Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 97
Like Tree57Likes

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    97,686

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

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

    The law is not on their side.

    —By Tim Murphy
    | Mon Nov. 16, 2015 2:52 PM EST

    Christian Minelli/NurPhoto via ZUMA

    In the wake of last Friday's attacks in Paris, Republican governors across the country have made their positions clear—they want nothing to do with the Syrians fleeing ISIS. On Sunday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced that his state won't accept any Syrian refugees. On Monday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence followed suit. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issued an executive order to halt the flow of Syrian refugees to his state (it has accepted 14).


    Even Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who had previously called welcoming refugees "part of being a good Michigander," announced he was suspending his work with the federal government on bringing Syrians to his state. "Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration," he said in a statement.

    "But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents."


    What Snyder and his Republicans haven't explained is how they could legally do this.

    Refugee resettlement is a federal responsibility in which states have historically had only an advisory role. The Department of Homeland Security screens applicants. The State Department places them in new communities by working with a network of nonprofits on the ground. And the the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement works with refugees to make the transition in their new communities. (Here's a chart if you're confused.)


    State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner told reports Monday that the government would listen to the concerns of local officials, but it would not take a position on the legality of the governors' decrees or even say whether a governor could erect checkpoints to vet potential refugees entering their states. "Whether they can legally do that, I don't have an answer for you," he said. "I don't. I think our lawyers are looking at that."


    But other experts are more emphatic. "They don't have the legal authority to stop resettlement in their states—much less to stop the presence of a legally authorized individual based on nationality," says Jen Smyers, associate director for immigration and refugee policy at the Church World Service, an international nonprofit that does refugee resettlement. If a family of Syrian refugees decides they want to move in with their relatives in Michigan (a hub for Muslim and Christian immigrants from the Middle East) there's nothing Rick Snyder can do to stop them.

    "There are really clear discrimination protections against saying someone can't be in your state depending on where you're from," Smyers notes.


    Nor do the states have much have much power of the purse as far as refugee resettlement is concerned.

    The work of resettlement is handled by a network of public-private partnerships, and the public money comes from the federal level. In some cases, the federal dollars are diverted through state governments, but they're merely a pass-through.

    "If they were to hold up that fund, there would certainly be legal ramifications," Smyers says. Simply put, if these Republicans really want to block refugees from entering their states, they are asking for a fight.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...yrian-refugees

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,698
    Keep in mind that Congress, and only Congress, has power over immigration. The president has no power under the Constitution to force the unwanted populations of other countries upon the States. The various states should immediately go into a Court and seek an injunction to stop Obama and challenge Obama's authority to force these refugees upon the states.

    Also keep in mind a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the Obama administration’s controversial immigration program, upholding a lower court's injunction barring the plan from taking effect while awaiting the outcome of a full trial on the lawsuit's underlying arguments.

    The various states need to immediately ask the Court for an injuction!


    JWK
    Judy, southBronx and JohnK like this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,664
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Keep in mind that Congress, and only Congress, has power over immigration. The president has no power under the Constitution to force the unwanted populations of other countries upon the States. The various states should immediately go into a Court and seek an injunction to stop Obama and challenge Obama's authority to force these refugees upon the states.

    Also keep in mind a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the Obama administration’s controversial immigration program, upholding a lower court's injunction barring the plan from taking effect while awaiting the outcome of a full trial on the lawsuit's underlying arguments.

    The various states need to immediately ask the Court for an injuction!


    JWK
    Actually, under the US Constitution, the only authority the federal government has is to prevent immigration. What silly people have done is confuse the clause that gives the federal government the authority to establish a uniform code of naturalization, and only that, with the authority to admit immigrants, which is not a power or authority of the federal government under the US Constitution through any of its 3 branches of governance. The authority to admit immigrants is a states right under the US Constitution subject to any authority of the federal government to stop, prevent or ban immigration after 1808.

    Everything is backwards right now and not consistent with our most lovely and very wise US Constitution. It's time to get it straight and put the federal government in its place which is a place of preventing immigration, not one of admitting immigrants.
    JohnK, southBronx and patbrunz like this.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Actually, under the US Constitution, the only authority the federal government has is to prevent immigration. What silly people have done is confuse the clause that gives the federal government the authority to establish a uniform code of naturalization, and only that, with the authority to admit immigrants, which is not a power or authority of the federal government under the US Constitution through any of its 3 branches of governance. The authority to admit immigrants is a states right under the US Constitution subject to any authority of the federal government to stop, prevent or ban immigration after 1808.

    Everything is backwards right now and not consistent with our most lovely and very wise US Constitution. It's time to get it straight and put the federal government in its place which is a place of preventing immigration, not one of admitting immigrants.
    You are correct and I wrote a paper a while back documenting our federal government's power to make a rule of naturalization has nothing whatsoever with allowing the federal government forcing unwanted foreigners upon the States. This was made crystal clear during our nation's founding.


    JWK
    Judy, JohnK and southBronx like this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,698
    our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization,Feb. 3rd, 1790

    REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended theConstitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to theintentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have thepower of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receivingcitizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in anyother manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode ofnaturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier termsthan those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONALDEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790PAGE1148

    In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITEwhile debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what“Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on whatterms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the powervested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before theHouse, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule ofnaturalization. After a person has oncebecome a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rightsand privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but acitizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of thecitizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do onthis subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization andnot to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship inthe several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790,page1152

    And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONEconcluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and theconstitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which theyshould acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule ofnaturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization,as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law,shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from nativecitizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages1156and 1157


    JWK


  6. #6
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,664
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    You are correct and I wrote a paper a while back documenting our federal government's power to make a rule of naturalization has nothing whatsoever with allowing the federal government forcing unwanted foreigners upon the States. This was made crystal clear during our nation's founding.

    JWK
    Thank you JWK and good for you for writing a paper on this subject. The facts and language in our Constitution could not be more clear on the issue. It's time for those of us who know the truth to stand up, yell it from the roof-tops and inform our fellow citizens, because it is absolutely crystal clear in the US Constitution that only states have the right to admit those they wish to admit, and the only authority the US government has in regards to immigration, is to stop it after the year 1808. The authority over a uniform code of naturalization is merely to have a common singular code for those immigrants states have allowed to enter their state and our country in order to become citizens of the United States.

    Spread the word far and wide.

    ALIPAC should consider issuing a news release on this subject.
    southBronx likes this.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #7
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,698

    Naturalization vs. immigration and Texas’ reserved power under the 10th Amendment!

    I googled and found it Judy! Here it is.



    I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

    NOTE: The most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:

    “The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.” numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

    In addition, and with reference to the meaning of words in our Constitution see:

    16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
    Meaning of Language
    Ordinary meaning, generally


    ”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” (my emphasis)

    Now, let us examine the distinction between “immigration” and “naturalization”.

    The ordinary meaning of the word immigration is the movement of people from one place to another. Our Constitution does in fact use the word Migration in the following context:
    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. see: Article 1, Section 9

    As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to establish an uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original power over aliens wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790

    REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148

    In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152

    And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONEconcluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

    CONCLUSION:

    The current big lie begins with the false notion the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” when the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.

    It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language obligates each State to make a distinction between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!

    Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the united States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.

    The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.
    And thus, a State in enforcing laws designed to promote the State’s general welfare, which would include the original power to protect its borders from invasions, is doing nothing more than exercising its legitimate policing powers with the obligation that in doing so it makes distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” as required under the 14th Amendment.

    JWK



    If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

    Judy likes this.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,664
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    I googled and found it Judy! Here it is.



    I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

    NOTE: The most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:

    “The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.” numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

    In addition, and with reference to the meaning of words in our Constitution see:

    16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
    Meaning of Language
    Ordinary meaning, generally


    ”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” (my emphasis)

    Now, let us examine the distinction between “immigration” and “naturalization”.

    The ordinary meaning of the word immigration is the movement of people from one place to another. Our Constitution does in fact use the word Migration in the following context:
    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. see: Article 1, Section 9

    As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to establish an uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original power over aliens wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790

    REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148

    In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152

    And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONEconcluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

    CONCLUSION:

    The current big lie begins with the false notion the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” when the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.

    It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language obligates each State to make a distinction between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!

    Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the united States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.

    The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.
    And thus, a State in enforcing laws designed to promote the State’s general welfare, which would include the original power to protect its borders from invasions, is doing nothing more than exercising its legitimate policing powers with the obligation that in doing so it makes distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” as required under the 14th Amendment.

    JWK



    If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

    Wonderful JWK!! Excellent work! Shout it to the rooftops! Our poor dear nation must know that the suffering of our people from excess immigration of all types has occurred completely and totally in violation of the US Constitution by the very federal government sworn into office to uphold the US Constitution.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,201
    If Obama can make up his own laws and authorize himself to implement them, then so can the states grant themselves the authority to not allow aliens in their territories. If we are to have a lawless President, then why should any segment of the government be required to obey any laws it does not agree with. Obama has set the precedent for a lawless government and anarchy. If Obama does not have to obey the law then why should anyone else obey any law.

  10. #10
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    97,686
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NC and at least 7 other states move to block Obama's Syrian refugees
    By ALIPAC in forum illegal immigration Announcements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-16-2015, 10:42 PM
  2. Seven states refuse Syrian refugees
    By ALIPAC in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-16-2015, 07:17 PM
  3. Many ‘Syrian Refugees’ Are Neither Syrian nor Refugees Read more at: http://www.nati
    By Newmexican in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-2015, 11:22 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 07:46 PM
  5. Republican Governors Getting Reelected in Blue States
    By kathyet2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 11:10 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •