General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo, State Governors Can’t Refuse To Accept Syrian Refugees
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/16/3722628/no-state-governors-cant-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees/No, State Governors Cant Refuse To Accept Syrian Refugees
by Ian Millhiser Nov 16, 2015 1:32pm
More than half a dozen state governors have come out against President Obamas plans to relocate several thousand Syrian refugees within the United States. Some have pledged to actively resist settlement of these refugees. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), for example, signed a letter to Obama that begins as governor of Texas, I write to inform you that the State of Texas will not accept any refugees from Syria in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack in Paris. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) issued an executive order instructing all departments, budget units, agencies, offices, entities, and officers of the executive branch of the State of Louisiana to utilize all lawful means to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the State of Louisiana while this Order is in effect.
The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way. As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution. States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.
Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion into the United States, and the presidents power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an unforeseen emergency refugee situation such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.
This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme broad discretion exercised by immigration officials that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. Indeed, in describing the executive branchs broad authority to make discretionary calls regarding immigration matters, Arizona seemed to explicitly contemplate the circumstances that face President Obama today. The United States may wish to allow a foreign national to remain within its borders, the Court explained, because the individuals home nation may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.
Moreover, the Court explained, America could suffer severe foreign policy consequences if the executive does not enjoy broad discretion over immigration matters. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in his opinion for the Court in Arizona, requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nations foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.
more...
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/16/3722628/no-state-governors-cant-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees/
randys1
(16,286 posts)It was also my first hide when I referred to those white people as racists.
I probably forgot to say "most"
underpants
(182,992 posts)Remember, those kids were going to bring DISEASE and RUIN THE SCHOOLS.
follow that to the Ebola predictions from the same crowd.
Pure unfiltered fear mongering and those she role ate it up and made complete asses of themselves in public.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)assholes.
So I got a hide for including white people from DU in my comment.
You cant do that here.
I am white, and often embarrassed to be.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and i am trying to stay tuned in to white privilege. it is literally everywhere.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)I almost went a full day without having my own white privilege checked, but then I read this post. Although I'm not sure if it counts if another whitey is checking me? Is that possible?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but seeing what we are seeing in the news and esp during election season, it is hard to ignore, not that anyone should be ignoring it
i try and be mindful without feeling personally guilty, since i do not feel i exacerbate the problem and i try to speak out when opportunities present themselves
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)by refusing to allow refugees into Ala.
Jesus would be so proud of him....
shraby
(21,946 posts)walk the walk, but just talks the talk, he has no standing as a Christian.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Christians are self identifying. There is no authority figure that points at people and says "You're a Christian" or "you're not a Christian".
No True Scotsman fallacy.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)then you're not a Christian.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Besides, Jesus said some really irrational and hateful stuff that all Christians ignore.
With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups, but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "religion of peace."
Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association.
The No True Scotsman fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don't believe the extremist's viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (ie: Christians who support gay marriage are not "real Christians" or Muslims who support women's rights are not "real Muslims" .
It's a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and "What's mine is mine" mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.
spinbaby
(15,092 posts)One who truly follows Christ would welcome refugees as honored guests.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)from keeping them in refugee camps? I'll buy they can't change immigration policy, but I don't see how the feds can force these states to allow them to live freely.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If I understand you correctly, then that is one of the most bizarre comments I've come across in a long time.
The states cannot simply place persons who are lawfully present in this country into some sort of camps.
Whatever gives you that notion?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)What funds are going to pay for that? Where are they going to get jobs? Do you understand now?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Keeping in mind there's a lot of Federal anti-discrimination laws that cover this area.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Whose money is going to be used to house and feed the refugees? Federal money? State money? Charities?
Aristus
(66,509 posts)Not figures on a ledger.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)figure that out before we get them here? You can't FORCE the states to take care of them or there wouldn't be any homeless people in the US. How about whose going to pay for the making sure they're not terrorists? Or just open up the borders and let anyone who claims to be a refugee in? Given isis has already said they would infiltrate that way, that probably wont be a good idea. I'm sorry these practical questions seem to have made you cranky.
Aristus
(66,509 posts)So will the refugee screening process. The point is: other human beings need our help.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I'm not so sure we need to be the ones giving it.
Aristus
(66,509 posts)If not now, when?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Qatar, UAE, Kuwait. They could start immediately.
Aristus
(66,509 posts)If any country is more backward, regressive, hostile to foreigners, and just plain mean-spirited than the US, it's Saudi Arabia.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of taking in immigrants and refugees - which I think is very good, I'm interested in hearing just which countries you think have a good record on this issue.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Aristus
(66,509 posts)And should. This shouldn't even be a subject for debate. People are in need. And we can help.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)....of this country. We don't need to invite in trouble.
Aristus
(66,509 posts)charity wouldn't exist.
treestar
(82,383 posts)is a normal part of admission of people from other countries. DHS has that job already.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that tells me that process isn't perfect. Sorry if my living in a high target area makes me more leery than someone who does not. No, not really sorry, just leery.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)resident of the US.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)my tax dollars are going to make sure they have shelter and food (which I have no problem with). Is this before or after we make sure terrorists aren't infiltrating with the refugees?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)massively uninformed and xenophobic.
Refugee visas are given after an investigation. Once someone has a refugee visa, they are legally just like any other permanent resident.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And I know our process is much more secure than that of Europe (we usually insist on family connections) but that doesn't mean I think we should be doing this. Why aren't countries in the middle east taking them in? Why does it have to be the west? Are you ready to hand over the government to ted cruz is even one of them slips in and commits terror? Are you so very sure that wont happen (especially since it already did in France)?
treestar
(82,383 posts)has a process by which they determine whether a person can enter the US or not, and that includes terrorists, criminals and many others.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And I'm well aware it's a much more comprehensive process that what they have going in Europe. But it's not perfect and I live in a high target area which would make my objections far more relevant than someone who lives in rural America.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and can be employed in any state.
randys1
(16,286 posts)razorman
(1,644 posts)authority by "refusing to accept" the refugees. However, they can most likely refuse to utilize any state money, personnel or land for the purpose, or allow the refugees any state or local benefits. The feds would be on their own in this matter. Also, regardless of what happens, the players in this drama (on both sides) will base many of their actions on their interests in the upcoming election. It is going to be a real pissing contest.
gademocrat7
(10,680 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Yet those same states will take (Federal taxpayer money) $150 a day, each to jail Hispanic woman and children refugees for years.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)It's an embarrassment, some of our State Leaders are so backwardly religious.
3catwoman3
(24,092 posts)...in IL is trying.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)SUPREMACY CLAUSE, BITCHES
JURISDICTION, BITCHES
Plus case law mentioned above.
branford
(4,462 posts)Governors do not answer to the president, and states do not have assist federal authorities in most matters.
Although states certainly cannot set immigration policy, they can refuse to allocate any funds for resettlement and other support and prohibit state employees, including the police, from cooperating with federal authorities in any way, rendering federal efforts to admit refugees extremely difficult and burdensome (Congress can also refuse to approve of any funds for refugee resettlement).
States can also challenge certain refugee programs and authority in court (just like they've done with Obama's immigration policies where they've currently prevailed with an national injunction), and governors' opposition, often strongly supported by their individual state constituencies, could very well help improve Republican electoral hopes nationwide, and force the president and Democrats to expend a great deal of political capital to sustain refugee resettlement efforts. If, God forbid, anyone admitted as a refugee was involved in terrorism, the people will solely blame President Obama and the Democrats. How do like the sound of President Trump, Cruz or Rubio?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Congress and the states can make it quite difficult to implement Federal law. By not funding enforcement, as you said, and refusing to cooperate.
It seems like all the cases going up through Federal Court to the Supremes now are about the state versus the feds. Something liberal will be legal in the 9th Circuit long before it gets to the Supremes and is applicable to the whole country, like gay marriage. You got war between the conservative states and the Feds.
As in when they passed the Affordable Care Act and thought all the states would set up their own exchanges and they didn't? In the states that didn't want that dirty Federal money from the hands of that N*****? Trying to shut down Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood?
So the Feds eventually have to call out the National Guard to enforce Federal laws that Southern states (actually states all over the country) don't like. As in when President Eisenhower had to call out the National Guard to enforce school desegregation.
It's "States rights" from 1860 all over again. Apparently the Southern states have not learned a damn thing about jurisdiction.
branford
(4,462 posts)One need only look to the first major Supreme Court decision on the PPACA, and how states rights prevailed on the Medicaid expansion.
I would also be very careful about comparing refugee resettlement to constitutional equal protection battles of yesteryear. As you acknowledge, while basic immigration policy is set by federal law, such laws do not invest the president with unlimited discretionary authority, Congress still has quite a lot of say and sway, including the exclusive power of the purse, and there's no federal law or court decision mandating the resettlement of Syrian and other refugees. Accordingly, do not expect to see the National Guard in action or anything even remotely as drastic. More importantly, the president's resettlement policy appears to be going against the tide of public opinion, particularly in important swing states, and it may have an impact on the upcoming elections, both for president and other federal and state offices affected by a presidential election.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)to force states to take refugees. No reason to when there are plenty of states willing to take them.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Stand grand, grandstanders!
zazen
(2,978 posts)I said, I don't know. She apparently did.
But a question downstream is interesting.
If McCrory and our other nutso RW reps in charge of our General Assembly in NC, when they aren't busy dismantling other important programs in our state, don't want these refugees, do they have the right to assign them to particular locations?
I mean, can they violate the spirit of the law even if they follow the letter of the law, by putting refugees in some camp or something, such the Repubs effectively get their way?
LonePirate
(13,437 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)If the Supremes or the Federal bench are "making law" which is bad to a conservative (legalizing gay marriage) because they don't know about judicial review or Marbury v. Madison, then those are bad "activist judges".
However, if the Supremes say that corporations have no limits on campaign contributions, which is a form of free speech, in "Citizens United", then that's not an activist judge. That's a judge that is expanding the law the way THEY want it expanded.
The buzzword for good judges back in the 1970s during Watergate was "Strict constructionist". They have some other buzzword now, I think it's "original intent". Uh, that's why we have Constitutional Amendments at times.
The original intent of the founders was for white men who owned real property to vote, and to shut every one else out. They were elitist.
cindyperry2010
(846 posts)and I bet it is that idiot trump who says this. they will advocate for internment camps like they did to the Japanese in WWII
cindyperry2010
(846 posts)Bucky
(54,088 posts)Democracies are funny things. The people are right even when they're in the wrong. Groundswells can, at times, trump laws and even fundamental rights of the individual
Tarheel_Dem
(31,250 posts)really ugly & xenophobic when we want to be. Hopefully, there are blue states willing to pick up where the bigots leave off.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)A few more attacks, and I have a feeling this country will become intensely anti-refugee. For the record, I'm not. But I think that's where the sentiment's headed.
elleng
(131,292 posts)to screw things up for a long time.
MichMan
(12,001 posts)If indeed the states cannot refuse, will any of our three primary candidates state that position?
Worried that would be perceived by some voters of Ohio, Illinois and other swing states that the Federal government will force them to take them, like it or not.
bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Dubya allowed for. Typical.