Shouldn't Democrats be happy Republicans are doing this?

Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, came to the same conclusion on the legality of governors saying they’ll keep Syrian refugees out of their states.

God damned Jews are at it again. I can't wait for the day every synagogue is used as fire fighting practice.

Judy Rabinowitz wants refugees here, but I bet she supports Isreals decision not to take any of them.

>>1
Cutting funding at the federal level by Congress does carry legal weight though Anon....

Poor dumb bastard......

what most writers are ignoring is that the the thing the Governors are doing is letting the Administration know that they want to know more about the screening process and in bringing attention to this issue we now have a guy like Chuck Schumer talking about a pause until we learn more about the screening process.

Question: "Is there really any reason to oppose "strict background checks"?"

Of course there is - only because they are not possible to achieve. These people have no documentation, their country of origin is in an extended civil war and can provide no documentation for them, and no documentation exists most likely, anywhere as a result of the conflict they are fleeing from, so there's really no way to check their backgrounds, "strict" or otherwise, or their affiliations, or even to confirm their country of origin. Sort of like the illegals that come in from Mexico.

There's no question that there's a humanitarian crisis regarding the vast majority of these refugees, but it only takes 1 or 2 to cause horror and tragedy if they are Islamic radicals - which we have absolutely no way of knowing, or even of finding out with certainty.

Obama's heart may be in the right place, but his primary responsibility is to secure the safety and security of America and Americans. He can't have it both ways, even if he's convinced himself that he can. There is plenty of land in the middle east where these people might be settled, at least until Syria becomes "normalized" again. Saudi Arabia is a good option for this, as are other north African locations. These people, in fact, would probably better adjust to the weather and environmental conditions there, than to those in Europe or the U.S. - where they'd not only have to assimilate into a totally foreign environment and society, but also adjust to climactic extremes they never encountered in their countries of origin.

Given the crisis and chaos wrought by ISIS and the Islamic terrorists, there's no logical reason for allowing these people to enter here, certainly not at present - with who knows who among them. We could certainly contribute financially to settlement areas over there, but over here makes no sense. I'm sure the governors will point this out to Obama, very stringently, in their scheduled meeting with him. This is definitely NOT a political issue.

I'm a fairly compassionate guy. Being as compassionate as I am I have also been taken advantage of in the best. I'm a fairly decent 'mark'.

And because of past experience I am far more diligent when it comes to who I choose to help out(whether directly or charity)

just because I'm more diligent doesn't mean I'm less compassionate, just as it is wrong to argue that these governors lack compassion(you aren't saying that but many are)

I think that there can be some safeguards put into place that may result in our allowing some refugees in. What I find funny is all the 'elitists' love the idea of the US helping out but these refugees end up in poorer parts of town.