Author Topic: Obama Administration Threatens States to Admit Syrian Refugees or Face ‘Enforcement Action’  (Read 831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HAPPY2BME

  • Guest

The Obama administration has warned states to comply with federal efforts to resettle Syrian refugees in communities around the U.S. or else find their states subject to enforcement action.

In a letter this week, the Office of Refugee Resettlement threatens states concerned about resettling Syrians with punitive responses if they refuse to accept the refugees. ORR explains that states may not refuse ORR-funded benefits for refugees on the basis of religion and national origin.

“Accordingly, states may not categorically deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees,” ORR Director Robert Carey wrote in the letter. “Any state with such a policy would not be in compliance with the State Plan requirements, applicable statutes, and their own assurances, and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension and termination.”

The agency also pointed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination for federally funded assistance benefits. Refugees are immediately eligible for welfare and other benefits upon admission to the U.S.

“Thus, it is not permissible to deny federally funded benefits such as Medicaid or [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] to refugees who otherwise meet the eligibilities requirements,” the letter reads. “ORR is committed to ensuring that all refugees receive assistance and services vital to achieving their potential in the United States and becoming self-sufficient, integrated members of our communities.”

ORR acknowledged in its letter the concerns dozens of governors and lawmakers have raised about the potential for terrorist to infiltrate the refugee process, be placed in their states, and threaten their constituents.

“ORR is aware that state and local leaders, including some governors, have expressed concern about the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states. In light go these concerns, we note that the resettlement process begins with the work of our federal agency partners in screening and vetting refugees,” Carey wrote.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) slammed the Obama administration for its aggressive stance toward concerned states.

“While the United States has the most generous refugee system in the world, the American people are rightly concerned about admitting Syrian refugees and the impact it would have on the safety of their families and neighbors,” Goodlatte said in a statement. “In light of these concerns, the majority of state governors have taken positions that reflect the views of their residents.”

He further criticized the administration as “hypocritical” for threatening states that might not comply with refugee resettlement while turning a blind eye to sanctuary cities — that refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/27/obama-administration-threatens-states-admit-syrian-refugees-face-enforcement-action/

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,612
    • I try my best ...
This is just another one of many bluffs, from our petty punk-thug president.

It makes perfect sense in every way that if sanctuary cities are legal, then anti-sanctuary cities must be legal as well. And I think any court would uphold that.

If you can "legally" break any Federal Law, based on some kind of personal opinion about whether the law is right, then you can break them all based on whether or not you agree with it or not.

People are legally smoking pot all over the country, and that is still, at least in theory, against Federal law.

Going against Federal laws or mandates is by no means something new or unusual. In fact, it is quite common, regardless of what the child-king says.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.
If they kill their own with no conscience, there is nothing to stop them from killing you.
Rational fear and anger at vicious murderous Islamic terrorists is the same as irrational antisemitism, according to the Leftists.

HAPPY2BME

  • Guest
This is just another one of many bluffs, from our petty punk-thug president.

It makes perfect sense in every way that if sanctuary cities are legal, then anti-sanctuary cities must be legal as well. And I think any court would uphold that.

If you can "legally" break any Federal Law, based on some kind of personal opinion about whether the law is right, then you can break them all based on whether or not you agree with it or not.

People are legally smoking pot all over the country, and that is still, at least in theory, against Federal law.

Going against Federal laws or mandates is by no means something new or unusual. In fact, it is quite common, regardless of what the child-king says.

===============================================

Oh no, it is not a 'bluff.'   

Recall the many examples of how 'o' is instantly willing to use his office as the office of a dictator to force his own agenda(s).

How about closing down all the national parks?  Using the BLM to force land owners off of their property?  The examples of 'o' being willing to do whatever is necessary to unconstitutionally demand and get what he wants are proof.  The governors are going to give in.  They have no choice (and no authority) whatsoever. 

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,450
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Quote
They have no choice (and no authority) whatsoever. 
That's where you're wrong.

All a state has to do to stop this is declare it is being invaded, at which point they can do anything they want to repel that invasion.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,842
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
History often turns on some very small and insignificant events. This could very well be one of them. How the states and the Fed react here might determine how things turn out for a very long time if not permanently.

Keep your eye on this one.
The Republic is lost.

Oceander

  • Guest
That's where you're wrong.

All a state has to do to stop this is declare it is being invaded, at which point they can do anything they want to repel that invasion.

Really.  And your authority for that point is ...?

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,567
History often turns on some very small and insignificant events. This could very well be one of them. How the states and the Fed react here might determine how things turn out for a very long time if not permanently.

Keep your eye on this one.

The Feds will reassure the governors that the vetting process is thorough and will share that process with them. Most of them will be satisfied and the few refugees that are approved for settlement will come to the states. 

That's how it will go down.  Over 2000 Syrian refugees have already been resettled in the US and there hasn't been a peep out of them.
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,842
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
The Feds will reassure the governors that the vetting process is thorough and will share that process with them. Most of them will be satisfied and the few refugees that are approved for settlement will come to the states. 

That's how it will go down.  Over 2000 Syrian refugees have already been resettled in the US and there hasn't been a peep out of them.

Yeah and, tell me what the stock market it going to do tomorrow and who's going to win the college football championship. The need for normalcy bias in our culture today has almost reached a kooky hysterical anti-conspiracy bent that's akin to a Jesus complex among segments of our population.

You don't know what's going to happen, neither do I, but it bares watching.
The Republic is lost.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,450
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Really.  And your authority for that point is ...?
The U.S. Constitution, I.10.iii, says:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Should the federal government import foreigners to a state against the state's will, it is effectively abetting invasion and the state could, at least in theory, declare war under that clause.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 10:17:31 pm by jmyrlefuller »
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Oceander

  • Guest
The U.S. Constitution, I.10.iii, says:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Should the federal government import foreigners to a state against the state's will, it is effectively abetting invasion and the state could, at least in theory, declare war under that clause.

Yeah, right.  Good luck making that case to anyone other than a few tinfoil types.  There is no invasion and there is utterly no way you can gin a few thousand refugees into an invasion.

That being said, I seem to recall another little bitty part of the Constitution, something about the federal government being in charge of immigration and federal law trumping state law.