Faced with a false rumor of a refugee involved in Friday’s Paris attacks, governors across the US are vowing to block the admittance of new Syrian refugees into their states, saying they pose to great a security risk to be allowed in.
That’s what they’re saying, at least, but legal experts are pointing out that there’s absolutely no legal basis for governors, or indeed individual states in general, to do anything to exclude refugees already admitted into the United States from settling in their states.
The Refugee Act of 1980, which governs the admittance of civilian refugees escaping the Syrian war, makes it clear this decision is purely a federal matter, though experts say that the states could make implementation of the refugee resettlement difficult.
To that end, however, the most likely impact of this effort to move against the refugees is to fuel ethnic and religious hatred in those states, and a concerted effort by governors to make these refugees feel as unwelcome as possible.
The US is taking Syrian refugees?
The Somalis paved the way.
Legal refugees are legal entrants and legal residents of the USA. In that respect they are no different from the so-called "green carders". Free movement through the USA and free settlement in any state are civil rights which cannot be taken away from them by any state government. We no longer are unconnected colonial states whose governors could expel unwanted residents. Apparently these governors believe that their states are still the same as the Massachusetts Bay State. Unbelievable? No.
Actually the US Constitution prohibits the US government to regulate immigration and leaves the matter up to the states (Article I, Section 9). That provision could have been amended at any time since 1808, but never has been — instead, an activist Supreme Court miracled up that federal power in 1875.
Not that I think the states (or the states' governors) SHOULD bar Syrian refugees (those same governors seem to have largely approved of the policies which created the refugee crisis in the first place), but their actual legal basis for doing so is more constitutionally legitimate than any federal policy on the matter.
If the citizens of those states don't want Syrian – or any other – refugees in their states then those governors would be derelict in their duty if they did not at the least resist the Feds on this. Not that it will do much good, as previously mentioned the Feds took care of staes' rights quite some time ago…..
A state governor is elected by the people of a state, and in that capacity they have the legal authority to protect their state from whatever threats to the people and the state they perceive. They can do so when disasters occurs by declaring martial law and commanding the State guard to enforce it. This is no different,regardless of statements by biased so called legal experts. Such people who say "no legal basis", for a governor elected by the people and having the power by virtue of office and the people to do so , are opposed to governors doing so because of their personal opinions and are simply being disingenuous.
Then a moral basis, or a decency basis, should be considered. Give these people a chance to prove themselves by vetting as to whether or not they should be welcomed into a state. If they are criminals they should be detained. This is common sense versus paranoid hysteria. Avoid blanket assumption that all refugees are dangerous.
Empire USA — A most uncivilized society
It all boils down to who has the greater political power, a Democrat president or Republican governors. And if Obama is the winner, then it all depends upon the corporate rich who donated the $4 billion needed to get Obama elected and what they think will best destroy both government and society. For the rich keep their excessive wealth only so long as we live in a most uncivilized society.
The Federal government took care of that states' rights stuff in 1865.
Dietz article is utter hogwash. A killing war has no legalities. One goes where are the enemies, and remove them.
Let’s use a simple analogy of having a group of 100 strangers (72% men between 18-40) show to your house while you are having a dinner party with 10 of your friends and their daughters and wives. Don’t forget your wife and two lovely beautiful virgin daughters. It appears that you have a choice to either let them all come in and take full advantage of your hospitality or you tell them thank you, but no they are not invited.
Lies from the White House are now saying the refugees are just widows and orphans. While even msnbc is stating this is false.
So, back to the dinner party. Oops! It appears these young men have taken a liking to your wife and daughters and the other wives and daughters. After all, these are just a peace loving bunch of horny guys from a foreign land with a peaceful religion. Gee whiz, they sure are forceful by taking all the women and keeping you metrosexual studly men occupied. What’s that sound? Screams as all these sweet girls and your wives are gang raped by such gentle peaceful “widows and orphans”. Wow! Maybe you should have never let them in. Your choice.
That's not a "simple analogy." It's a "dumb equivalency."
For one thing, a country is not a house. Unless you have a damn big house, it won't have room for 100 strangers. The United States, on the other hand, has plenty of room for 10,000 refugees over an absolute minimum of two years — that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 of 1/100th of 1 percent of the existing population and 1/20th of 1 percent of the domestic birth rate over the period).
For another, by the time they get here they will have been vetted for a minimum of two years by five different agencies, so they'll hardly be "strangers."
It just so happens that I oppose any government program that uses taxpayer money to pay for the travel and re-settlement of people into the country (I could have stopped at "I oppose any government program" and the sentence would still have been true). But this one is such a tiny tempest in a teapot that the general tone of the opposition to it strikes me as far more demagogic and authoritarian than the program itself. You'd think they were talking about a million people a month every month for ten years or something, not 10,000 people total over several years.