Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I don't think I'd be bothered by a Sikh doctor wearing a turban for surgery as long as he put on a clean scrub turban. After all doctors covering their heads for surgery is routine. What does it matter what they cover it with as long as it's sterile?
As for Jindal, he didn't leave an impression.
edited 17th Nov '15 5:37:48 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI was going to post about Jindal, but you beat me to it.
So instead we have Republican Governor Chris Christie saying we shouldn't even accept children refugees
, falling into the pack of other Republican hatred.
"The fact is that we need appropriate vetting," he continued, "and I don't think orphans under five are being, you know, should be admitted into the United States at this point. But you know, they have no family here. How are we going to care for these folks?" Christie's fellow Republican, Rep. Pete King, who opposes allowing Syrian refugees into the country because they can't be adequately vetted, was asked on MSNBC on Tuesday morning about Christie's position on orphans. King disagreed withe the New Jersey governor and said he would have no problem with young orphans being welcomed into the U.S.
On Tuesday, Christie wrote to President Barack Obama calling on him to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the U.S. and informing the president that New Jersey would not accept any. "I cannot allow New Jersey to participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being placed in our State," Christie wrote in a letter to Obama.
Hillary Clinton tweeted on Tuesday afternoon that she's seeing "a lot of hateful rhetoric" coming from the Republicans on refugees.
Donald Trump on Tuesday tweeted "Is our president insane?" as the Republican presidential candidate warned about allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. And GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee had a colorful way to illustrate why he's opposed to the entry of Syrian refugees into the U.S. "If you bought a 5 lb. bag of peanuts and you knew that in the 5 lb. bag of peanuts there were about 10 peanuts that were deadly poisonous, would you feed them to your kids? The answer is no," Huckabee said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday.
And backing him up is the governor of Alabama
who's openly claiming all terrorist attackers must have been refugees.
"I have been told by my law enforcement agency, by Homeland Security, that there have been some major threats against the United States after 9⁄11, and all of those individuals came out of refugee programs," Bentley said on CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday. Pressed by CNN's Chris Cuomo, Bentley reiterated that was his understanding. "Major threats that have occurred since 9⁄11, not necessarily all, but the major individuals that have been stopped, those individuals that have come out of refugee programs," Bentley said. "That's what I've been told. "
There are a few examples of threats carried about by refugees. The Boston Marathon bombers came to the U.S. as refugees from the conflict in Chechnya in 2002. In another case, two men from Kentucky who came to the U.S. as Iraqi refugees pleaded guilty to committing and supporting terrorism overseas. On the other hand, the famously foiled shoe bomber was a British-born man.
But the authorities have charged at least 52 individuals in the U.S. in just 2015 with trying to support ISIS. Kathleen Newland at the Migration Policy Institute think-tank told The Economist that it's unlikely terrorists will try to use the refugee system to get into the country. Of 745,000 refugees resettled in the U.S. since Sept. 11, the publication said, only the two Iraqis from Kentucky have been arrested for terrorism.
Bentley said the decision on whether to allow in refugees has to be made on a case-by-case basis, but right now he feels that he has to protect the people of his state by refusing Syrian refugees. He said that's the case even though many of them are children or youths and fleeing ISIS themselves. "My heart says that we should let these people in simply because they are fighting ISIS and have been displaced by ISIS just like, you know, ISIS is our enemy also," Bentley said. "My head says that I have to protect the people of the state of Alabama and keep them secure."
But not all states have been trying to melt down Lady Liberty for ammo - Delaware is openly supporting the acceptance of refugees
.
In May, 1939, a few months before the German invasion of Poland and the start of World War II, nearly 1,000 German Jews approached South Florida aboard a ship called St. Louis. They had been denied entry to Cuba and hoped to receive sympathy from American leaders who knew of the severe discrimination they faced at home. Instead, our government enforced the strict quotas in place at the time. Forced to return home, more than 500 were trapped by Germany's European conquests and about half of those died in the Holocaust.
The fact that so many of these men, women, and children were sentenced to death camps because of U.S. laws restricting immigration reminds us of what the abolitionist Lydia Maria Child so eloquently said: "Law is not law, if it violates the principles of eternal justice." Vast differences exist between that situation and the humanitarian crisis that has led millions of Syrians to flee the devastating violence and horrifying conditions of their war-torn country. The sheer numbers of refugees are much greater, and the solutions more challenging. But they are attempting to leave dire situations at home — sometimes akin to ethnic cleansing — in hope of a better life.
I'm again reminded of Child's quote as many politicians reflexively jump to take the harshest possible stance against these refugees, seeking to scare Americans with rhetoric that demands changes to our policies with no basis in the facts of our refugee system. Perhaps most frightening is the explicit appeals by some presidential candidates to discriminate against refugees on the basis of religion — an idea that directly contradicts one of our oldest and dearest values.
The refugees that President Obama and supporters of his approach are talking about are families in desperate straits. According to the United Nations, about half of these individuals are children — a group particularly at risk of falling ill, being malnourished, or suffering from abuse or exploitation. They continue to run toward the harsh weather of a European winter and take other tremendous risks, because anything is better than the chaos that has engulfed their homeland.
As the highest-ranking official of my state, I take no responsibility more seriously than the safety of our residents. No one should suggest relaxing our process for approving refugees in any way. The situation in Syria in particular demands that we take every precaution before admitting someone inside our borders. But we must show empathy by taking into account their individual situations and ensuring they are treated humanely. Rather than use the attacks in Paris to make a political statement about closing our border to people in dire need, let's understand the facts:
- Refugee admissions are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of travelers;
- Biographic and biometric information is vetted against a broad array of databases, including those of law enforcement and the intelligence community, to confirm an applicant's identity, check for criminal history, and identify information that can support the work of our trained interviewers;
- A refugee applicant cannot be approved until all required security checks have been completed and cleared; and
- The full process is finished before any Syrian refugee would be allowed to cross the Atlantic.
The President has rightly kept his commitment to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States within a year. If his administration decides to place some of those refugees in Delaware, we will work with our federal partners, while expecting them to recognize the federal responsibility to provide or pay for services these individuals may need.
The calls for states to reject them not only runs counter to our values, but also our law, which gives the federal government authority to place refugees and does not provide states the right to refuse.
While parts of today's refugee crisis are difficult to compare with the time when the St. Louis approached our shores, our fundamental choice is the same. Instead of using the mourning in France to deny opportunity to thousands of innocent people, we should recall the most famous gift we received from the French — the Statue of Liberty, with the famous inscription recognizing America as a place that welcomes "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
We should rally around the President's call for compassion for a suffering population that wants nothing more than a safe place to rebuild their lives from the rubble of war.
It's all a bunch of posturing anyway; state governors have no authority to deny refugees access to their states. If the federal authorities say that they're allowing the refugees in, the refugees can then go wheresoever their choose, as determined by their personal resources and whether or not they have family here they can take shelter with. Once they're in the country, they can legally go to any state.
Huckabee's peanut example seems to be an adaptation of the M&M analogy that a lot of SJ Ws use when talking about men.
![]()
![]()
Even presuming thats true assuming either men or muslims are horrible people just because they are men or muslims is poisonous and anyone who thinks so should be ashamed of themselves.
edited 17th Nov '15 6:21:19 PM by Canid117
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des UrsinsThere's a difference between suggesting people should not be offended at someone exercising reasonably caution when dealing with an unknown, and suggesting that an entire group should be banned from entering the country based purely on the fact that some of said group may be negative.
X3 People actually use that? Oh Internet... I think most reasonable people's response would be "I'd just test the M&M before I ate it".
edited 17th Nov '15 6:27:49 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAs Robert Hienlien once said "You don't risk 3 potatoes for one potato, but men aren't potatoes".
Leviticus 19:34The problem with both analogies is that it ignores the fact that the peanuts/M&Ms are also people. Yeah, you're justified in throwing out thousands of peanuts because you know that ten are poisoned but don't know which ten. However, refusing to help thousands of innocent people because ten of those people aren't actually innocent is a completely different thing.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Well,
Let's look at this as a utilitarian.
You have 10000 people. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 1 of those people is a SUPER EVIL TERRORIST. If you let the super terrorist in, he'll kill 100 people.
You can avoid letting him in only by not letting all 10000 people in.
By virtue of not letting the 10000 people in, 1% of them will die from various horrible things.
100 people die either way. So, ignoring the ABJECT HUMAN SUFFERING and, well, the rather sketchy math of the whole scenario, you've broken even. If more than 1% of people will die due to being unable to find accomodations, if you care about the non-death aspects, or if less than 1 person in 10000 is a Real Live Terrorist Shia Lebouff, then you obviously should let them in.
![]()
Er, yes they will. If you let them in.
edited 17th Nov '15 7:03:07 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34

This is a pretty good opinion article on the refugee debate.
Food for thought.