Thread: Can Republican Governors Block Syrian Refugees From Settling in Their States?

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

From the article above.

"The one thing I feel very comfortable saying is there is absolutely no constitutional power for a state to exclude anyone from its territories,"

Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to admit any immigrant into the United States. It never has. It's time for the American People to uphold the US Constitution and stop the US government from handing out green cards, work visas, work permits, asylum and refugee documents and all this other nonsense without the prior direct consent and approval of the states.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Look at it from the other direction.

If the federal government admits refugees to the U.S.

Under what authority can any governor keep anyone out of their state.

Change the word refugee to Jew,

or change refugee to African-American

and check to see if that is allowed.

"Can Republican Governors Block Jews From Settling in Their States?"

"Can Republican Governors Block African-Americans From Settling in Their States?"

Change the word Muslim to Catholic or Baptist and see if they can keep them out of the state.

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

The word is "immigrant", not Jew, not Muslim, not Catholic, not Baptist, not Tourist, not Visitor. The word is "immigrant".

US Constitution
Article 1
Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

To authorize Congress, the President, the Executive Branch agencies or the Federal Courts to admit migrants or import labor or other persons into the United States, requires a Constitutional Amendment to add this power to their list of authorities. It presently is not a power or authority of the US government, not in any of its 3 branches, and never has been. The only authority the federal government has with regard to immigration is to prevent it or tax it and for those admitted by the states to provide a uniform code of naturalization for those who desire to become US citizens to do so on a uniform basis.

The federal government has been filled with idiots and liars for a very long time. It is this group of deviant impostors in public service who are responsible for our over-population, our national debt, our high poverty and real unemployment levels, the loss of freedoms these all cause and what can only be described by people with 2 live brain cells still connected as the demise of the United States. This government is totally inept on almost everything it does and every year it gets worse. This is what happens when the tail is wagging dog. What's happened to the United States is the very fear of the founders best described then by Benjamin Franklin who upon coming out of the Convention Hall was asked by a lady "well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy", answered her, "a Republic if you can keep it."

Our Constitution is one of the most amazing documents ever written, because it was written by truly intelligent highly educated people who truly cared about our country and citizens, people who could see down the road and around the curves. But even they could not have predicted a nation of US citizens that would stand idly by allowing our federal government to steal our money to hand it off to foreigners, to bankrupt the nation, relocate our manufacturing to other nations, and hand out government documents allowing foreigners to rob citizens of their jobs and educations, because they could not have envisioned a citizenry so stupid as to keep electing members of Congress who would do such things. That's why the US House of Representatives has to run for office every 2 years, so voters will throw out the scum before they have the power or tenure to wreak such havoc and destruction.

This isn't a problem of political party, both are guilty as sin. The original Republican Party would have stopped this madness, it would have repealed the income tax and replaced it with a FairTax, withdrawn from NAFTA, impeached GW Bush, restored protected trade, stopped this immigration insanity and enforced the 14th Amendment as written with 2 conditions, not 1, but 2 conditions to be a US citizen at birth.

Today's federal government believes it can ban abortions, recreational drugs, and guns. It believes it can rob Americans of their employers, wages, jobs and educations. It believes it can end our sovereignty, borders and territory. It believes it can manipulate our elections with foreign voters who aren't allowed to vote because they're not even supposed to be in the country, let alone impacting our elections, policies, economy and government spending.

America is in a crisis, not because of what happened in Paris but because of what is happening in DC. America is in danger, not because of Syrian Refugees, but because of all refugees and immigrants. America is in peril, not because of Muslims, but because of all foreigners. Sure, most immigrants are nice people who come here with good intentions, but what are those intentions? To work, to earn money, to sign up for welfare, to go to college .... sounds harmless enough ..... but for the FACT that to do so means stealing a job from an American, confiscating American wages, running up national debt Americans will have to pay off, and robbing American Kids of their chance to go to college. There are only so space spots, so many jobs, so much money, so much space .... and we don't even have enough of any of that for our own citizens let alone tens of millions of immigrants, whether they're "legal", illegal, refugees, asylum-seekers, or students.

But if 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing weren't enough for States to rise up, invoke their Republic status and uphold the Constitution, while Paris is, then fine, let Paris be the catalyst that ends the insanity of the totally and completely unconstitutional admission of immigrants by the federal government into the United States.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

From the article above.

"The one thing I feel very comfortable saying is there is absolutely no constitutional power for a state to exclude anyone from its territories,"

And the documentation is?

Apparently the person has not read the founding of our country and the legislative intent under which our Constitution was adopted. Let us look at one of our forefathers words stated during our nation's first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are being forced upon the states by the federal government ought to be considered as a "high misdemeanor" which happens to be an impeachable offense! While a State has power to import who they please, the federal government certainly has not be authorized to fill the States with whomever it pleases.

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___Tenth Amendment

Congress does not have authority to assume powers not authorized by our Constitution.

Under what provision of our Constitution has Congress authority to admit tens of thousands of immigrants into the United States and compel the States to accept them?

The only power I see in the Constitution relating to this issue is that which is found under Article 1, Section 9, and allows a tax or duty to be imposed on the importation of foreigners, but leaves the State free to admit whom they please.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."


JWK


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

SINCE 9/11 U.S. HAS ACCEPTED OVER 2 MILLION MIGRANTS FROM MAJORITY MUSLIM NATIONS

"But refugees do not have to stay in the states where they are resettled, and they are also allowed to join family members in the United States. Once immigrants have been legally admitted to the U.S., they are allowed to travel anywhere in the country they wish."

By REBECCA KAPLAN CBS NEWS November 17, 2015, 6:00 AM

Can governors legally block Syrian refugees from coming to their states?

• Last Updated Nov 17, 2015 8:57 AM EST

Concerns about terrorists hiding among the flood of Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris terror attacks have more than a dozen governors around the country promising to close their states to any of the refugees.

But those governors may be making promises they can't keep: several experts in immigration and constitutional law told CBS News that states are not empowered to reject immigrants granted refugee status by the United States.

"Immigration law is federal," explained Richard Primus, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan law school. "States are not supposed to engage in foreign relations or in diplomacy. States can do things that make themselves attractive or unattractive as destinations for immigrants....But [the state of Michigan] could not, for example, say, 'We disapprove of the government of Myanmar, and so we boycott Myanmar as Michigan.'

That's the federal government's job, and when states have tired to do things like that, the courts have said, 'No way.'"

Play VIDEO
Several U.S. governors threaten to block Syrian refugees


As more governors announced their intent to reject refugees, Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Ian Millhiser laid out the legal foundation for their inability to do so in a memo. Hines v. Davidowitz affirmed the federal government's primacy in issues of immigration, naturalization and deportation.

The Refugee Act of 1980 gives the president the power to admit refugees who face persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

A 2012 decision, Arizona v. United States, reaffirmed the federal government's authority over the states on immigration matters and specifically stated that it might be "inappropriate" to return an immigrant to a country mired in civil war.

Adam Cox, a New York University Law School professor who is an expert in immigration and constitutional law, agreed with Millhiser's analysis.

"States lack legal authority to refuse to accept refugees (or any other immigrants) that are admitted by the federal [government]," he wrote in an email.

That's not to say that states can't make it difficult for Syrian refugees to settle once they are admitted to the United States. Once refugees are on their way to the United States, the State Department works with nine nongovernmental agencies that contract with the federal government on resettlement. Together they decide where to place refugees around the country, based on factors like the availability of jobs and housing and whether there is a local community from their home country that may be helpful, explained Kathleen Newland, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute.

"States do have a role in the refugee resettlement process post admission, and it would certainly be possible for them to obstruct the resettlement process," she said.

States could instruct their employees not to cooperate with the resettlement program, or they could freeze state-level refugee benefits or federal refugee benefits distributed by the states.

But refugees do not have to stay in the states where they are resettled, and they are also allowed to join family members in the United States. Once immigrants have been legally admitted to the U.S., they are allowed to travel anywhere in the country they wish. That could create a problem in states like Michigan, which has the second-largest Arab-American population in the country, according to the Arab American Institute.

Gov. Rick Snyder said Sunday that his state was postponing efforts to accept refugees until there was further review of security by the federal government.

Play VIDEO
Special Report: Obama speaks on Paris attacks at G-20 Summit


President Obama said in September that the U.S.should prepare to admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next fiscal year, a significant increase from the 1,500 it was on track to accept in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.
In a press conference Monday, Mr. Obama reiterated his commitment to take in Syrian refugees despite the Paris attacks. The president said that refugees would be accepted "only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks," and he also said that many of them were also fleeing terrorism.

"Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/governor...rian-refugees/

The above articled never established under what provision of our Constitution Congress, or the President, has been delegated a power over immigration, or delegated a power to compel a state to accept a flood of foreign immigrants into their state.

JWK

It's time to defund all immigration admission operations of the United States. The federal government was never given the power or authority to admit immigrants by the US Constitution. The only authority it has with regards to immigration is to prevent it and tax it, not permit it. USCIS needs to be defunded and disbanded in accordance with the US Constitution and all monies on hand returned to the US Treasury General Revenue Fund. No green cards, no visas, no work permits, no student visas, no nothing that would admit someone to live in the United States. Tourist and Business Visitor Visas are fine of course but no migrant or immigration documents of any kind, all of this has occurred on a totally unconstitutional basis making all of these immigrant admissions illegal, something no federal court can change. The powers and authorities of the federal government or lack thereof apply to all three branches of the federal government.

If Congress doesn't defund USCIS and every other division of Homeland Security involved with admitting immigrants into the US, then we need new members of Congress who know constitutional law.

Excellent point JohnDoe 2, thanks for the information.

Originally Posted by csarbww

Excellent point JohnDoe 2, thanks for the information.

The question has nothing to do with Congress, the president or the federal government.

The question is:

Can governors block people from their state?

If yes, on what authority?