Obama’s refugee resettlement plan could stir battle with states

[dan_bgblue]

There is a perfect solution to the worries of the States. The POTUS needs to allow the refuges to live in DC. The states would not have reason to complain, and the elected officials that allow it to happen could welcome their new neighbors with open arms.

The Commander and Community Organizer (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/07/obamas-refugee-resettlement-plan-could-stir-battle-with-states/?intcmp=hpbt1)

[suncat05]

There is a perfect solution to the worries of the States. The POTUS needs to allow the refuges to live in DC. The states would not have reason to complain, and the elected officials that allow it to happen could welcome their new neighbors with open arms.

The Commander and Community Organizer (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/07/obamas-refugee-resettlement-plan-could-stir-battle-with-states/?intcmp=hpbt1)

Uh, you did mean their "new constituents"........right?

[CitizenBBN]

Put them in the homes and communities of his big money leftist donors. They have plenty of space in places like Martha's Vineyard in all those homes that are only used a few weeks a year.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Put them in the homes and communities of his big money leftist donors. They have plenty of space in places like Martha's Vineyard in all those homes that are only used a few weeks a year.

Yeah, they should get right on that as soon as pro-lifers start adopting more poor and minority children, that if those people had their choice, would force them against their will to carry to birth, then basically ignore them, degrade them and many of those unwanted children go down a path that leaves them with few alternatives than lives of crime.

Those right-wing donors have some pretty deep pockets too, and lots of empty houses sitting around 49-50 weeks out of the year, perfectly suitable for unwanted children and their families.

To stay on topic, though, I am not in favor of accepting refugees at this time. We have too many problems to figure out first and very little in terms of leaders with courage to address them.

[CitizenBBN]

Yeah, they should get right on that as soon as pro-lifers start adopting more poor and minority children, that if those people had their choice, would force them against their will to carry to birth, then basically ignore them, degrade them and many of those unwanted children go down a path that leaves them with few alternatives than lives of crime.

Those right-wing donors have some pretty deep pockets too, and lots of empty houses sitting around 49-50 weeks out of the year, perfectly suitable for unwanted children and their families.

To stay on topic, though, I am not in favor of accepting refugees at this time. We have too many problems to figure out first and very little in terms of leaders with courage to address them.

I'm a Libertarian, not a social conservative, so I'm not interested in the slightest in the abortion debate nor will I defend it either way, but in truth lots of conservatives are adopting children these days, far more than Leftists who are housing the poor and downtrodden.

But in general I'm all for putting your money where your mouth is, but the argument re anti-abortion supporters is if they are OK with handing out as much free birth control as we can. That to me is the question, living with government entitlements in this narrow case in order to prevent the need for abortions. Again, my sense is that most agree with doing that if it will prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Re the refugees, I'm sorry for their plight, but there are lots of refugees and others living in similar circumstances all over the world, by the millions. Taking them in isn't much of a viable solution. how about ending the war in Syria by actually taking foreign policy action?

[jazyd]

I'm a Libertarian, not a social conservative, so I'm not interested in the slightest in the abortion debate nor will I defend it either way, but in truth lots of conservatives are adopting children these days, far more than Leftists who are housing the poor and downtrodden.

But in general I'm all for putting your money where your mouth is, but the argument re anti-abortion supporters is if they are OK with handing out as much free birth control as we can. That to me is the question, living with government entitlements in this narrow case in order to prevent the need for abortions. Again, my sense is that most agree with doing that if it will prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Re the refugees, I'm sorry for their plight, but there are lots of refugees and others living in similar circumstances all over the world, by the millions. Taking them in isn't much of a viable solution. how about ending the war in Syria by actually taking foreign policy action?

Plenty of Christians and conservatives ate adoptin children every day, all nationalities including our own Paducat . I see it almost every day in my store with black or Asian children with white moms. Plus churches are constantly doing daily charity work...feeding the homeless, giving them clothes, fixing homes, going out of country to build orphanages, doing plumbing work, dental work, doctoring, you name it. My church sends a team every sept to work on buildings or whatever repairs are needed plus take thousands of dollars of food to communities in eastern Ky. As soon as I retire I am going with them.
There would be more adoptions if the federal government and state human resource depts would stop with all the hoops that have to be jumped through. Several friends of mine are going thru it now with the state. Ugly