Did any single American say okay to that? Did we talk about it? Did we vote?

I just remember waking up a few years ago and all the sudden we were taking in a bunch of outsiders from a questionable region of the globe. Shouldn't this be something we talk about first?

Nobody asked them for the Middle East to be meddled with and destabilized.

Roughly 1 mil refugees have been accepted since 9/11 btw. No terrorist attack to date.

>>2
Really?

>>2 is playing a fun word game, just like Obama.

shut up, we are refugees in our own country with all these wogs nicking our houses and jobs. Go to their country and they fuckng eat you.

>>2
Stop trolling.

Roughly 1 mil refugees have been accepted since 9/11 btw. No terrorist attack to date.

Huh? Lots of terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11.

Why are we suddenly importing refugees into our country?

The US has allowed people to claim refugee status for decades. There is nothing 'sudden' about it.

Don't dilute his arguments with facts.

>>9
and pyramid scheme.

No, we didn't vote. The higher-ups in Washington know better than you do. You can be guaranteed that no enclaves of Third Worlders will be set up in or around their elite communities, but if someone in Michigan or Minnesota questions the wisdom of setting up an ethnically homogeneous enclave of Somalis or Syrians in their area, that person will be labelled a racist by the elites who neither consulted them nor will experience any of the effects of the decision.

No, we didn't vote. The higher-ups in Washington know better than you do.

Isn't that exactly how a republic or representative democracy works? The 'higher-ups in Washington', that we elected, enact legislation?

...Good point.

>>12

Isn't that exactly how a republic or representative democracy works? The 'higher-ups in Washington', that we elected, enact legislation?

Sure. I didn't say it was illegal. Note that the top-of-ticket official who was firmly on the side of more refugee immigrants lost the election. The candidate advocating moratoriums, etc., won. Let's see how it plays out.

The candidate advocating moratoriums, etc., won.

Eh, Trump has not been all that consistent when it comes to refugees. His thoughts on the matter are subject to change and the latest poll. From September of last year:

The United States should take in some refugees from Syria, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Tuesday night.

"I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis, you have to," Trump said in his first Fox News appearance in two weeks, appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor."

"This was started by President Obama when he didn't go in and do the job he should have when he drew the line in the sand, which turned out to be a very artificial line," Trump said in reference to Obama's red-line warning to Syrian leader Bashar Assad in 2013. "But you know, it's living in hell in Syria. There's no question about it. They're living in hell, and something has to be done."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-syrian-refugees-213430

No, I'm not a Trump fan, and he is never consistent about much of anything, but to the extent that, as you allude, the whole issue can be sussed out via the ol' representative democracy thing, which candidate would you expect would have been the choice of rank-and-file voters wanting to curtail refugee intake?

which candidate would you expect would have been the choice of rank-and-file voters wanting to curtail refugee intake

Oh, I agree that voters whom want to 'curtail refugee intake' voted for Trump, however misguided their beliefs in the man and his ever changing policy positions are.

So, loop back to my first post in the thread and we're all set.

No, we didn't vote. The higher-ups in Washington know better than you do.

Well, we did vote, as we have voted for Representatives/Senators/Presidents over the last few decades that implemented policies that allow for people to claim refugee status. And the majority of those Representatives and Senators were just sent back to Washington.

>>19
The two problems with that are:

1) There is not much chance that any of those ran on a platform of "Vote for me. Let us accumulate in your community concentrations of refugees from regions torn by Islamic strife." This national election it was an up-front issue and voters spoke.

2) You have to consider lag time. People get voted in, then policies take effect over time, then voters observe and react within the framework of hoping their current representatives will affect change, then voters throw the bums out when change doesn't happen. Hence the lurching response instead of sensible and measured policy change.

>>11
YEA! How dare the white working middle class (back bone of America) defend their culture!

DIVIDE AND RULE

OUT OF CHAOS ORDER

did we ask them too?

taking in refugees has always been a part of most our foreign policy.

However, whether some should be let in is another matter. I know many people who came here as refugees and are doing very well.

We need to stop muslim immigration until we can figure out what is going on.

>>25
You were bombing the middle east for decades without a reason. Now where you finally understood that this is no solution, russia continues to bomb with the tyrant Assad. People flee the torn apart countries.
Done with figuring out. Your welcome.

Suddenly? America has always been a land of refugees? That's how most of our ancestors got here.

Republicans need to realize that anywhere the USA meddles, it always comes back to bite in the name of refugee imports. Take for example the 800,000 Vietnamese refugees that flooded the USA in the late-70s.

Somalian refugees in the mid-90s. Bosnian refugees in the late-90s/early-00s. Iraqi and Afghan refugees in the early-00s to present.

And so on and so on...