Posted on 11/17/2015 2:43:53 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I think the states that said no are practically on the losing end.
Here’s why, once a refugee can enter a welcoming state ( mostly Democrat controlled ) like say, California, they can MOVE/TRAVEL TO ANOTHER STATE easily.
Obama never cares what anyone else thinks. He is a great big skinny tyrant seeking always to impose his will on everyone whether they like it or not.
Guam and Saipan have also, in addition to States, have refused take these “refugees”
Both places already have a housing shortage so they have a pretty valid argument
If States are forced to take them then the states should open refugee camps and not house them in towns
Do governors have any power when it comes to resettlement of third-worlders to their states?
This is the power the governors have;cut funding for welfare and other social services (most don’t even have a clue how much state and local taxpayers are shelling out for a program that was supposed to be fully-funded from Washington 35 years ago and with the additional financial help from the non-profit contractors).
Dammit.
Two Dems, Bentley Alabama. No story has this., all say one.
My understanding is that the federal officials have typically been very reliant upon state and local officials to do the nitty gritty detail work of resettlement, and if governors forbid state officials from cooperating in the process (as Texas has done), it makes it a lot more difficult for the Feds. Not a cure—all for sure, but a little better than nothing. Maybe someday our new Speaker will show some life and get involved.
Like the Boston bombers?
Were they technically refugees or asylum seekers, or doesn’t it matter in this case ?
Governors have access to police authorities which can confront any federal force that might wish a State to do something they do not wish to do.
We are a nation formed of States, which are sovereign.
I read 90% (probably much more) of the Refuse-gees are on WELFARE.
All Trump or Cruz has to do is turn off the money spigot. That will run them all out or they will turn to crime and face the law.
There is always a WAY to fight this crap, if you can find the balz!!
Interstates allow traffic to move easily across the nation, and a determined traveler can traverse the US east to west in 3-4 days, south to north in maybe 2 days.
The bacterial infection got into the bloodstream. Every part where the bloodstream reaches is affected.
Hold these people at an offshore location until a complete workup can be done on all of them. There was a reason that Ellis Island was used as a receiving point for years, in the New York harbor. It gave the immigration inspectors time to discover various illnesses, and to process the paperwork, ascertaining that the new arrival had some specific destination in mind and had the resources to get there.
And by government, Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act means Congress.
When 2/3 of your state governors oppose a policy only the worst narccicist would continue to pursue it. Therefore, obummer will.
RE: If States are forced to take them then the states should open refugee camps and not house them in towns
As I said before, once a refugee can enter a welcoming state ( mostly Democrat controlled ) like say, California, they can MOVE/TRAVEL TO ANOTHER STATE easily. This is true especially with those who have INTERNAL CONTACTS in the USA ( guess who they tend to be ... ).
Well gee, I asked the same question 2 days ago and was attacked as welcoming terrorist immigration.
Seems we now have an answer. No, we have to keep them out at the FEDERAL level.
They can. And they can make it unpleasant for these invaders.
The 10th amendment has been dusted off and now takes prededence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.