tactics.

        1. I really do think that deep down inside, Troy is probably a good guy. It’s just that he’s wrong about just about everything that has to do with politics. We can – and should – forgive him for that as he was raised as a Republican kid and political insider. The political wrongness is basically in his DNA.

          That will not deter me from trying to help him see the light of the Truth, however. I believe that Troy Jones is worth saving.

          1. Agree.

            But boy, try to dismiss his views as “reject your premises” or even attack the premises, and incur the wrath, censorship, name-calling, and a litany of personal intrigues as if thats all a display of intelligence.

            As Christians, we believe that each person is worth saving, even when that person applauds the wanton killing of innocent and not so innocent life in far away lands, all in the name of getting ISIS terrorists. I guess some folk’s Christianity is mostly words, usable only when it aligns with ones views. I call them Cafeteria Christians, where they get to pick & choose the items to eat for themselves, and to scold others for selecting!

            give ‘er your best try, Heisenberg!

  14. Heisenberg,

    1) I have an ability to multi-task and don’t have to link every issue to Obama’s incompetence. I know the Governor is able to discuss and handle more than one issue at a time. I’m sorry you are so limited.

    2) I reject your premise that the actions of a few indict the entire government of our State.

    3) I don’t have a need to comment on every statement or action of the Pope. I have yet to notice anything he has said or done that makes me feel squirmy inside.

      1. Evidently, you are still unemployed most likely due to your lack of originality and inability to inspire others.

    2. 1. You’re claiming Daugaard can walk and chew gum at the same time? He refuses to address the corruption issue other than to flippantly deny it. I can’t remember a weaker governor. He barely had enough clout to order workers to spray Roundup on Hilgers Gulch. Janklow must be rolling over in his grave right now.

      2. You reject the premise that Republican corruption is widespread. Of course you would. You are this corrupt Republican government’s corruption’s greatest apologist. What would we expect you to do? Agree with the truth?

      3. I can remember a bit back when the Pope visited and it seemed like you disagreed with him on a couple issues that had to do with forgiveness of sins for certain people and some issues about serving the poor. I don’t have time to go back and find it.

Comments are closed.