Thread: US to accept N Korean refugees

Originally Posted by dman1200

Originally Posted by Reciprocity

Originally Posted by CountFloyd

Originally Posted by Reciprocity

I have no problems accepting N.Koreans into the US, these people have gone threw hell and back under one of the most Brutal Regimes in the world, these people deserve political asylum. and yes they should be screened of course.

Is there some reason they couldn't have been sent to South Korea?

I see your point but what if South Korea Refuses? We accept Cuban Refugees because of Castro's Political Persecutions, N.Koreans have gone threw far worst than them, i agree we can't take all of them, but we can accept some.

Why should we accept refugees period? Why don't we just move the entire planet into America? We don't have the money, we don't have the resources, we don't have the living space, we don't have the jobs. We are tapped out. I'm sorry these people have suffered, but we are not responsible for the entire world's population no matter what Jorge and his minions think. I have compassion too, but that doesn't mean I don't use my brain and a little common sense and say hey sorry, we can't provide for everyone. Sometimes people need to take care of themselves. It sucks I know, but we have to take care of ourselves before we think about taking care of others. Fix our own back yard first before fixing someone elses.

Well it goes back to having 20 million Illegal Aliens in the Country. If we got rid of them, we would have room for Legitamate Political Refugees. This is not about the Political Flavor of the Moment, we don't turn away Political Refugees simply because its politically unpopular or when its convenient, this has been an American Bedrock principle of this country for years. I do understand your point though and in principle agree with you guys, but again this is American policy. If you want to change it ,write your Representatives.

Those posting here that want the North Koreans to move to the USA.

If you REALLY mean what you write, I DARE you to lower YOUR lifestyle to the 3rd-world level and donate YOUR money to assist those folks.

How dare anyone take MY money that I earned and spend it to assist any North Korean.

You want to force me to help?

Then I should be allowed to force YOU to pay my share.

So much guilt among Americans. The elite class is using that guilt. Your progeny will pay the price when the USA has a billion people and the masses are wallowing in poverty's mire.

Originally Posted by lsmith1338

I don't think we should be taking in anymore refugees right now as we have enough issues with immigration going on now in our own country. We cannot even feed all of the poor and homeless in our own country. We cannot even give healthcare to all our own poor and elderly. How much does our government think we can afford to do for other countries without taking care of our own first?

the way this country treats many of its citizens is a disgrace

again, PLEASE call your STATE capitol and DEMAND that the state stands up for state's rights and it's citizens -- rally the troops so when the call comes, they wll step forward. And apparently, y'all need to call the governor of the State of Alabama and ask him to send out that call as proposed by the Alabama Coalition for State's Rights -- because the request was ignored


P.S., I forgot to add, we need this done BEFORE the State elections -- because who we put in office will determine our fate

evidently nobody agrees with me on state's rights, but this is really the only way to go

Originally Posted by Reciprocity

I see your point but what if South Korea Refuses? We accept Cuban Refugees because of Castro's Political Persecutions, N.Koreans have gone threw far worst than them, i agree we can't take all of them, but we can accept some.

Cuba is 90 miles away, and the Cubans arrive here on rafts and boats.

We don't send planes to Cuba to fly them out.

As for South Korea refusing. What if we refuse to keep sending them foreign aid and decide to remove our military? Perhaps they'd be more accommodating then.

Have we become so weak that we can't demand anything of any other country? On second thought, maybe it's better if you don't answer that.

Originally Posted by CountFloyd

Originally Posted by Reciprocity

I see your point but what if South Korea Refuses? We accept Cuban Refugees because of Castro's Political Persecutions, N.Koreans have gone threw far worst than them, i agree we can't take all of them, but we can accept some.

Cuba is 90 miles away, and the Cubans arrive here on rafts and boats.

We don't send planes to Cuba to fly them out.

As for South Korea refusing. What if we refuse to keep sending them foreign aid and decide to remove our military? Perhaps they'd be more accommodating then.

Have we become so weak that we can't demand anything of any other country? On second thought, maybe it's better if you don't answer that.

So pull out our Military from S.Korea and send the go ahead signal for N.Korea to invade? Because of some refugees? You better go read some books on Foreign Relations and Stratigic Thinking

Yeah, your right.

We've only been protecting them militarily for 50 years. How dare we ask them to help us out here.

I guess the United States lot in life is just to do whatever every other country in the world tells us to do and to take in every single displaced person who wants in.

We've only been protecting them militarily for 50 years. How dare we ask them to help us out here.

We've been in South Korea not North Korea. The military presence in South Korea is a multi-national one. The US has the most troops there but there are troops from other coutries.

Originally Posted by JohnB2012

We've only been protecting them militarily for 50 years. How dare we ask them to help us out here.

We've been in South Korea not North Korea. The military presence in South Korea is a multi-national one. The US has the most troops there but there are troops from other coutries.

Yes, that's true. Our troops have been in South Korea for over 50 years.

Did you think I said we've been protecting North Korea for 50 years?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02062.html

Immigration Waiver Granted to Refugees
Some Burmese Lose Pro-Terrorism Label

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 5, 2006; A14



In the first move of its kind, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has granted an immigration law waiver so that many of the 9,300 Burmese refugees at a camp in Thailand will no longer be viewed as supporters of terrorism and can be considered for resettlement in the United States, officials said yesterday.

The waiver, which Rice signed Wednesday, followed months of internal argument among the departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security. The argument has pitted concerns about combating terrorism against worries that people with legitimate claims to asylum were being blocked from immigrating to the United States. At issue have been broad definitions, in recently passed immigration legislation, of what constitutes a terrorist group and what qualifies as "material support" for terrorism.

The lack of specificity in the law has created problems for groups as varied as Colombian refugees fleeing the terrorism of leftist insurgents and Liberian women raped and forced into servitude by rebels. Its restrictiveness is affecting even groups whose causes the Bush administration supports, such as some in Afghanistan who aided the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.

Lawmakers and human rights activists who had pushed for the waiver applauded it as a first step. But they appealed for further action to alleviate the inadvertent impact of the counterterrorism provisions on thousands of other refugees seeking entry into the United States.

"We had been urging them -- and the State Department itself had been pressing -- to use this waiver authority for many months, and they had been blocked by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security," said Tim Rieser, an aide to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

State Department officials said there are no plans to grant additional waivers in the near future. They characterized the Burmese situation as a test case, the results of which will need to be assessed before more waivers are issued. The case was chosen, they said, because it involves the largest group of refugees affected by the provisions in question.

The provisions, which draw on the USA Patriot Act of 2001, were enacted last year as part of the Real ID Act and incorporated into U.S. immigration law. One involves a catchall definition of "terrorist organization," said to be any group of two or more people who bear arms with the intent to endanger the safety of any individual.

The other controversial provision bars the admission of anyone who has provided "material support" to any armed group. The problem with this language, critics say, is that it makes no distinction between support given willingly and support compelled by force, nor does it distinguish among armed groups. Many of the Burmese refugees living in camps in Thailand, for instance, provided water and rice to U.S.-backed pro-democracy groups operating along the border.

"The bar has affected thousands of refugees fleeing religious persecution in Malaysia and Sierra Leone, and political persecution in Colombia, Cuba, Liberia and Sri Lanka," said Robert D. Evans of the American Bar Association, in a letter to Congress last month urging a revision. "The bar's language is so broad that it would have excluded people who fought for freedom from apartheid in South Africa, Jews who resisted persecution in Nazi Germany and Vietnamese and Hmong who aided United States forces during the Vietnam War."

In an attempt to add specificity to the law and allow for the exercise of greater discretion, Leahy and Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) tried to attach an amendment to the emergency supplemental spending bill last month. But the measure was deemed not germane.

The Burmese refugees affected by the State Department waiver are supporters of the Karen National Union who have opposed the Burmese military junta and now reside at the Tham Hin camp in Thailand. But the waiver is not a total remedy for the camp, said Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch. It applies only to Karen backers, not members. And it does nothing for the Burmese in other camps in Thailand or Malaysia.

Why can't they go to South Korea. Why would we want to bail communist China out anyway? The nightmare never ends.