Last night it was 26 states rejecting the Presidents moves to take in all these immigrants without security scanning. Maybe now, this morning it will be greater. Certain folks were questioning if Obama had such power. Maybe to the courts next to argue that point. Presidents do have some limited powers but most must come through Congressional approval. So this may be one like that.
No refugees wanted here in RI!
- Thread starter Ralphy1
- Start date
I think that invitation was rescinded years ago. Now it's 'stay the hell out'. Maybe just return the Statue of Liberty to the country who gave it to the US as a gift - France.
They aren't immigrants, they are refugees. There is a difference. Try Google.
it does not matter what you call them. It is our security that is the question and needs proper attention.
By rejecting innocent refugees you are doing exactly what IS wants you to do.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-fear-refugees-spins-wildly-out-control?cid=sm_fb_maddow
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-fear-refugees-spins-wildly-out-control?cid=sm_fb_maddow
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
No... it's more like "Stay the hell out cuz we got ours and you ain't gonna get none" lol!!!
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
IKE
Well-known Member
- Location
- Oklahoma....U.S.A.
If we feel we must take them in they need to be screened VERY, VERY thoroughly to determine if in fact they are all just 'innocent' refugees.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
If that's what you think will be effective... But I contend we have plenty of our own home grown radicalized volunteers. ISIS has no need to import them. They can orchestrate it from afar.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Rubbish, Ralphy. Disappointing was our former PM shooting off his mouth. Reassuring were the measured responses of Obama and our new PM Malcolm Turnbull and the new Canadian PM Justin Trudeau.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
We have a large factor here in the USA that feels the only way to settle things is to go to war. Diplomacy is considered weak... Measured and calculating is considered feckless.. And I have to note that the loudest voices for war and "boots on the ground".. are the ones who do not have any loved ones "feet" in those boots.
I think Colorado, Washington and Connecticut aren't making a big stink about accepting these refugees. I understand the governors who object can't do so legally anyway due to the Refugee Act of 1980, here's some talk on it. More here.
The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way.
As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.
Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.
This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. Indeed, in describing the executive branch’s broad authority to make discretionary calls regarding immigration matters, Arizona seemed to explicitly contemplate the circumstances that face President Obama today.
The United States may wish to allow a foreign national to remain within its borders, the Court explained, because the individual’s home nation “may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.”
Moreover, the Court explained, America could suffer severe foreign policy consequences if the executive does not enjoy broad discretion over immigration matters. “The dynamic nature of relations with other countries,” Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in his opinion for the Court inArizona, “requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.”
Hines offered a similar warning about the close tie between immigration and foreign relations, explaining that immigration policy must be set by the national government and not by 50 different state governors because the entire United States can suffer when a foreign nation reacts adversely to our treatment of immigrants. “Experience has shown that international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in his 1941 opinion for the Court, “may arise from real or imagined wrongs to another’s subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government.”
Thus, the Court concluded, “the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, ‘the act of congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.'”
To be clear, states still retain the power to deny their own resources to the federal government, so they could potentially make settlement of refugees more difficult than it would be if the states cooperated. Nevertheless, an act of Congress — the Refugee Act of 1980 — has given Obama broad discretion to allow refugees to be admitted into the United States. The states of Texas, Louisiana and others must yield to that act.
The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way.
As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.
Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.
This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. Indeed, in describing the executive branch’s broad authority to make discretionary calls regarding immigration matters, Arizona seemed to explicitly contemplate the circumstances that face President Obama today.
The United States may wish to allow a foreign national to remain within its borders, the Court explained, because the individual’s home nation “may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.”
Moreover, the Court explained, America could suffer severe foreign policy consequences if the executive does not enjoy broad discretion over immigration matters. “The dynamic nature of relations with other countries,” Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in his opinion for the Court inArizona, “requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.”
Hines offered a similar warning about the close tie between immigration and foreign relations, explaining that immigration policy must be set by the national government and not by 50 different state governors because the entire United States can suffer when a foreign nation reacts adversely to our treatment of immigrants. “Experience has shown that international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war,” Justice Hugo Black wrote in his 1941 opinion for the Court, “may arise from real or imagined wrongs to another’s subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government.”
Thus, the Court concluded, “the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, ‘the act of congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.'”
To be clear, states still retain the power to deny their own resources to the federal government, so they could potentially make settlement of refugees more difficult than it would be if the states cooperated. Nevertheless, an act of Congress — the Refugee Act of 1980 — has given Obama broad discretion to allow refugees to be admitted into the United States. The states of Texas, Louisiana and others must yield to that act.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
People are letting the higher ups know that there IS an ACTUAL danger?... OR.... is it more likely that people are letting the higher ups know that they are afraid. There has been so much propaganda bantered about on some media sources and by some political factors that people are having the bejezus scared out of them and are afraid of their own shadows. What is real and what is being used for political gain? Do you know? I sure don't.
AZ Jim
R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
- Location
- SURPRISE, ARIZONA
Ralphy, I know you think you are being cute but the fact is you don't sound that way at all.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
One of our parties is advocating taking at least 65,000 refugees.. and that is really a drop in the bucket. With our population, it equates to adding 3 or 4 more people to a football stadium with 32,000 other people. It's not a huge amount..