Obama Allowing Refugees Stay In America

[daleduke17]

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/02/07/obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-palestinians-loyal-to-hamas-to-resettle-in-us.php

Why the fuck is this happening? We have a situation of our own, and he's letting MORE people in and giving them our money? Also, why the fuck is he allowing Hamas loyalists into the country?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-decrees-massive-immigration-hamas-refugees-gaza

Look at the last paragraph (thanks to protege for pointing this out) and see what all Obama has done recently. Why isn't this shit on the news? Bush would have been tarred and feathered by now, but fucking Obama gets away with it.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-2488.htm

That is the actual text of the Determination.

[Sylvia727]

I can't say that I like the migration all that much, however... If only 55% of the population voted for the Hamas government, doesn't that logically imply that nearly half of the population doesn't agree with them? I don't know about screening procedures, but maybe they can weed out those who agree with terrorist tactics and/or hate America. On one hand, Americans are having enough trouble supporting our own population without immigration, but on the other, don't we have a human duty to aid at least some of the war victims in other countries?

The post also seems misleading. It points out that much of Obama's time has been spent dealing with the Middle East. Yes, I see a pattern: we're at war with two countries over there, and all the rest are in turmoil. Of course the president is going to spend much of his time working on the Middle East. Closing Gitmo and "interrogation centers" sounds like an ethical position on torture to me, not a "selling America out to the $#%& Muslims!" position.

[AFPheonix]

You seem to think Hamas is only about blowing up Israel. Yes, there are hardliners in there that want that.
Hamas also provided better and more humanitarian relief to Gazans when Fatah was in power and embezzling aid money meant for the citizens. They provided services that Fatah could not seem to handle doing.
They are better compared to Sinn Fein than to Al-Qaeda. I would agree now that they have become more radical, but really, what do you expect when people are walled off, have little food or water, can't work, can't leave, and have spotty electricity available?

[daleduke17]

On one hand, Americans are having enough trouble supporting our own population without immigration, but on the other, don't we have a human duty to aid at least some of the war victims in other countries?



Nope. We need to help our own citizens before we start helping other people out.

[Flyndaran]

Nope. We need to help our own citizens before we start helping other people out.

The amercan public made the bed by electing an administration that created the problem. Too F-ing bad that we now have to pay for it by helping people.

[daleduke17]

The amercan public made the bed by electing an administration that created the problem. Too F-ing bad that we now have to pay for it by helping people.

How about we help United States citizens first? Or do the US citizens just have to fend for themselves? Too f-ing bad for the other nations. We don't have the money or resources to help them.

[protege]

The amercan public made the bed by electing an administration that created the problem. Too F-ing bad that we now have to pay for it by helping people.

Uh, you do realize that most of the anti-Israel attitude in the Middle East...dates from the 1940s, right? Also, the idea of creating a Jewish state wasn't even ours--the British were given a mandate over Palestine in 1922.

Yep Dale, we don't have the resources to keep taking people in. If we do, the system is eventually going to collapse in on itself.

[Lady_Foxfire]

I see it as the logical result of America's interventionist foreign poilices: We have to help the people who are hurt by our intervening. It's really the only humane thing to do.

As for all of the things Obama was criticized for in that article; Closing Gitmo and the overseas interrogation centers was the right thing to do. We have to stop torturing people, period. We have to give them fair trials. To paraphrase (former) President Bush, if we lose our values while fighting this war, then the terrorists win.

So the first things Obama did as president involved talking to our enemies. Yeah, that's called diplomacy. I know we may have forgotten about that concept over the last eight years, but it's a legitimate idea, and IMO a way better idea than bombing everybody into submission.

I hadn't heard about him withdrawing charges against the people who attacked the USS Cole and the World Trade Centers/Pentagon, But I imagine he has a reason for doing so besides letting them get away with it. Maybe he wants to gather more actual evidence against them before he actually tries to capture/prosecute them. Maybe he wants to press charges through an international justice system like the UN.

[guywithashovel]

So the first things Obama did as president involved talking to our enemies. Yeah, that's called diplomacy. I know we may have forgotten about that concept over the last eight years, but it's a legitimate idea, and IMO a way better idea than bombing everybody into submission.


When they accuse Obama of "appeasement" and "talking to our enemies," you could always bring up the fact that Ronald Reagan spent most of his presidency talking to the Soviet Union. In fact, in Reagan's 1980 campaign, he even promised that he would (paraphrased) "sit down with the Soviet Union for however long it takes to strke up an arms agreement."

They probably think that's different, though. It's always different when a member of your party does it as opposed to when the other party does it. A Democrat could do something, and it would be BS. But a Republican could do the same thing and it would be a great idea (and vice versa).

[AFPheonix]

When they accuse Obama of "appeasement" and "talking to our enemies," you could always bring up the fact that Ronald Reagan spent most of his presidency talking to the Soviet Union. In fact, in Reagan's 1980 campaign, he even promised that he would (paraphrased) "sit down with the Soviet Union for however long it takes to strke up an arms agreement."

They probably think that's different, though. It's always different when a member of your party does it as opposed to when the other party does it. A Democrat could do something, and it would be BS. But a Republican could do the same thing and it would be a great idea (and vice versa).

What's hilarious about that is that Reagan's handlers and hardliners in the government did not at all like him doing that. Fortunately for us, he stopped listening to them, and guess what, it worked.
Although Reagan is looked upon as a god among neo cons these days, the reality is that he would be pretty darn unpopular with them these days, they've shifted so far to the right.

[Rapscallion]

How about we help United States citizens first? Or do the US citizens just have to fend for themselves? Too f-ing bad for the other nations. We don't have the money or resources to help them.

However, the US has plenty of resources to bomb the shit out of other countries.

I could understand the 'help ourselves first' mentality if it came with indifference to what happens in other countries, but when the US supports (assuming it's still current) Israel with large amounts of military aid every year, and goes off to bomb foreign nations in the name of democracy, then that attaches a responsibility to its actions.

If the US wants to help in the middle east, it needs to understand all sides of the equation - not just pick and choose from certain areas. The alternative is to back the hell out and refuse to get involved.

Quite frankly, if it wasn't for oil in the region, then the US would have very little to do with it. While the US gains from the intervention it has, then as far as I'm concerned it has a responsibility.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Taking in refugees isn't always a financial burden for countries. There's a zero-sum fallacy in thinking about immigration these days.

Many of these refugees won't want or need to be on assistance for very long. They could become tax-paying citizens in very little time.

[Amethyst Hunter]

However, the US has plenty of resources to bomb the shit out of other countries.

I could understand the 'help ourselves first' mentality if it came with indifference to what happens in other countries, but when the US supports (assuming it's still current) Israel with large amounts of military aid every year, and goes off to bomb foreign nations in the name of democracy, then that attaches a responsibility to its actions.

If the US wants to help in the middle east, it needs to understand all sides of the equation - not just pick and choose from certain areas. The alternative is to back the hell out and refuse to get involved.

Quite frankly, if it wasn't for oil in the region, then the US would have very little to do with it. While the US gains from the intervention it has, then as far as I'm concerned it has a responsibility.

Hear, hear!! *applauds*

The ONLY reason I strongly, strongly suspect we support Israel is because all the wackjobs and assmonkeys NEED it to exist for their sick little Rapture/Armaggeddon fantasies. They don't give a damn about its citizens, except to use them as a crutch to 'prove' that OMG CHRISTIANS R BEING PERSECUTED!! This Middle Eastern constant war shit didn't start until Israel was molded into a state; prior to that those peoples had managed to live side by side with each other in relative peace. But when we stuck our noses into things...yep, guess what happened?

As to the original post, I call bullshit on the 'source.' All the rightwing nuts are pissed as hell that they lost, and they're foaming at the mouth just looking for ANY reason to rip Obama into shreds, whether it's deserved or not. They were bitching about it even well before the man took office, and I'm fucking sick of it. He's not a miracle worker and I don't expect him to be one. I DO expect him to behave like a fucking decent human being and use his damn brain, something which his worthless piece of shit predecessor never bothered to do (and funny how it's OK to question Obama's religion, but nobody ever said boo about the malevolent interpretations behind the so-called 'religion' of He Who Shall Not Be Named).

[protege]

Uh, you do realize that Christians are *not* a majority in Israel, right? The vast majority of Israelis are Jewish (about 75%), Arabs (about 20%), and the last 4-5% are Druze, Muslims, Christians, and others. Also, Israel was created by a British mandate, approved by the League of Nations in 1922. Britain ruled then-Palestine (along with then-Transjordan) after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Oh, and this had been going on for years before then--as early as 1915, France, Britain, and Italy had been discussing the idea. Anyway, as all of that was going on, our Senate refused to ratify the covenant. (Funny, how Europeans created this mess, yet *we* get the blame over it...simply because we support Israel...) But, after the UN (again, *not* just us) formed one Jewish state and one Arab state (Jordan) in 1948...the wars started.

Also, after checking several sources, the story does seem a bit off. Especially since there's this little item (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/palestinians.asp). Notice the wording--Migration and Refugee Migration Assistance Fund. With that, it's no wonder why some people thought that way. But, when you consider Obama's acquaintance with Bill Ayers, (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ayers.asp) a "former domestic" terrorists, it's no wonder some people saw it that way. When that story came out, it was a bit before it was debunked. While we're at it, the media does seem to give Obama a "Messiah" quality. They're constantly fawning over him.

As for me, well, I don't agree with his policies. Mainly his speech about how Americans should get their spending in line...and then he goes and spends several million for his inauguration...but then his Valentine's Day dinner (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/obamas_valentines_day_dinner_a.html). Yep, he spent taxpayer dollars (again) to fire up Air Force One and fly to Chicago for dinner. Hypocrite?

[Amethyst Hunter]

Uh, you do realize that Christians are *not* a majority in Israel, right?

I'm not talking about the people over there. I'm talking about the godbags over here who persist in the myths that America was founded as a Christian nation and that Christians in America are being 'persecuted' just because they aren't allowed to run roughshod over everybody else. THEY want Israel to exist only because their crappy mythology says so, according to all that Rapture racket. I'd lay odds that none of them really give a damn about the people living over there who have to put up with Hamas's bullshit.

While we're at it, the media does seem to give Obama a "Messiah" quality. They're constantly fawning over him.

Can you really blame them? After 8 friggin' years of never being allowed to so much as sneeze at any of Shithead II's press conferences, it's a relief to finally have a leader we can actually respect.

And that's not to say that they'll always adore him either. Honeymoons end sooner or later.

As for me, well, I don't agree with his policies. Mainly his speech about how Americans should get their spending in line...and then he goes and spends several million for his inauguration...but then his Valentine's Day dinner (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/obamas_valentines_day_dinner_a.html). Yep, he spent taxpayer dollars (again) to fire up Air Force One and fly to Chicago for dinner. Hypocrite?

Um, no, I don't think so. The Obamas have to foot the bill for their own personal expenses - meaning, as long as they're in that White House, their food, their clothes, whathaveyou, comes out of Obama's salary (which is nothing to sneeze at, but not exactly multimillionaire material either). And unlike his predecessor or our former idiot jackass governor, I seriously doubt that Obama is the type to go back on the word that got him elected (legitimately) in the first place.

[AFPheonix]

As for me, well, I don't agree with his policies. Mainly his speech about how Americans should get their spending in line...and then he goes and spends several million for his inauguration...but then his Valentine's Day dinner (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/obamas_valentines_day_dinner_a.html). Yep, he spent taxpayer dollars (again) to fire up Air Force One and fly to Chicago for dinner. Hypocrite?

A majority of the money for inauguration parties and balls and whatnot was donated. I know that's been mentioned here before. It was not taxpayer money.

And a flight on Air Force One to Chicago is a helluva lot shorter than a flight on Air Force One to Texas, which Bush took quite often. Hell, I don't see you bitching about him taking a flight on the former Air Force One to go home that one last time. Was that a waste of taxpayer money?
Are you expecting them to fly coach?

[protege]

Bush also didn't make a televised speech telling Americans to cut back... Also, sure he had some donated cash, but not all of it was donated.

[Evandril]

Bush also didn't make a televised speech telling Americans to cut back... Also, sure he had some donated cash, but not all of it was donated.

Yes, how dare he use the *exact* same amount allowed to any President? The horror! Yes, America needs to cut back...So that should translate to not going on vacations or the like, correct? I'm still planning on taking one, m'self, even though I've been trying to cut back on my spending. From the sound of the article in question, he also had the audacity to talk to people, and play the politics game while he was out...What sort of example is that for our President?

[Seshat]

How about we help United States citizens first? Or do the US citizens just have to fend for themselves? Too f-ing bad for the other nations. We don't have the money or resources to help them.

If America doesn't, who does?


Check that link, and also go down the bottom and check the two 'per capita' variations on the GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
(I looked at the 2008 CIA World Factbook figures.)


Yes, there are a few countries with significantly higher per capita GDP - Iceland, Norway, and some of the tiny European Union countries. Qatar is on the list too, surprisingly enough.

But there seems to be a distinct gap: there's Iceland, Norway, Qatar and the tiny European countries with a GDP per capita of six figures.

Then there's other First World countries, with GDPs between 70K and 30K per capita - mostly centered around 50K. The USA is one of them, so is Australia.

The tiny European countries don't have the space to put refugees. Iceland and Norway have more space, but I suspect the unoccupied space in those countries is either tundra or mountain. Those countries could (and probably do) contribute to the refugee issue with funding. (I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if they didn't.)

Which leaves the cluster of countries in the 70K to 30K range. I know Australia accepts as many refugees as we can house without shoving them into the desert or the bushfire zones. I hear that the UK does as well.

So yeah... if America is too poor, I presume the rest of us in the 70K to 30K range are too.

So .. um. Who should be helping them, then?

[Boozy]

The US really doesn't have to be looking at this like charity.

American politicians have fed so much special-interest fuelled anti-immigration baloney down the throats of the public for so long that the average citizen is ready to close the borders.

That's zero-sum thinking about a positive-sum issue. These refugees might be highly skilled. They also might be low skilled. Either way, immigration is almost always good for the economy. Even in tough times. Trade and immigration protectionism is the last thing the US needs to do right now.

[daleduke17]

So yeah... if America is too poor, I presume the rest of us in the 70K to 30K range are too.

So .. um. Who should be helping them, then?

How many of the rest of the countries have a failing economy, are trillions of dollars in debt, a crumbling infrastructure on many fronts (power grid, roads, communications for example), and is so far overstretched in different warzones that they shouldn't be in (Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, different places in Africa - which all are contributing to the aforementioned debt problems)?

It's nothing about being poor, it's about not being fiscally able to do it.

[Amethyst Hunter]

American politicians have fed so much special-interest fuelled anti-immigration baloney down the throats of the public for so long that the average citizen is ready to close the borders. Trade and immigration protectionism is the last thing the US needs to do right now.

But if we don't, then the OMGTERRORISTS might get us. You know those nutty Mexicans and those wacky Canadians. Before long, we'll all be dancing 'La Cucaracha' and eating moose pie with maple syrup. Or something. :rolleyes:

Nevermind that the fuckers who did 9/11 were here *legally* - had driver's licences, the whole caboodle. The assholes aren't likely to draw attention to themselves by coming in here illegally because then that'd thwart their viledoings.

I agree that something needs to be done about the immigration system, I'm just not sure that slamming fences all around is the answer we should be looking at. :/ (Besides, they'll just tunnel under the fence anyway if they really want to get past it bad enough)

[Evandril]

Either way, immigration is almost always good for the economy. Even in tough times. Trade and immigration protectionism is the last thing the US needs to do right now.

IMO, that should read *legal* immigration, but am aware that is my personal opinion.

[AFPheonix]

I agree that something needs to be done about the immigration system, I'm just not sure that slamming fences all around is the answer we should be looking at. :/ (Besides, they'll just tunnel under the fence anyway if they really want to get past it bad enough)

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be ending automatic citizenship granted to children born on US soil to illegal immigrants. I would support that at least.

[IDrinkaRum]

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be ending automatic citizenship granted to children born on US soil to illegal immigrants. I would support that at least.

I completely agree with this. If the parents can't come up with documentation that they are here legally, then guess what? Their kids aren't legal residents either.

Or, and this would just add to the already over-burdened child services divisions and there would be huge protests, is this:

Oh, you came to America illegally so your kid can be an American Citizen? Congratulations! Your kid is a legal citizen. Since you're here illegally, making you a criminal, you can't take care of the child, so we're putting it up for adoption to be adopted by American citizens. Good Day.*






*I am being sarcastic and in no way supporting the second option of this post. Just saying some might actually support this. And by some, I mean in the general population, not those on the board. That is all.