Thread: Trump: Persecuted Christian refugees will get priority

Trump: Persecuted Christian refugees will get priority

BY MAX GREENWOOD - 01/27/17 04:18 PM EST

The United States could prioritize the resettlement of Christian refugees over members of other religious groups, President Trump said on Friday.

“They’ve been horribly treated,” Trump said in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network anchor David Brody. “Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United States?”

“If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.”

When asked by Brody if he saw helping persecuted Christians abroad as a “priority,” Trump promptly replied, “yes.”

Trump’s comments come as the president considers an executive order that would ban refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries from coming to the U.S., and would suspend the country’s refugee resettlement program for 120 days.

As a presidential candidate, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S., arguing that terrorists were entering the country by posing as refugees. He also called for the creation of a Muslim registry.

His latest comments to prioritize Christian refugees puts Trump in the same camp as former primary rivals Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.).

Of the nearly 85,000 refugees admitted to the U.S. in fiscal 2016, 38,901 were Muslims, while 37,521 were Christians, according to a Pew Research Center report.
According to that same report, about 99 percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. were Muslim, while less than 1 percent were Christian.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...s-are-priority

Be careful. They could be the Trojan Horse posing as Christians to get in.

Please just stop letting any of these people in. We need a 10 to 20 Year Moratorium on Immigration. We have citizens who need jobs, who need peace, who need good schools, nice safe American neighborhoods to live and grow up in, we need sanity and domestic tranquility, we need our own blessings of liberty.

Please just end it all. Give US a rest from immigration so we can focus everything on putting all of our lives back together.

Please.

Order a 10 to 20 Year Moratorium on All Immigration Now. Forget country, make it all countries. Forget religion, make it all religions. JUST STOP IT ALL.

NO NO NO

Any one person they let in...then 1000 have to go out!

If they let 5 in...then 5000 go out.

Or no deal!!! No more people from anywhere...period!

Stop dumping these people on the United States!

This keeps getting better all of the time. Geez, I may even have to go back to work sometime!

Seriously, I wrote a FB mail to Ben Carson friend Armstrong Williams. I wonder what Carson will do as HUD Secretary?I know the eastern and Midwest inner cities are pits of despair. It would take a lot more than renewed employment to fix them. I think it would take a long term of industrial growth and employment before banks would seriously consider lending in those places. So will people still be renters, or will there be more prospects for actual home ownership? And then, how do you get people to the jobs?

Watching to see if Carson just grows into a federal bureaucrat, or can actually have a vision.

Home ownership is over-rated. Americans are figuring this out. Renting is the best for now for people trying to build their lives or rebuild their lives in the cities. No maintenance, no mowing, no property taxes, call the super when something goes wrong, ride the bus, take the train, call a cab. It's a very nice easy life. The nice new facilities have dog parks and safe playgrounds and gyms. Very nice. They need jobs, industrial jobs, these need to be located within 30 to 40 minutes travel time in urban areas.

"Home ownership is over-rated. Americans are figuring this out."

Except that millenials---becoming the largest group of renters---may find that they don't have much of a nest egg when they turn 70, which will be the retirement age then. So maybe they will work 'til 80? I am not sure how much apartment investment is publicly traded (REIT's for example) and who knows which of them will have adequate portfolios in other stocks or investments. I know around here (Portland, OR) the apartment developers are making fortunes, because the younger renters flocking in are paying extremely high rents. They are putting up big buildings with scores of tiny apartments where there used to be warehouses or small industries or vacant lots---sort of mini tenements for hipsters.

I don't think it's a good thing. There are huge renters protests---like they would have in San Francisco. There are a few innovative developments---like co-housing, but they still contract the whole project out.

The Clackamas County owner-built housing project never made it into the headlines, and I think they only did one small street. Maybe only in Oregon would a conservative county government try some sort of cooperative housing project? But people who would have continued renting emerged as mortgage payers, and presumably eventually paid those off. Plus the county got a little added revenue in that case. This might be trickier to do on a condo building.

I know how pathetic some of those old neighborhoods in eastern cities are---which I assume Carson will take responsibility for.

The rents are what they are. It's still a 1 year contract they can get out of without losing everything like they do if they default on a mortgage or property taxes. There is no income security. We also have too many people. They'll have to save nest eggs in savings accounts or IRA's or blue chip stocks or bonds. The incomes aren't there for these young people. I was 34 before I owned my first house and that was when the good times were rolling and I was earning 6 figures.

http://www.alipac.us/f19/pakistan-mu...1/#post1535593

Survey: 69% Of Americans Have Less Than $1000 In Savings - Forbes

www.forbes.com/.../survey-69-of-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings-infograp...

Sep 23, 2016 - GoBanking asked 7000 people around the country how much money ... nearly 7 in 10 Americans have only $1,000 or less in their savings accounts. ... resulting in more people splashing their cash electronically without ...


66 million Americans have no emergency savings - CNBC.com

www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/66-million-americans-have-no-emergency-savings.html

Jun 21, 2016 -In fact, 66 million adults have no money saved for an emergency, according to Bankrate.com. ... When broken down by age, those in Generation X fared the worst: One-third of people ages 36 to 51 said they ...Most Popular.