• 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!

Red states should be forced to accept Syrian refugees

S

solletica

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,073
Reaction score
926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .

What the resulting map shows is that the most “dependent states,” as measured by the composite score, are Mississippi and New Mexico, each of which gets back about $3 in federal spending for every dollar they send to the federal treasury in taxes. Alabama and Louisiana are close behind.

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .

States protesting the admission of refugees range from Alabama and Georgia, to Texas and Arizona, to Michigan and Illinois, to Maine and New Hampshire. Among these 27 states, all but one have Republican governors.

151117005402-v3-graphic-states-accepting-syrian-refugees-super-169.jpg
Click to expand...

--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
 
Last edited:
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time for we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

How do you beat logic like that? ;)
 
Since there are multiple subjects in the OP, I'll answer in regards to welfare.

End all welfare.

:)
 
So there is no question that you don't take other peoples points of view seriously, and you prefer to punish them for having a different point of view while at the same time distorting history, statistics, and circumstances.

Sounds pretty tolerant...
 
The OP's twisted, punitive argument may be the silliest I've ever read at DP. I'm just amazed.
 
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...





You do realize Obama prematurely pulling out, (too bad his father didn't), left a vacuum in the middle east? do you know the arab spring he so supported left open the the support of this caliphate? you also have to know ISIS gets it's ability to gain power buy selling over 3 million dollars of oil per day.

Why hasn't this president directed the airstrikes to these oil fields?

those are some of the questions you have to ask yourself.
 
I could be wrong, but I see a lot of traditionally "liberal" states have said they want no part of the refugees coming to their states - not unlike those states who want no part of GITMO detainees being plopped down within their borders.

But in a realistic sense, once a "refugee" enters American territory, what stops that person from deciding to relocate anywhere within the 50 states?
 
Good question, CanadaJohn.
 
This argument is getting old already...

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 gives the President great latitude in admitting refugees into the US, regardless of State level complaint. This was more or less tested in 2011 by Arizona when dealing with illegal immigration issues against the President's immigration policy regarding Mexico at the time. Because of the decision, which included the recognition of this "broad discretion," the States that are claiming to fight this have little grounds to stand on. It is going to take a new crafted court challenge against the 1980 act that does not repeat the attempt that Arizona tried.

Best I can tell no new challenge has been filed with the courts over this just yet.

So for now all this boils down to is the State cannot be compelled to give their own fiscal resources to helping this matter, but the Federal government on their own dime can place refugees in the various States without the State level governments getting much say in the matter.
 
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

That would certainly effect the outcome of the next election.
 
solletica said:
.
So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

Im ok with that. On behalf of Florida, you can keep your twinkies and your refugees.
 
While they may not have grounds for denying entry, I think it should be noted that if roughly half (now, more than half) of the nation's executives declared in a 24 hour period that they will not accept Syrian refugees, at the very least, the Obama administration will want to reconsider its proposed figure.
 
How about this...How many blue staters voted for the war?
 
Since income redistribution programs (the "safety net"?) are heavily slanted towards low income, and taxation is heavily slanted towards high income, then it is no surprise that (most of) the states that you mention get more than they give. The point that you seem to ignore is that it is the blue states (and blue cities in the red states) that demand ever more of these income redistribution programs.

If your goal were really to punish those responsible for the noted taxation/benefit imbalance, rather than a clever scheme to keep suspected terrorists out of the (your?) blue states, then you have it backwards. ;)
 
The federal government controls immigration law in the USA.
 
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think that BDS will never die....
 
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

They are just doing what the people want.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This argument is getting old already...

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 gives the President great latitude in admitting refugees into the US, regardless of State level complaint. This was more or less tested in 2011 by Arizona when dealing with illegal immigration issues against the President's immigration policy regarding Mexico at the time. Because of the decision, which included the recognition of this "broad discretion," the States that are claiming to fight this have little grounds to stand on. It is going to take a new crafted court challenge against the 1980 act that does not repeat the attempt that Arizona tried.

Best I can tell no new challenge has been filed with the courts over this just yet.

So for now all this boils down to is the State cannot be compelled to give their own fiscal resources to helping this matter, but the Federal government on their own dime can place refugees in the various States without the State level governments getting much say in the matter.
Click to expand...

True, but states can potentially try to enact laws that make the lives of the refugees miserable (albeit before the SCOTUS squashes those laws as unconstitutional, as was done w/AZ's silly SB 1070).

So the policy I'm advocating for the red state governors is simple: any attempt to deter Syrian refugees from entering your state and/or living there w/the same rights afforded to everyone else will result in a loss of federal aid.

O by himself lacks the authority to deny all existing federal monies to the states that are currently receiving it, but in some cases--notably disaster and emergencies, he can deny federal assistance :)
 
solletica said:
True, but states can potentially try to enact laws that make the lives of the refugees miserable (albeit before the SCOTUS squashes those laws as unconstitutional, as was done w/AZ's silly SB 1070).

So the policy I'm advocating for the red state governors is simple: any attempt to deter Syrian refugees from entering your state and/or living there w/the same rights afforded to everyone else will result in a loss of federal aid.

O by himself lacks the authority to deny all existing federal monies to the states that are currently receiving it, but in some cases--notably disaster and emergencies, he can deny federal assistance :)
Click to expand...

Ultimately that happens anyway in disputes between the States and the Federal government, there are only two outcomes.

One, a challenge before the courts that ends up as a confirmation of Federal power and/or removal of State power. (i.e. 2012 Arizona v United States, and 2010 Friendly House et al. v. Whiting that spoke to SP 1070.)

Two, coercion by the Federal government using the power of the treasury. In this case removal of various federal aid. Which has been done before in a multitude of ways, and sometimes as you point out bypassing Congress.

While I like your proposal, I doubt it will get that far. The States can mess around with this a bit, but there is no remedy for their complaint. Other than the typical political gain from appealing to the older white "get out, this is my nation" mentality voter. Meaning, I think this is all a Republican show for as much as it can be milked for.
 
Red states should be forced to accept Syrian refugees
Click to expand...
How authoritarian of you, and anti constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
 
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...
Can you guarantee the vetting process has ensured no terrorists will get through? We know a little about the current vetting process which is essentially, people show up with no papers, are given papers based on their word, they do an 'exhaustive' check to see if anything contradicts their information (again...based on the information given by the 'refugee' themselves) and if nothing is found (cuz...surprise...none of the info is real) then the papers are approved and the person is considered 'vetted'.

Can you guarantee there WONT be more people like the Syrian that snuck into Greece, was given paperwork and then forwarded on to France where he took place in terrorist attacks?

And in your rush to vent your partisan hatred, you neglect the fact that there are several blue states also in the whoa mode.
 
VanceMack said:
Can you guarantee the vetting process has ensured no terrorists will get through?
Click to expand...

It should be the responsibility of the red states to vet their incoming refugees. With all the federal aid they're getting, that shouldn't be a problem for them.
 
solletica said:
It should be the responsibility of the red states to vet their incoming refugees. With all the federal aid they're getting, that shouldn't be a problem for them.
Click to expand...
Sweet. So you agree with those 'red states' (as well as the Blue States) decision. They have decided that there is insufficient data to perform an appropriate vetting process. And you concur with them and their actions because that is after all 'their job'. I knew we would find common ground as soon as you dropped your blind partisan hatred.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You do realize Obama prematurely pulling out,
Click to expand...

It's not the responsibility of US troops and/or American taxpayers to clean up a mess caused by the red state voters who voted for a certified kook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom