Major terrorist attack in Paris happening now.

[AURaptor 1,121]

First, I'm not 'the left'.

Very well. Then I will just say those who make statements as yours are more than not from the Left.

Second, of course I realize that the Tsarnaev brothers carried out the Boston attack and that people died in Paris. I'm struggling to see what those events have to do with denying the Syrian refugees. I'm trying to reconstruct your argument, because to me, it's a real stretch to link the Tsarnaev brothers with the Syrian refugee question.

Why did the Tsarnaevs blow up the Boston Marathon ? What possible motive could they have in attacking a country which brought them in, fed them , housed them, and allowed them to live their lives ? Think about that for a moment, and I'll get back to your question.

You're the one who brought up the fact that being on a watch list doesn't mean you can't get past security. I agree with that. But what does it have to do with the question of the refugees?

The administation has claimed that all 10, 20, 50,000 refugees, how ever many, will be thoroughly vetted. The FBI and others flatly claim that such a process isn't possible. There's no way such scrutiny can be made. And yet the President and SecState continue to make such statements. Why ?

You're the one who brought up little kids building countdown timers. I was trying to find a place in your argument for them, too.

Remember the kid from Dallas, Ahmed Mohamed , who claimed to have been racially / religiously profiled, because he made a briefcase clock? It wasn't a clock. And he didn't even make it. There is far more to that story than our MSM is saying, and I find it damn curious how he was made into a celebrity when in fact he did engage in suspicious activity.

So, all I could figure is that you're concerned about security generally. If you're a refugee from Syria, you're a security risk. If you're on a watch list, you're a security risk. If you're a kid who builds countdown timers, you're a security risk. I was just trying to figure out where you were going with all these security risks. So, if not to deportation, where?

First, you don't deport those not already in the country. You deny them access. There's a whole lot of land, meaning there are many countries, between here and Syria. You may want to ask yourself... why are they coming here. Now. Why not 2 years ago ? This civil war has been raging on for quite some time. I all, man governors and the Speaker of the House are saying is that we do NOT need to blindly open our door, open our wallets, and start dumping these folks in our country, w/ out SOME sort of way to process them and check them out. At the very least.

Because it's pretty unclear to me exactly how they actually link up to the conclusion that we shouldn't accept refugees from Syria.

Paris, for one. And where did ISIS get its start ? Where is the capitol of ISIS ? What does ISIS stand for ? ( Islamic State of SYRIA and Iraq. - though now folks over there simply call it Islamic State. Apparently they're not bothering to find out what the western media, or Obama thinks of all this )

The only one that seems relevant is that Syrian refugees are a security risk. The problem with that claim is that it comes awfully close to presupposing what you're trying to prove.

The attackers in Paris cited Syria is why they were killing everyone. If Islamo-terrorists say the reason why they're killing, you should probably listen. They mean it.

At the very least, care should be taken so that we don't allow another 1, 19 , or 1900 terrorists in the country among those 10000's of refugees.

[AUbritt 611]

First, I'm not 'the left'.

Very well. Then I will just say those who make statements as yours are more than not from the Left.

Second, of course I realize that the Tsarnaev brothers carried out the Boston attack and that people died in Paris. I'm struggling to see what those events have to do with denying the Syrian refugees. I'm trying to reconstruct your argument, because to me, it's a real stretch to link the Tsarnaev brothers with the Syrian refugee question.

Why did the Tsarnaevs blow up the Boston Marathon ? What possible motive could they have in attacking a country which brought them in, fed them , housed them, and allowed them to live their lives ? Think about that for a moment, and I'll get back to your question.

You're the one who brought up the fact that being on a watch list doesn't mean you can't get past security. I agree with that. But what does it have to do with the question of the refugees?

The administation has claimed that all 10, 20, 50,000 refugees, how ever many, will be thoroughly vetted. The FBI and others flatly claim that such a process isn't possible. There's no way such scrutiny can be made. And yet the President and SecState continue to make such statements. Why ?

You're the one who brought up little kids building countdown timers. I was trying to find a place in your argument for them, too.

Remember the kid from Dallas, Ahmed Mohamed , who claimed to have been racially / religiously profiled, because he made a briefcase clock? It wasn't a clock. And he didn't even make it. There is far more to that story than our MSM is saying, and I find it damn curious how he was made into a celebrity when in fact he did engage in suspicious activity.

So, all I could figure is that you're concerned about security generally. If you're a refugee from Syria, you're a security risk. If you're on a watch list, you're a security risk. If you're a kid who builds countdown timers, you're a security risk. I was just trying to figure out where you were going with all these security risks. So, if not to deportation, where?

First, you don't deport those not already in the country. You deny them access. There's a whole lot of land, meaning there are many countries, between here and Syria. You may want to ask yourself... why are they coming here. Now. Why not 2 years ago ? This civil war has been raging on for quite some time. I all, man governors and the Speaker of the House are saying is that we do NOT need to blindly open our door, open our wallets, and start dumping these folks in our country, w/ out SOME sort of way to process them and check them out. At the very least.

Because it's pretty unclear to me exactly how they actually link up to the conclusion that we shouldn't accept refugees from Syria.

Paris, for one. And where did ISIS get its start ? Where is the capitol of ISIS ? What does ISIS stand for ? ( Islamic State of SYRIA and Iraq. - though now folks over there simply call it Islamic State. Apparently they're not bothering to find out what the western media, or Obama thinks of all this )

The only one that seems relevant is that Syrian refugees are a security risk. The problem with that claim is that it comes awfully close to presupposing what you're trying to prove.

The attackers in Paris cited Syria is why they were killing everyone. If Islamo-terrorists say the reason why they're killing, you should probably listen. They mean it.

At the very least, care should be taken so that we don't allow another 1, 19 , or 1900 terrorists in the country among those 10000's of refugees.

Apparently, you think me stupid. I was actually trying to have a real discussion about this issue. Maybe I proved you correct.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Apparently, you think me stupid. I was actually trying to have a real discussion about this issue. Maybe I proved you correct.

What the F ? I GAVE you a serious, sincere response, to ALL of your questions. I didn't give any glib, short answers, or post any goofy photos w/ lame slogans... seriously, how was my reply NOT in line w/ a real discussion ?

[around4ever 4,139]

So, going to war with ISIS is not the right thing for the world to do. Is inviting them into our neighborhoods and giving them a blank check the right thing to do? Just curious since the FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have said there is no way to fully vet the refugees as the president has promised would happen.

Who said anything about inviting them into our neighborhoods OR giving them a blank check?

Historically, refugees have generally been housed in camps or dwellings reserved for that purpose, at least until conditions allowed for their safe return to their homeland or time/experienced proved them worthy of a path to permanent residence in the adopting country. It's not like we'd bring them across the border and then turn them loose willy-nilly saying "Okay, now you're on your own...go where you will, do what you want, and don't stay in touch." Nor is anyone offering a free ATM card or 'blank check'.

Throughout history, when governments have officially welcomed masses of refugees, they've also housed those refugees in known (generally confined) locations, then kept an eye on and cared for those refugees. Not offering them pie-in-the-sky luxury, but providing the essentials of food and shelter in a monitored manner. And the time spent in such camps or controlled environments is also time for the 'vetting' process to continue.

You make it sound like we put them in concentration camps surrounded by high fences to keep them away from the public. That is not exactly how it works. They are given food, housing, medical care at our expense. Their children can attend public schools at our expense. It sounds like they become a member of the free ride population. We have too many homeless veterans and homeless families already in this country who could use some of this government assistance. http://www.rcusa.org/index.php?page=post-arrival-assistance-and-benefits

[AUbritt 611]

Apparently, you think me stupid. I was actually trying to have a real discussion about this issue. Maybe I proved you correct.

What the F ? I GAVE you a serious, sincere response, to ALL of your questions. I didn't give any glib, short answers, or post any goofy photos w/ lame slogans... seriously, how was my reply NOT in line w/ a real discussion ?

I highlighted where you felt the need to tell me that you don't deport people who aren't yet in the country.

[AUbritt 611]

So, going to war with ISIS is not the right thing for the world to do. Is inviting them into our neighborhoods and giving them a blank check the right thing to do? Just curious since the FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have said there is no way to fully vet the refugees as the president has promised would happen.

Who said anything about inviting them into our neighborhoods OR giving them a blank check?

Historically, refugees have generally been housed in camps or dwellings reserved for that purpose, at least until conditions allowed for their safe return to their homeland or time/experienced proved them worthy of a path to permanent residence in the adopting country. It's not like we'd bring them across the border and then turn them loose willy-nilly saying "Okay, now you're on your own...go where you will, do what you want, and don't stay in touch." Nor is anyone offering a free ATM card or 'blank check'.

Throughout history, when governments have officially welcomed masses of refugees, they've also housed those refugees in known (generally confined) locations, then kept an eye on and cared for those refugees. Not offering them pie-in-the-sky luxury, but providing the essentials of food and shelter in a monitored manner. And the time spent in such camps or controlled environments is also time for the 'vetting' process to continue.

You make it sound like we put them in concentration camps surrounded by high fences to keep them away from the public. That is not exactly how it works. They are given food, housing, medical care at our expense. Their children can attend public schools at our expense. It sounds like they become a member of the free ride population. We have too many homeless veterans and homeless families already in this country who could use some of this government assistance. http://www.rcusa.org...ce-and-benefits

That's for sure! But I don't see why it's a choice between helping them and helping the refugees.

I also think that by helping the refugees, we hurt ISIS. That's a good political reason to do so, if you ask me.

[around4ever 4,139]

So, going to war with ISIS is not the right thing for the world to do. Is inviting them into our neighborhoods and giving them a blank check the right thing to do? Just curious since the FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have said there is no way to fully vet the refugees as the president has promised would happen.

Who said anything about inviting them into our neighborhoods OR giving them a blank check?

Historically, refugees have generally been housed in camps or dwellings reserved for that purpose, at least until conditions allowed for their safe return to their homeland or time/experienced proved them worthy of a path to permanent residence in the adopting country. It's not like we'd bring them across the border and then turn them loose willy-nilly saying "Okay, now you're on your own...go where you will, do what you want, and don't stay in touch." Nor is anyone offering a free ATM card or 'blank check'.

Throughout history, when governments have officially welcomed masses of refugees, they've also housed those refugees in known (generally confined) locations, then kept an eye on and cared for those refugees. Not offering them pie-in-the-sky luxury, but providing the essentials of food and shelter in a monitored manner. And the time spent in such camps or controlled environments is also time for the 'vetting' process to continue.

You make it sound like we put them in concentration camps surrounded by high fences to keep them away from the public. That is not exactly how it works. They are given food, housing, medical care at our expense. Their children can attend public schools at our expense. It sounds like they become a member of the free ride population. We have too many homeless veterans and homeless families already in this country who could use some of this government assistance. http://www.rcusa.org...ce-and-benefits

That's for sure! But I don't see why it's a choice between helping them and helping the refugees.

I also think that by helping the refugees, we hurt ISIS. That's a good political reason to do so, if you ask me.

I can see how this could hurt ISIS in a weird sort of way. Unless, of course, ISIS is mixed in with the refugees and get by the "extensive" screening process. Then we are helping them.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Apparently, you think me stupid. I was actually trying to have a real discussion about this issue. Maybe I proved you correct.

What the F ? I GAVE you a serious, sincere response, to ALL of your questions. I didn't give any glib, short answers, or post any goofy photos w/ lame slogans... seriously, how was my reply NOT in line w/ a real discussion ?

I highlighted where you felt the need to tell me that you don't deport people who aren't yet in the country.

Fair enough I missed that. It was a very long , point by point reply. But you don't deport anyone, unless they happen to be on a watch list. Tsarnaevs needed to have been deported, before hand, and the bombing wouldn't have happened.

The " clock kid " was made into a celebrity, and imo, he had a lot of explaining to do. His family self deported, which might be for the best, but that's not because of anything the authorities did.

[around4ever 4,139]

Just a note to ponder:

..."More than 30,000 to 40,000 Chechens were killed in those conflicts. Further, well over 300,000 Chechens were displaced internally in Russia and the EU. It is estimated that less than 1,000 came to the US as refugees with perhaps 200, including the Tsarnaevs, settling in the Boston area. The father, Ansor, and younger son Dzhokhar came to the US as tourists in 2002 applied for and were granted Asylum under the Refugee Act of 1980. That act facilitated family reunification under the P-3 Visa program of the US Department of State. Mother, Rubeidtsa, and daughters Ailina and Bella along with Tamerlan, the elder son, came in 2006. Tamerlan chose to remain here as a resident alien. They were granted generous taxpayer benefits and put on a fast track to obtaining US citizenship or green cards. A decade later on September 11, 2012 Dzhokhar became a US citizen."

Oh yeah, the Tsarnaev brothers were the Boston Marathon Bombers.

[AUbritt 611]

Apparently, you think me stupid. I was actually trying to have a real discussion about this issue. Maybe I proved you correct.

What the F ? I GAVE you a serious, sincere response, to ALL of your questions. I didn't give any glib, short answers, or post any goofy photos w/ lame slogans... seriously, how was my reply NOT in line w/ a real discussion ?

I highlighted where you felt the need to tell me that you don't deport people who aren't yet in the country.

Fair enough I missed that. It was a very long , point by point reply. But you don't deport anyone, unless they happen to be on a watch list. Tsarnaevs needed to have been deported, before hand, and the bombing wouldn't have happened.

The " clock kid " was made into a celebrity, and imo, he had a lot of explaining to do. His family self deported, which might be for the best, but that's not because of anything the authorities did.

So, I'm actually in favor of stricter border controls. I honestly think that sort of security measure is necessary. I'm not a huge fan of mass surveillance, though.

I also don't think we should admit just any refugees. I think we need to try to vet them the best we can, and if there's any justifiable doubt, we don't let them in. (I also understand that lots of folks think there will always be justifiable doubt, since we can't get government records from Syria. My understanding is that the FBI was responding to a question about why it took so long to vet refugees from Syria.)

What we do with folks on a watch list I'd like to decide case by case -- would we be better off if we can use them to expose more people? Should we arrest them? If we deport them, can we still keep tabs on them? Stuff like that would go into the decisions.

I remember the kid with the clock thing, but not in any detail; so I can't speak to that.

[AUbritt 611]

Just a note to ponder:

..."More than 30,000 to 40,000 Chechens were killed in those conflicts. Further, well over 300,000 Chechens were displaced internally in Russia and the EU. It is estimated that less than 1,000 came to the US as refugees with perhaps 200, including the Tsarnaevs, settling in the Boston area. The father, Ansor, and younger son Dzhokhar came to the US as tourists in 2002 applied for and were granted Asylum under the Refugee Act of 1980. That act facilitated family reunification under the P-3 Visa program of the US Department of State. Mother, Rubeidtsa, and daughters Ailina and Bella along with Tamerlan, the elder son, came in 2006. Tamerlan chose to remain here as a resident alien. They were granted generous taxpayer benefits and put on a fast track to obtaining US citizenship or green cards. A decade later on September 11, 2012 Dzhokhar became a US citizen."

Oh yeah, the Tsarnaev brothers were the Boston Marathon Bombers.

Right, but they came in on tourist visas and didn't go through the sort of vetting process the Syrian refugees will.

[AUbritt 611]

So, going to war with ISIS is not the right thing for the world to do. Is inviting them into our neighborhoods and giving them a blank check the right thing to do? Just curious since the FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have said there is no way to fully vet the refugees as the president has promised would happen.

Who said anything about inviting them into our neighborhoods OR giving them a blank check?

Historically, refugees have generally been housed in camps or dwellings reserved for that purpose, at least until conditions allowed for their safe return to their homeland or time/experienced proved them worthy of a path to permanent residence in the adopting country. It's not like we'd bring them across the border and then turn them loose willy-nilly saying "Okay, now you're on your own...go where you will, do what you want, and don't stay in touch." Nor is anyone offering a free ATM card or 'blank check'.

Throughout history, when governments have officially welcomed masses of refugees, they've also housed those refugees in known (generally confined) locations, then kept an eye on and cared for those refugees. Not offering them pie-in-the-sky luxury, but providing the essentials of food and shelter in a monitored manner. And the time spent in such camps or controlled environments is also time for the 'vetting' process to continue.

You make it sound like we put them in concentration camps surrounded by high fences to keep them away from the public. That is not exactly how it works. They are given food, housing, medical care at our expense. Their children can attend public schools at our expense. It sounds like they become a member of the free ride population. We have too many homeless veterans and homeless families already in this country who could use some of this government assistance. http://www.rcusa.org...ce-and-benefits

That's for sure! But I don't see why it's a choice between helping them and helping the refugees.

I also think that by helping the refugees, we hurt ISIS. That's a good political reason to do so, if you ask me.

I can see how this could hurt ISIS in a weird sort of way. Unless, of course, ISIS is mixed in with the refugees and get by the "extensive" screening process. Then we are helping them.

Refugees leaving Syria put the lie to the idea that the Islamic State is some kind of paradise for Muslims. If it's so awesome, why are they leaving? ISIS wants Muslims to flock to them, not run away. They want to discourage folks from leaving Syria and encourage them to go there. So, it's in their interest for us to be hostile to Muslims already here and to deny refuge to folks fleeing Syria.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Right, but they came in on tourist visas and didn't go through the sort of vetting process the Syrian refugees will.

At least one was put on a watch list, and we were given DIRECT warming by the Russians. Which was ignored.

But right, they weren't vetted.

[AUbritt 611]

Right, but they came in on tourist visas and didn't go through the sort of vetting process the Syrian refugees will.

At least one was put on a watch list, and we were given DIRECT warming by the Russians. Which was ignored.

But right, they weren't vetted.

It's frustrating when we find out after the fact that warnings are ignored. I kept hearing that the Iraqis had warned the French about Paris. The response I heard from the French was that they get those sorts of warnings every day.

If someone is on a watch list and we do get a warning about them specifically, we should definitely do something about it. I'm not sure, though, about the volume of such warnings. I mean, would it be impossible? How much manpower would it take?

[AURaptor 1,121]

If someone is on a watch list and we do get a warning about them specifically, we should definitely do something about it. I'm not sure, though, about the volume of such warnings. I mean, would it be impossible? How much manpower would it take?

I heard a figure that it takes 25 people to vet one person. Dunno how accurate that is, or how long a time period , but even if it takes a dozen people for each vetting, repeat that process 10's of 1000's of time for each refugee. Sure, take out small children, toddlers and the like, but still... we simply don't have the manpower to pull this off.

[AUbritt 611]

If someone is on a watch list and we do get a warning about them specifically, we should definitely do something about it. I'm not sure, though, about the volume of such warnings. I mean, would it be impossible? How much manpower would it take?

I heard a figure that it takes 25 people to vet one person. Dunno how accurate that is, or how long a time period , but even if it takes a dozen people for each vetting, repeat that process 10's of 1000's of time for each refugee. Sure, take out small children, toddlers and the like, but still... we simply don't have the manpower to pull this off.

I was talking about folks already on a watch list about whom we receive a specific warning. Sounds like you're talking about the refugees, perhaps. I'm hearing it's going to take 2 years to vet the 10,000 refugees -- probably because it's so labor intensive.

[AURaptor 1,121]

If someone is on a watch list and we do get a warning about them specifically, we should definitely do something about it. I'm not sure, though, about the volume of such warnings. I mean, would it be impossible? How much manpower would it take?

I heard a figure that it takes 25 people to vet one person. Dunno how accurate that is, or how long a time period , but even if it takes a dozen people for each vetting, repeat that process 10's of 1000's of time for each refugee. Sure, take out small children, toddlers and the like, but still... we simply don't have the manpower to pull this off.

I was talking about folks already on a watch list about whom we receive a specific warning. Sounds like you're talking about the refugees, perhaps. I'm hearing it's going to take 2 years to vet the 10,000 refugees -- probably because it's so labor intensive.

That's what I was talking bout as well. And Obama isn't JUST talking 10,000, but probably 80,000 or more.

[homersapien 11,354]

With the open borders that this administration has promoted, and piling on more and more unvetted "refugees" from a sectatian Civil War, to deny that we arent an overloaded lifeboat is to fully admit ignorance of a colossal nature.

We're $19 trillion over debt. We're letting more and more people come in , unvetted , and putting them on the public dole. Jobs are already hard to come by in Obama's economy. Food stamps are at an all time high.

Just stop acting like this isn't a big deal.

Lebanon GDP = 47.3 Billion

U.S. GDP = 14 Trillion

We are the richest nation on earth, the 4th largest nation by land area, but only 184th in population density (https://en.wikipedia...ulation_density ).

We have the world's largest GDP and the most billionaires (more than Russia, China, Germany, the UK, and France combined: https://en.wikipedia...ar_billionaires ).

We have the strongest military on the planet and spend the most to defend ourselves (More than the next ten nations combined: http://www.globalfir...ding-budget.asp ), as well as keeping more police officers on duty than any nation other than the much more populous China and India (https://en.wikipedia...police_officers ), to keep us safe.

...Our 'lifeboat' is a long way from floundering. There's plenty of room for more passengers, although the psychological frame of mind of the current passengers and crew might be somewhat sketchy.

Bravo!

[AURaptor 1,121]

Europe said the exact same thing. And now they, their culture, are being over run.

History repeats itself.

And with the USA hating youth being so educated in our schools, this won't take too long to destroy the country.

[GoAU 1,599]

With the open borders that this administration has promoted, and piling on more and more unvetted "refugees" from a sectatian Civil War, to deny that we arent an overloaded lifeboat is to fully admit ignorance of a colossal nature.

We're $19 trillion over debt. We're letting more and more people come in , unvetted , and putting them on the public dole. Jobs are already hard to come by in Obama's economy. Food stamps are at an all time high.

Just stop acting like this isn't a big deal.

Lebanon GDP = 47.3 Billion

U.S. GDP = 14 Trillion

We are the richest nation on earth, the 4th largest nation by land area, but only 184th in population density (https://en.wikipedia...ulation_density ).

We have the world's largest GDP and the most billionaires (more than Russia, China, Germany, the UK, and France combined: https://en.wikipedia...ar_billionaires ).

We have the strongest military on the planet and spend the most to defend ourselves (More than the next ten nations combined: http://www.globalfir...ding-budget.asp ), as well as keeping more police officers on duty than any nation other than the much more populous China and India (https://en.wikipedia...police_officers ), to keep us safe.

...Our 'lifeboat' is a long way from floundering. There's plenty of room for more passengers, although the psychological frame of mind of the current passengers and crew might be somewhat sketchy.

Bravo!

So, if I get your intent correctly, we just keep letting in "refugees" (and whoever else tags along with them) because we have land that isn't packesd to the gills yet, and our country has a good GDP? So, because things are going reasonably well we should &%$# it all up? Kind of like taxing the rich to ridiculous levels because they "can afford it" - regardless of how hard they worked or which personal risks they endured to get there? Wealth redistribution at the national level, right?

Here's a novel idea - if we're so concerned about their plight why aree we allowing their country to burn to the ground? Why not fix the root cause of the problem (ISIS, radical Islam, and the Syrian resvolt) instead of just treating the symptom? If we continue just treating the symptom, the problem won't get fixed and all of those cure little stats you posted will eventually drop. Hopefully your kids will be as exited about what you've done to our country as you are.

[homersapien 11,354]

Europe said the exact same thing. And now they, their culture, are being over run.

History repeats itself.

And with the USA hating youth being so educated in our schools, this won't take too long to destroy the country.

Yeah, the USA just hates for our youth being so educated".

What blather. :-\

[AURaptor 1,121]

Educated in what, exactly ? Not American exceptionalism , but all manner of AGW & socialism crap.

[homersapien 11,354]

So, going to war with Daesh is not the right thing for the world to do. Is inviting them into our neighborhoods and giving them a blank check the right thing to do? Just curious since the FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have said there is no way to fully vet the refugees as the president has promised would happen.

Who said anything about inviting them into our neighborhoods OR giving them a blank check?

Historically, refugees have generally been housed in camps or dwellings reserved for that purpose, at least until conditions allowed for their safe return to their homeland or time/experienced proved them worthy of a path to permanent residence in the adopting country. It's not like we'd bring them across the border and then turn them loose willy-nilly saying "Okay, now you're on your own...go where you will, do what you want, and don't stay in touch." Nor is anyone offering a free ATM card or 'blank check'.

Throughout history, when governments have officially welcomed masses of refugees, they've also housed those refugees in known (generally confined) locations, then kept an eye on and cared for those refugees. Not offering them pie-in-the-sky luxury, but providing the essentials of food and shelter in a monitored manner. And the time spent in such camps or controlled environments is also time for the 'vetting' process to continue.

You make it sound like we put them in concentration camps surrounded by high fences to keep them away from the public. That is not exactly how it works. They are given food, housing, medical care at our expense. Their children can attend public schools at our expense. It sounds like they become a member of the free ride population. We have too many homeless veterans and homeless families already in this country who could use some of this government assistance. http://www.rcusa.org...ce-and-benefits

Yeah! Just like all those Vietnamese refugees who came over to become a part of the "free ride" population. :-\

[homersapien 11,354]

Educated in what, exactly ? Not American exceptionalism , but all manner of AGW & socialism crap.

That's right. Double down on idiocy. It's your nature.