We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
"Three of the terrorists came from the U.S." This is because of the incredibly stupid policy of allowing sanctuary immigration. We imported a couple hundred thousand potential terrorists from Somalia. What next? They attack us in our Malls? But it began before that stupid decision. More then likely some of these terrorists "from the U.S." were "saved" by American food and NGO's feeding them in Somalia. Probably if we looked back through the heart breaking pictures of children and mothers being fed and helped in Somalia by those NGO's we would find one or more of those terrorists "from the U.S." being saved. "Saved" for what? Those same children we saved who remained in Somalia became part of the youth army that terrorized their own nation killing and raping entire villages. This is stupidity on top of stupidity.
assuming you mean "asylum and refugee" status instead of "sanctuary", along with I think every other country in the world, the US signed the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the US signed the '67 Protocol), so federal immigration law reflects this.
the US did not "import a couple hundred thousand potential terrorists". "Current estimates of the number of Somali-born persons living in the United States range widely, from 35,760 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) to 150,000 (Lehman & Eno, 2003)"
I'm sure you're familiar with the US Refugee Admissions Program Guidelines, perhaps you could point out a few specific issues you have problems with, or how or for what possible reason the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, US embassies or NGOs are actually recommending terrorists for resettlement.
Free economies, interesting blend of authoritarian, top down and socialist governments. IIRC, these are also places where government corruption is very low mainly because of fewer people with their hands out.
My response is very simple; why? Did we need more refugees? Did we need more people to be supported by the taxpayers? Is this something you and I and other citizens decided or was it decided at 2 am in a smoke filled room and we never had a chance to say yea or nay? Why! Why should we take even one refugee or asylum seekers? Since when did NGO's begin deciding public policy? Screw the treaty. We need to think about our citizens first. Get the UN out of the U.S. and get the U.S. out of the UN.
we agree, your response is very simple. nevertheless ....
the the treaty on refugees was ratified under the constitution, so it has the force of law. I get that you don't like foreigners, and are uncomfortable with constitutional process. I don't like the NY Yankees either, but I've got to deal with them.
perhaps you could employ your striking powers of rhetoric to convince congress to withdraw from the convention.
as so why the US has signed on, perhaps the US is more humane that you want it to be.
I assume you can quantify your assertion that Somali refugees here are a taxpayer burden, so let's discuss the gravity of this "problem."
"the treaty on refugees was ratified under the constitution, so it has the force of law." Therein lies the problem. Yes! Indeed! Congress should get out of this treaty it is contrary to the good of the country.
"I get that you don't like foreigners". Come on! Surely you can reach down to the bottom of your barrel and come up with a better slur then that. This isn't and shouldn't be about foreigners or immigrants legal or illegal. Our government has a responsibility to the citizens of this country and not to Somalis or any other people. We are not the worlds charity. In case you have not noticed we are plunging headlong into economic suicide by borrowing and printing $2 trillion a year to give it away for things like this. What our politicians are doing is unconstitutional and this will not end well. And the best response you can muster is anyone who objects to this mad rush over the cliff doesn't like foreigners?!
I will offer a solution to this problem which I'm sure as a fair minded person you would agree with. Every organization (churches, NGO's etc.) that have sponsored or support bringing non-citizens into this country will incur full responsibility for such individuals. They must pay to support them if they cannot work, they must pay to educate their children, and if these non-citizens commit a crime or harm people then these organizations can be charged to pay for the incarceration. If there is harm to individuals then they can sue in civil court to be compensated for that harm. If one of these non-citizens rapes a young girl not only do they get to go to jail paid for by the NGO that sponsored them but the NGO gets to be sued by the family of the little girl. I could elaborate on this but I think you get the idea.
"perhaps the US is more humane that you want it to be." Wouldn't it be even more humane to bring all 8 million Somalis here and settle them in New York City at a cost of about $50,000 a year? Why not? Or bring in all 115 Mexicans and give them California and Arizona. Why not? Wouldn't that be "humane"? It is not the job of the federal government or any government to be "humane" especially if it means that to do so they must be inhumane to their citizens. 3000 Americans are killed every year by illegal aliens. Is that "humane"? Do you even care? All that matters to you seems to be that your agenda is served and the middle class is taxed to death to pay for it. Is that how you define "humane"?