• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MI Gov Suspends Efforts to Accept Refugees...

SMTA said:
Bingo!
Click to expand...

so all these GOP governors are doing is playing at politics since they have no power to keep immigrants out of their state.
 
haymarket said:
so all these GOP governors are doing is playing at politics since they have no power to keep immigrants out of their state.
Click to expand...

Regardless of party, I never trust any politician's words to be honest.
 
SMTA said:
Regardless of party, I never trust any politician's words to be honest.
Click to expand...

Especially when they pretend they can do something but have no power to do it.
 
haymarket said:
Especially when they pretend they can do something but have no power to do it.
Click to expand...

Looks like Obama is also in that situation, as he cannot force state governors to take the refugees.
 
SMTA said:
Looks like Obama is also in that situation, as he cannot force state governors to take the refugees.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the even means? Do you? What presidents have ever "forced state governors to take refugees"?
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what the even means? Do you? What presidents have ever "forced state governors to take refugees"?
Click to expand...

Don't start with your games of feigned ignorance - I write very clearly and accurately.

Obama wants to take refugees, and state governors do not.

Obama has nowhere to place them without support of state governors.
 
SMTA said:
Don't start with your games of feigned ignorance - I write very clearly and accurately.

Obama wants to take refugees, and state governors do not.

Obama has nowhere to place them without support of state governors.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't he put a few up at the White House? I'm sure he would be ok with that.
 
SMTA said:
Don't start with your games of feigned ignorance - I write very clearly and accurately.

Obama wants to take refugees, and state governors do not.

Obama has nowhere to place them without support of state governors.
Click to expand...

Obama - or any other president - does not need any so called "support" - what ever the hell you think that means - to admit people in this nation and then have them go where they wish to go.

The only feigned ignorance seems to be the people that wallow in the self imposed mental delusion that state governors have some power to keep people in the nation legally out of their states. I asked you for precedent and you are unable to provide any. So your inability to back yup your own claim speaks volumes as to what this is really about - partisan politics.
 
haymarket said:
Obama - or any other president - does not need any so called "support" - what ever the hell you think that means - to admit people in this nation and then have them go where they wish to go.

The only feigned ignorance seems to be the people that wallow in the self imposed mental delusion that state governors have some power to keep people in the nation legally out of their states. I asked you for precedent and you are unable to provide any. So your inability to back yup your own claim speaks volumes as to what this is really about - partisan politics.
Click to expand...

Your little ignorance and word twisting game has terminated this discourse.

I gave you a chance for civility, and you failed.

Rest assured that I won't make the same mistake again.
 
SMTA said:
Your little ignorance and word twisting game has terminated this discourse.

I gave you a chance for civility, and you failed.

Rest assured that I won't make the same mistake again.
Click to expand...

If the discussion has been terminated - somebody should have informed you before you continued it.
 
stonewall50 said:
Why doesn't he put a few up at the White House? I'm sure he would be ok with that.
Click to expand...

The White House has a fence around it, the refugees would be offended.
 
SMTA said:
Your little ignorance and word twisting game has terminated this discourse.

I gave you a chance for civility, and you failed.

Rest assured that I won't make the same mistake again.
Click to expand...

He's just like this in the gun control forum. Par for the course.
 
American said:
He's just like this in the gun control forum. Par for the course.
Click to expand...

Ayup - I gave him the benefit of doubt, and he tried pulling the same garbage - I will waste no more time on his drivel.
 
HonestJoe said:
Given the fact of the Paris attack hasn’t changed the fundamental risk from the refugees to the US or the American screening procedures, how can this be anything other than an entirely political decision? If you’re going to celebrate this, you’ll be in a poor position to complain when politicians make politically motivated decisions you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Yep, it hasn't changed the fundamentally flawed screening process of vetting refugees to the US. That is a good reason to make the decision that he made.
 
haymarket said:
Once a person is admitted to the USA - can't they go to any state they want to go to?
Click to expand...

No, they don't necessarily have the right to travel. They may be put in detention.
Immigration detention is the policy of holding individuals suspected of visa violations, illegal entry or unauthorised arrival, and those subject to deportation and removal in detention until a decision is made by immigration authorities to grant a visa and release them into the community, or to repatriate them to their country of departure. Mandatory detention is the practice of compulsorily detaining or imprisoning people seeking political asylum, or who are considered to be illegal immigrants or unauthorised arrivals into a country.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
They're a resource. Train 'em, arm 'em and give them leadership. You got yerself a resistance force.
Click to expand...

I vote for that, AFTER they vet them properly.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Yep, it hasn't changed the fundamentally flawed screening process of vetting refugees to the US. That is a good reason to make the decision that he made.
Click to expand...
So if nothing’s changed, they were wrong not to make this decision when the refugee proposals were first made? And them saying the Paris attack changed something is an outright lie?

They’re not making the decision now because it’s right but because it’s they think it’s politically advantageous. Celebrating politically motivated policy making is wrong whoever is doing it. Next time the political advantage may come from something you disagree with and you’ll be in no position to complain.
 
HonestJoe said:
So if nothing’s changed, they were wrong not to make this decision when the refugee proposals were first made? And them saying the Paris attack changed something is an outright lie?

They’re not making the decision now because it’s right but because it’s they think it’s politically advantageous. Celebrating politically motivated policy making is wrong whoever is doing it. Next time the political advantage may come from something you disagree with and you’ll be in no position to complain.
Click to expand...

It has demonstrated that the risk is higher than the public knew. Of course it is politically motivated. Governors are politicians. If their constituents want better screening of refugees then it is their duty to push for better screening. To not respond to their constituents would be ethically wrong.
 
NonoBadDog said:
It has demonstrated that the risk is higher than the public knew.
Click to expand...
The threat of this kind of attack has long been well known and widely discussed. The Paris attack was a shock but not a surprise.

NonoBadDog said:
Of course it is politically motivated. Governors are politicians. If their constituents want better screening of refugees then it is their duty to push for better screening. To not respond to their constituents would be ethically wrong.
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a stretch. They started talking about this a matter of hours after Paris so how many constituents could they have actually consulted.

Anyway, that's still the kind of thing I'm objecting to - making policy about public safety and human life on the basis (perceived) popular opinion rather than fact.
 
HonestJoe said:
The threat of this kind of attack has long been well known and widely discussed. The Paris attack was a shock but not a surprise.

That's a bit of a stretch. They started talking about this a matter of hours after Paris so how many constituents could they have actually consulted.

Anyway, that's still the kind of thing I'm objecting to - making policy about public safety and human life on the basis (perceived) popular opinion rather than fact.
Click to expand...

Yeah, screw public safety, life and limb stuff. While we are at it, just forget about representatives doing all that representing crap. We can't have that. That was really lame. Really? Seriously, REALLY?
 
NonoBadDog said:
Yeah, screw public safety, life and limb stuff. While we are at it, just forget about representatives doing all that representing crap. We can't have that. That was really lame. Really? Seriously, REALLY?
Click to expand...
No, that's not what I said at all. Go back and try again (or just accept you're not smart enough to understand nuanced debate).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom