Syrian refugee families arrive in Texas and Indiana despite governors' protests

[xht]

Greg Abbott and Mike Pence among more than two dozen Republican governors who said they would refuse new refugees after Paris attacks in November

Syrian refugee families have arrived in Texas and Indiana, defying efforts by the governors of those conservative US states to stop their arrival.

A Syrian family of six went to live on Monday near relatives who were already living in the Dallas area, said Lucy Carrigan, a spokeswoman for the International Rescue Committee. And a Syrian couple and their two small children arrived safely in Indiana on Monday night, the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Indianapolis said in a statement.

Governors Greg Abbott of Texas and Mike Pence of Indiana were among more than two dozen Republican governors who said they would refuse any new Syrian refugees following the deadly 13 November Paris attacks, which have been linked to the Islamic State group operating in Syria.

But federal officials and refugee agencies have continued resettlement. They say states are denying a safe haven to families displaced by war, and that a state’s role in resettlement does not include the authority to block them.

In Dallas, the family of six settled into an apartment with basic furniture and a stocked refrigerator, Carrigan said.

“They seem very happy,” Carrigan said. “And it was almost like breathing a sigh of relief that they have arrived. This has been a long journey for them, and it’s been a long journey for a lot of Syrian refugees.”

Texas has taken in more refugees than any other state in the past five years, including about 250 Syrian refugees. But it also fought harder than any other state to stop Syrian refugees after the attacks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/08/syrian-refugee-families-arrive-texas-indiana

[tigerfree]

  Syria .

[bryant.coleman]

This is the ultimate irony. Why these "refugees" are not resettled in states such as New York, California and New Jersey, where the population is pro-immigration? Why most of them are being sent to "red" states such as Texas, where the population is not that excited about the immigrant arrivals? Seems to me that the Democrats are silently trying to alter the demography of the red states.

[vero]

Who is paying their expenses? Are the taxpayers of Texas and Indiana being forced to pay their expenses?

When (not if) one of these "refugees" walks into a shopping mall with an explosive vest on and detonates it, will we still be talking about resettling 100,000 more?

[subSTRATA]

This is the ultimate irony. Why these "refugees" are not resettled in states such as New York, California and New Jersey, where the population is pro-immigration? Why most of them are being sent to "red" states such as Texas, where the population is not that excited about the immigrant arrivals? Seems to me that the Democrats are silently trying to alter the demography of the red states.

more than likely it has to do with the living costs; living costs in california and new york especially are just outrageous. not to mention that overcrowding might be an issue as well.

[BADecker]

Just make sure that they get all their free thimerosal flu shots.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1272190.msg13118933#msg13118933


 

[bryant.coleman]

more than likely it has to do with the living costs; living costs in california and new york especially are just outrageous. not to mention that overcrowding might be an issue as well.

What about states such as Oregon and Washington? They are not overcrowded, and unlike "expensive states" such as California and New York, the living expenses are very much within the limits. Why no significant amount of refugees are being sent to these states? And you should also remember that rural areas of California are not that unaffordable.

[BADecker]

more than likely it has to do with the living costs; living costs in california and new york especially are just outrageous. not to mention that overcrowding might be an issue as well.

What about states such as Oregon and Washington? They are not overcrowded, and unlike "expensive states" such as California and New York, the living expenses are very much within the limits. Why no significant amount of refugees are being sent to these states? And you should also remember that rural areas of California are not that unaffordable.

The Sahara Desert isn't overcrowded, either. Send them there. After all, it isn't as far to go as the Western Hemisphere.

[bryant.coleman]

The Sahara Desert isn't overcrowded, either. Send them there. After all, it isn't as far to go as the Western Hemisphere.

With the exception of the ISIS controlled territories in Libya, the Saharan desert has remained relatively free from the ISIS radicals. I don't want to infest countries like Egypt and Morocco with ISIS jihadis. We can send these "refugees" to the Rub Al Khali desert in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Monarchy is very similar to the ISIS, and the refugees will feel at home.

[subSTRATA]

more than likely it has to do with the living costs; living costs in california and new york especially are just outrageous. not to mention that overcrowding might be an issue as well.

What about states such as Oregon and Washington? They are not overcrowded, and unlike "expensive states" such as California and New York, the living expenses are very much within the limits. Why no significant amount of refugees are being sent to these states? And you should also remember that rural areas of California are not that unaffordable.

true, but then again, this is the US government we're talking about here, they might as well have just thrown state names into a hat and drew lots to decide where the refugees went.

[BADecker]

The Sahara Desert isn't overcrowded, either. Send them there. After all, it isn't as far to go as the Western Hemisphere.

With the exception of the ISIS controlled territories in Libya, the Saharan desert has remained relatively free from the ISIS radicals. I don't want to infest countries like Egypt and Morocco with ISIS jihadis. We can send these "refugees" to the Rub Al Khali desert in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Monarchy is very similar to the ISIS, and the refugees will feel at home.

Egyptian Sahara. Egypt is ready for the terrorists that go there to bother them.

[bryant.coleman]

Egyptian Sahara. Egypt is ready for the terrorists that go there to bother them.

Hmm.... OK with me as long as they make sure that the militants doesn't cross over to the inhabited regions along Nile. Only 3% of Egypt is inhabitable land, and 99% of the population resides there. The remaining 97% of the area is desert, and less than 1 million people live there, mostly on oasis-es. Let them dump all the militants on the desert.