Posted on 11/19/2015 1:43:52 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
The House of Representatives Thursday defied President Obamaâs threat of a veto and voted, 289-137, to impose new screening requirements on Syrian and Iraqi refugees trying to enter the United States.
The bill was supported by 47 Democrats. Only two Republicans opposed it. The House plan would bar any refugees from Syria or Iraq from entering the United States until the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence certify that each one is not dangerous.
âIf our law enforcement and our intelligence community cannot verify that each and every person is not a security threat, then they shouldnât be allowed in,â said Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
âThe status quo is not acceptable,â said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas. âThe American people want us to act in light of whatâs happened.â
Other lawmakers agreed.
âI cannot sit back and ignore the concerns of my constituents and the American public,â said Rep. Brad Ashford, D-Neb.
âIt is against the values of our nation and the values of a free society to give terrorists the opening they are looking for,â said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.
The bill comes after Fridayâs terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 129 people. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks. At least one attacker posed as a Syrian refugee, officials have disclosed. These events created new opposition to Obamaâs plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States.
Despite its passage, the bill on Thursday lacked enough votes to override a presidential veto. Republican aides said that absences could change that picture if an override vote becomes necessary.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid doesnât plan to let that happen.
âThe problem is not with refugees,â Reid said. âI donât think weâll be dealing with it over here.â
When asked about a presidential veto and a potential override, Reid said, âdonât worry, it wonât get passed. Next question?â
If the bill is blocked in the Senate, House Republicans may force the issue through an omnibus government spending bill, which has to be passed by Dec. 11 to keep the government operating.
Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said he would vote against a spending bill that doesnât contain provisions halting the refugee program.
âI think that we have to exert maximum leverage,â Salmon said.
h/t: The Hill
I wouldn't expect anything different from those 2. They should jpay at the next election, but they are both in very "safe" districts for treasonous Dems.
I am very afraid that you may be right. Americans have been dying because of various forms of ‘immigrant’ & visa holders for entirely too long.
I did read the whole article and nowhere did it have anything said by Ryan about using the crapulous spending as a means to stop the refugees. Furthermore, in his interview with Hannity on Wed. night, well read it for yourself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3362445/posts
So, what happens when said refugees get their clearance and then proceed to blow something up or kill a bunch of people? What happens then? Do FBI/DHS/DNI directors get tried and convicted? Will any heads roll (besides the victims')?
Just more eyewash...there is no teeth in this bill.
Then the states must nullify because this is clearly an unconstitutional federal act.
The Constitution provides power to Congress to specifically REPEL INVASIONS (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 15). It is their constitutional duty to do so and the primary reason the federal government was formed by the states via the Constitution as stated in the preamble “to provide for the common defense.” Failure to do so should be an impeachable offense. Short of that, states have every right to nullify on constitutional grounds to repel invasions.
Many states already have nullified this egregious and unconstitutional federal move by adopting a policy of allowing no Syrian refugee into that state. Of course an uncooperative and illegal federal government makes life more difficult. If Congress fails to do their constitutional duty, then in order to implement their policy, I see no alternative to that state setting up checkpoints at their state lines.
Contrary to Ryan’s justifications of acquiescence, there is NO constitutional mandate for the feds to be “compassionate.” More often than not, acts of federal “compassion” are unconstitutional federal acts, as this one is, which by definition are acts of tyranny. This refusal to stop the invasion of this clear and present danger is an unconstitutional federal act of tyranny. Nobody needs compassionate tyranny.
The feds continue to demonstrate that they have absolutely no intention of abiding by both the limitation and mandates of the Constitution. Federal tyranny must be resisted at every level including individual state nullification.
The the states must nullify because this is clearly an unconstitutional federal act.
The Constitution provides power to Congress to specifically REPEL INVASIONS (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 15). It is their constitutional duty to do so and the primary reason the federal government was formed by the states via the Constitution as stated in the preamble “to provide for the common defense.” Failure to do so should be an impeachable offense. Short of that, states have every right to nullify on constitutional grounds to repel invasions.
Many states already have nullified this egregious and unconstitutional federal move by adopting a policy of allowing no Syrian refugee into that state. Of course an uncooperative and illegal federal government makes life more difficult. If Congress fails to do their constitutional duty, then in order to implement their policy, I see no alternative to that state setting up checkpoints at their state lines.
Contrary to Ryan’s justifications of acquiescence, there is NO constitutional mandate for the feds to be “compassionate.” More often than not, acts of federal “compassion” are unconstitutional federal acts, as this one is, which by definition are acts of tyranny. This refusal to stop the invasion of this clear and present danger is an unconstitutional federal act of tyranny. Nobody needs compassionate tyranny.
The feds continue to demonstrate that they have absolutely no intention of abiding by both the limitation and mandates of the Constitution. Federal tyranny must be resisted at every level including individual state nullification.
The battle for freedom never ends and is only over if the defenders of freedom give up. NEVER give up! Give me liberty or give me death.
I agree. While it may not mean much, a unified nullification would be very hard to ignore.
HOW can these organizations vet these refugees?? There is no way.
State nullification isn’t symbolic, it is a very real move by the state to protect its citizens from federal tyranny and its disastrous results like an enemy invasion. To the people of that state, it means A LOT.
State nullification is not a “unified” effort, but an individual state effort regardless of what any other state or the feds do. It has to be that way in the face of unrelenting federal tyranny. It is a substantive move by the state to protect its citizens. And there’s a great likelihood that people like me would move to that state.
What would happen next, who knows, but the fight for freedom isn’t about guaranteed results but doing what’s right regardless. One thing is for certain. Any state that chooses it rights and sovereignty protected by the Constitution over the illegal feds must be fully prepared for financial independence from the feds because the feds will pull the plug. That’s great news. Out country was founded on the idea of INDEPENDENCE from tyranny. States NEED to become financially independent from the feds as they were for a long while after the beginning of our country.
It’s symbolic only because ZEro isn’t going to acknowledge it. So then what? Call out the national guard? Fine. Then he nationalizes the guard like Ike did in Little Rock. Then what? Hence, symbolic.
Its not symbolic if the state and the people of that state mean business. Nullification makes that state the battleground for a Constitutional Free Republic versus an unconstitutional Socialist State. It doesn’t have to come to blows and shots fired, but if so, then so be it.
What’s the alternative? Whining, complaining,and sniveling, like so many do, wringing their hand uselessly while the Obama Tyrants of the world continue to steal your rights and freedoms until your protections are gone? Until they’ve confiscated your guns so you have no defense against these tyrants?
Fight now (easier), fight later (much harder), or become a prisoner of the Slave State. You may not like your choices but they’re the only ones I see short of emigrating to a questionable alternative country somewhere else.
I’m not saying don’t try it. I’m just saying, I don’t see much occurring as a result.
Ryan is/was a Judas goat for the democrats. One only has to look at his family of lawyers, his avoidance of military service and to this day his behind the scenes actions in Congress.
Depends on how much one yearns for freedom and hates tyranny I guess.
We fight for freedom because we love freedom and hate tyranny. We’d rather die fighting for freedom than live under tyranny. If enough people felt that way these demagogues would be relegated to the ash heap of history.
As I said, it isn’t about guaranteed results - it’s about fighting for your God-given rights that thugs and tyrants want to steal.
I agree. That’s why I said it was worthwhile, but likely completely irrelevant in terms of accomplishing anything.
If you’d lived before the revolution, you might have said the same thing, what with some rag-tag colonies against the mightiest power in the world. But our Founders had a faith in what they called “Providence”and were willing to “mutually pledge to each other [their] lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”
I guess you and I have to believe and have faith somewhere along the line, that God is with us for right. Faith in God was and still is the spiritual requirement to fight this battle, and this battle is no different than the one our Founders fought against a despotic and powerful government.
Did the Senate also vote against something of his 100-0, or is that just an Internet legend?
Indeed I do. My rule of thumb is that the reality is always the direct opposite of what they claim. It is all- “racism”, feminism, moral relativity, ad nauseum infinitum, about turning the US into a communist state. And has been from the beginning.
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.