Sorry, Left-Wingers, But Governors CAN Turn away "Refugees"

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2014
51,327
18,076
Fuck that Muslim President, and his TERRORIST HOARDS that he wants to infiltrate this country!

Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the United States was prepared to boost the number of total refugees accepted in 2016, from 70,000 to 85,000. Then, in 2017, Kerry said that 100,000 would be accepted.

Canada Free Press ^

Something amazing seems to be in the process of happening,a majority of the governors of our states appear to be finding the courage to stand up to the federal government and Obama's plan to resettle terrorists disguised as "refugees" all across the country. For decades, state governments have been so cowed by the federal government that time and time again, they acquiesce to any and all unconstitutional actions forced upon them by the federal government, no matter how excessive or ridiculous. However, the remarkably stupid decision by the Obama administration to proceed with its Syrian "refugee" resettlement plans, even in light of last weekend's terrorist attack in Paris, has finally forced the hand of conscientious governors who have been tasked with the duty to protect and do what is best for the citizens of their respective states. As of this writing, the governors of 27 states have stood up and said, "No more" to this Trojan horse assault on American safety.

Make no mistake,these "refugees" are not victims, seeking safety and freedom from oppression. They have been termed "refugees" by sympathetic media so as to cast them in a favorable light, but the actual facts say otherwise. Just look to the European experience so far. The vast majority of these "refugees" are military aged males, rather than women and children (who are typically the majority that are displaced in warzones). They have come into their host countries, defaced churches, destroyed property, committed a tremendous number of rapes and assaults, and publicly declared themselves to be "replacing" the native European populations and taking over Europe as a new "caliphate." These people are not refugees, they are invaders, plain and simple. ISIS has bragged about infiltrating personnel into Europe,how do you think they did this? We see the answer in the fact that two of the Paris attackers (claimed by ISIS) had passports given to them when they were processed through Greece as "Syrian refugees." There is no reason,none whatsoever,to think that the same things wouldn't happen here once we have large numbers of these "refugees" settled in our cities.


Edited to comply with copyright rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, just playing devil's advocate here but, how does accepting refugees violate the Constitution?
 
So, just playing devil's advocate here but, how does accepting refugees violate the Constitution?

Federal government DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to FORCE immigrants on states....States rights!...BUT the piece of shit in the White House will TRY administratively to do so.... Simply have the State Police intercept the INVADERS at the state line!
 
Federal government DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to FORCE immigrants on states

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 says that Congress has the power

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States"

In 1980, Congress, exercised that power to do so with the Refugee Act of 1980. So the Federal Government does have the power to accept refugees, and the states cannot invoke the 10th Amendment to deny these refugees, as the constitution clearly delegates that power to Congress, not the states.
 
Nearly every single point in the OP can be refuted by a single link.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf

And How are you going to make Governors of 30 states so far that REFUSE to accept them ...accept them... Federal troops against State and LOCAL police? The people have already TURNED AWAY ILLEGAL CHILDREN that this muslim president tried to force on communities... The PEOPLE have the ULTIMATE SAY, and so far THE PEOPLE do NOT WANT THEM.... Shall we have a Civil War caused by a muslim president?
 
Vigilante is absolutely correct. Obama knows this. That is why he is now decided to house them on military bases within the states. Federal property. The problem is, if a refugee steps one foot off the military reservation, the police of that state can immediately arrest the refugee and dispose of him in the manner approved by the state. They could return the refugee to the FEMA authorities there at the base, have him returned to his homeland, or whatever.

Obama has already overstepped his authority in Louisiana. He may have to be slapped down again by another federal judge.
 
Nearly every single point in the OP can be refuted by a single link.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf

And How are you going to make Governors of 30 states so far that REFUSE to accept them ...accept them... Federal troops against State and LOCAL police? The people have already TURNED AWAY ILLEGAL CHILDREN that this muslim president tried to force on communities... The PEOPLE have the ULTIMATE SAY, and so far THE PEOPLE do NOT WANT THEM.... Shall we have a Civil War caused by a muslim president?

No action is required for Governors to "accept" refugees.

If you want to start a civil war about it, you're welcome to try. I wouldn't expect it to work out well for you.
 
Federal government DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to FORCE immigrants on states

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 says that Congress has the power

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States"

In 1980, Congress, exercised that power to do so with the Refugee Act of 1980. So the Federal Government does have the power to accept refugees, and the states cannot invoke the 10th Amendment to deny these refugees, as the constitution clearly delegates that power to Congress, not the states.

Do you think since 30 governors already refuse to accept them, that those STATE SENATORS would go against the POLITICAL PRESSURE of the PEOPLE, or as usual, with feckless politicians, they will RUN WITH THE VOTING PUBLIC?
 
Vigilante is absolutely correct. Obama knows this. That is why he is now decided to house them on military bases within the states. Federal property. The problem is, if a refugee steps one foot off the military reservation, the police of that state can immediately arrest the refugee and dispose of him in the manner approved by the state. They could return the refugee to the FEMA authorities there at the base, have him returned to his homeland, or whatever.

Obama has already overstepped his authority in Louisiana. He may have to be slapped down again by another federal judge.

There is literally not a single thing true about this post.
 
Fuck that Muslim President, and his TERRORIST HOARDS that he wants to infiltrate this country!

Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the United States was prepared to boost the number of total refugees accepted in 2016, from 70,000 to 85,000. Then, in 2017, Kerry said that 100,000 would be accepted.

Canada Free Press ^

Something amazing seems to be in the process of happening,a majority of the governors of our states appear to be finding the courage to stand up to the federal government and Obama's plan to resettle terrorists disguised as "refugees" all across the country. For decades, state governments have been so cowed by the federal government that time and time again, they acquiesce to any and all unconstitutional actions forced upon them by the federal government, no matter how excessive or ridiculous. However, the remarkably stupid decision by the Obama administration to proceed with its Syrian "refugee" resettlement plans, even in light of last weekend's terrorist attack in Paris, has finally forced the hand of conscientious governors who have been tasked with the duty to protect and do what is best for the citizens of their respective states. As of this writing, the governors of 27 states have stood up and said, "No more" to this Trojan horse assault on American safety.

Make no mistake,these "refugees" are not victims, seeking safety and freedom from oppression. They have been termed "refugees" by sympathetic media so as to cast them in a favorable light, but the actual facts say otherwise. Just look to the European experience so far. The vast majority of these "refugees" are military aged males, rather than women and children (who are typically the majority that are displaced in warzones). They have come into their host countries, defaced churches, destroyed property, committed a tremendous number of rapes and assaults, and publicly declared themselves to be "replacing" the native European populations and taking over Europe as a new "caliphate." These people are not refugees, they are invaders, plain and simple. ISIS has bragged about infiltrating personnel into Europe,how do you think they did this? We see the answer in the fact that two of the Paris attackers (claimed by ISIS) had passports given to them when they were processed through Greece as "Syrian refugees." There is no reason,none whatsoever,to think that the same things wouldn't happen here once we have large numbers of these "refugees" settled in our cities.


Edited to comply with copyright rules.

Nothing in the above even attempts to make a legal case that governors can bar refugees from their states.
 
Federal government DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to FORCE immigrants on states

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 says that Congress has the power

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States"

In 1980, Congress, exercised that power to do so with the Refugee Act of 1980. So the Federal Government does have the power to accept refugees, and the states cannot invoke the 10th Amendment to deny these refugees, as the constitution clearly delegates that power to Congress, not the states.

Read it carefully. The Congress can set the guidelines for accepting a refugee - it cannot enforce any law upon the states. Law enforcement is left to the governors of the states.
 
Sorry, Left-Wingers, But Governors CAN Turn away "Refugees"

Nope, it's Fed thing.

NO, it's NOT, NOTHING in the Constitution that gives them the right!
You can try that argument all damn day, V. and it will get just as far as it did last time, nowhere.

Yes, TRUTH is something you hide from, like a CROSS or Garlic!


Did you ever ask this SUPPOSED Americans exactly WHY they want to go against the wishes of most of the people that reside in the country Vigilante?

Is it because they do not CARE what we think?

Is it because they think Obama is brilliant?

Is it because they think they need more illegals to slip by at the polls?

You need to really ask them WHY; when most people in America at least want to take a pause to evaluate what we should do, they think they should just cram it down almost 60% of Americas throat.

And when they tell you the reason, remember....................................if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, meaning......fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Obama has ZERO political capital left, and if they want to support him and lose, it is their political funeral, not ours.
 
Vigilante is absolutely correct. Obama knows this. That is why he is now decided to house them on military bases within the states. Federal property. The problem is, if a refugee steps one foot off the military reservation, the police of that state can immediately arrest the refugee and dispose of him in the manner approved by the state. They could return the refugee to the FEMA authorities there at the base, have him returned to his homeland, or whatever.

Obama has already overstepped his authority in Louisiana. He may have to be slapped down again by another federal judge.

lol times 100.
 

Forum List

Back
Top