Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama: It's illegal for states to refuse Syrian refugees
Arutz Sheva ^ | 26/11/15 | Ben Ariel

Posted on 11/25/2015 9:47:11 PM PST by Eleutheria5

The Obama administration on Wednesday reminded state officials across the country that states do not have legal authority to refuse to accept Syrian refugees, reports The Associated Press (AP).

The reminder from the White House came amid a growing controversy over the plan to accept Syrian refugees, in the wake of the discovery of a Syrian passport near the body of one assailant in the Paris attacks.

No less than 24 states announced earlier this week they would block the program to resettle Syrian migrants within their borders, though White House officials defended the current refugee program.

Later, the House of Representatives approved a resolution which aims to block administration plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the coming year. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the legislation.

On Wednesday, the Office of Refugee Resettlement said in a letter to state resettlement officials that states may not deny benefits and services to refugees based on a refugee's country of origin or religious affiliation.

States that do not comply with the requirement would be breaking the law and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension or termination of the federally funded program, according to the letter, signed by the director of the federal resettlement office, Robert Carey, and quoted by AP.

.....

(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Syria; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: illegal; obama; refugees; states
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
CW2 has just started.
1 posted on 11/25/2015 9:47:12 PM PST by Eleutheria5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Would it be rude to remind der leader that he is not the king.


2 posted on 11/25/2015 9:48:55 PM PST by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
Not a lawyer but there is a supreme court case where Pennsylvania was requiring immigrants to register annually and the feds had a one time registration, the SCOTUS determined that wherever there was a coherent and well defined immigration policy in place by the feds, it overrode anything the states wanted.

Two problems for Obama. First, this syrian refugee thing wasn't directed by congress which is who the SCOTUS explicitly stated were the ones vested with the power to set said policy. Secondly, the immigration policies in recent years are anything but consistent and hence an argument can be made that since the feds have failed to create and maintain a consistent, coherent policy the states may.

3 posted on 11/25/2015 9:51:49 PM PST by pepsi_junkie (The only fiscally sound thing dems ever did: create a state run media they don't have to pay for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

States that do not comply with the requirement would be breaking the law and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension or termination of the federally funded program, according to the letter, signed by the director of the federal resettlement office, Robert Carey, and quoted by AP.>>>>
big deal pull funding for a program that the states don’t want to do. wow wish i could do that kind of threat at work.


4 posted on 11/25/2015 9:52:11 PM PST by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

States to Obama: So what, you never follow the law, why should we?


5 posted on 11/25/2015 9:52:37 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Funny how this deash bag finds the courage to utter the words illegal...

He(?) reminds me of the males who get degraded at work and come home and beat up on the wife and kids


6 posted on 11/25/2015 9:54:09 PM PST by This_far
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
There is no such thing as 'law' any more. You have seen to that, OTrauma.

States, do as you will. Eff the Feds. Time for an all-out hot shooting war.

Do you know how many MILLIONS will join you?

7 posted on 11/25/2015 9:57:09 PM PST by Lazamataz ( If they try firearm confiscation or gun registration, I go ballistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kvanbrunt2

States can require their local businesses to register their federal taxes in trust to the state. They can then start a lengthy legal process that requires months of lawyering in Federal Court.

Meanwhile all withholding taxes are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Pay your bills now Obama!


8 posted on 11/25/2015 9:57:29 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Since when has the PECKERWOOD in CHIEF cared about what the laws say?


9 posted on 11/25/2015 9:58:55 PM PST by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

ATTN GOVERNORS. Just hold a press conference. Say no it isn’t. Point out how he was never a law professor. He HATES that. Laugh at him.

Have a little fun. He’s gonna be gone in 14 months. Live a little!


10 posted on 11/25/2015 9:59:40 PM PST by DesertRhino ("I want those feeble minded asses overthrown,,,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

This from the clown who just appealed to the Supreme Court asserting that he doesn’t have to comply with federal immigration law.


11 posted on 11/25/2015 10:01:41 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Prosecute me baby


12 posted on 11/25/2015 10:02:11 PM PST by CPT Clay (Hillary: Julius and Ethal Rosenberg were electrocuted for selling classified info.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

What’s he gonna do to the states if the states sends all the refugees to DC?


13 posted on 11/25/2015 10:05:54 PM PST by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

That’d be great! lol


14 posted on 11/25/2015 10:06:50 PM PST by DesertRhino ("I want those feeble minded asses overthrown,,,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

The poster boy of pick-and-choose law enforcement speaks!


15 posted on 11/25/2015 10:08:29 PM PST by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

When did anything ever become “illegal” in Barry’s “fundamentally transformed” United States. His letting illegal alien invaders enter the country unchallenged is what is illegal. KMA Obama!!!


16 posted on 11/25/2015 10:09:26 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Carlyle Begay. More bad news for the Clintonistas and the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

You mean if we refuse to take the refugees the Feds will cancel the refugee program in our state?

Why didnt we do this yesterday?


17 posted on 11/25/2015 10:09:54 PM PST by Delta 21 (Patiently waiting for the jack booted kick at my door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Put them in camps, directly. High security ones.

Just because they take them doesn’t mean they have to comfy.


18 posted on 11/25/2015 10:13:05 PM PST by datura (Proud Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

it is illegal for him to do end runs around congress- so what’s his point? His illegal activities aren’t as bad as state’s ‘illegal’ activities


19 posted on 11/25/2015 10:14:37 PM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie

[[Two problems for Obama. First, this syrian refugee thing wasn’t directed by congress which is who the SCOTUS explicitly stated were the ones vested with the power to set said policy.]]

That’s not a problem for king tut- the rule of law doesn’t apply to him

I seem to recall a situation in the past where the federal government passed a law and states refused to comply and banded together in a coalition refusing to comply- and the government had to back away fro m the law because they couldn’t really enforce it-


20 posted on 11/25/2015 10:17:44 PM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson