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

[bripat9643]

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.

Naturalization is one thing, refugees are another.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

So basically you are using the "Sanctuary City" rationalization that the Right have been telling us is unconstitutional, but now suddenly it is constitutional when the Right does it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Lots of joy in Our Kenyan Emperor stuffing terrorists down the throats of the states!

Guarantees no Democrat would be elected to any office in any of those states for at least 150 years!

 

[edthecynic]

Let's really piss off the subversive leftists....

• The Left's Twisted Teaching on Immigration Law and the Constitution
  Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 17, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh
  BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: The argument raging is what to do with these refugees. And the left just seems as eager as they can be, in utter defiance of common sense. They say it is the maximum expression of the American experiment. And what do they say the American experiment is? "The American experiment is the only experiment..." This is the way they describe the founding of the country, by the way. As it suits their purposes. "Here we have this lone experiment in the world of human freedom -- and, as such, we must be open to one and all,...

Whatever your MessiahRushie says, the exact opposite is always true.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Naturalization is one thing, refugees are another.

Are you trying to claim that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional? I don't think I'm understanding your point.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Oddly enough, you just made a case for the right of municipalities to be sanctuary cities. lol

Damn, I should have read ahead, you beat me to it!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Naturalization is one thing, refugees are another.

Are you trying to claim that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional? I don't think I'm understanding your point.

Where does the Constitution grant authority to the federal government to bring in refugees of any kind?

 

[BULLDOG]

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!

What law gives states the right to deny access to the state based on religion or national origin?

 

[KissMy]

There are no border agents, fence or checkpoints between US states. If an immigrant lands anywhere in the USA, they can travel, live & work in any state they wish. Who is going to stop them?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Naturalization is one thing, refugees are another.

Are you trying to claim that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional? I don't think I'm understanding your point.

Where does the Constitution grant authority to the federal government to bring in refugees of any kind?

The Constitution does so by giving Congress the power to create laws of naturalization, which they did - specifically, the Refugee Act of 1980.

We've been over this before. How many times would you like to run around in circles about it this time?

 

[bripat9643]

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!

What law gives states the right to deny access to the state based on religion or national origin?

The Supreme Court claimed the Constitution allowed FDR to round up American citizens based on national origin and place them in concentration camps.

 

[jillian]

So, just playing devil's advocate here but, how does accepting refugees violate the Constitution?

You aren't playing devils advocate. It does not violate the constitution and states can't keep people from traveling between states. End of story. No matter what the wingers say

 

[Iceweasel]

How many of you libs are going to house Syrian refuges while they get settled in?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Naturalization is one thing, refugees are another.

Are you trying to claim that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional? I don't think I'm understanding your point.

Where does the Constitution grant authority to the federal government to bring in refugees of any kind?

The Constitution does so by giving Congress the power to create laws of naturalization, which they did - specifically, the Refugee Act of 1980.

We've been over this before. How many times would you like to run around in circles about it this time?

"Naturalization" is the process of becoming a citizen, not the process of admitting refugees.

 

[jillian]

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.

Naturalization is one thing, refugees are another.

Are you trying to claim that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional? I don't think I'm understanding your point.

Where does the Constitution grant authority to the federal government to bring in refugees of any kind?

The Constitution does so by giving Congress the power to create laws of naturalization, which they did - specifically, the Refugee Act of 1980.

We've been over this before. How many times would you like to run around in circles about it this time?

As many times as they do with every other one of their whines.

 

[BULLDOG]

The most that states can do is refuse any state funds for the refugee resettlement.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Naturalization is one thing, refugees are another.

Are you trying to claim that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional? I don't think I'm understanding your point.

Where does the Constitution grant authority to the federal government to bring in refugees of any kind?

The Constitution does so by giving Congress the power to create laws of naturalization, which they did - specifically, the Refugee Act of 1980.

We've been over this before. How many times would you like to run around in circles about it this time?

"Naturalization" is the process of becoming a citizen, not the process of admitting refugees.

So you are trying to argue that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional.

Take it up with the last 150 years of legal precedent.

 

[imawhosure]

Maybe not. but the PEOPLE can get out and protest like they did before they shipped in a whole load of them from other places like Honduras, etc. Remember that one? how many are WE THE PEOPLE expected to take in and have TO PAY FOR THEM too? this is the SECOND time under Obama we are going through this. NOW WHY IS THAT?

this was from the first batch of people the we ended up taking in under Obama.


ok Pelosi was added in the picture but these were the people being warehoused from before.


AND they wonder why the American people are freaking FED UP with people being dumped on them and they have to PAY FOR. This is from the FIRST wave from other countries.

Now they want us to take in people from the Muslin countries. WHERE does it stop folks?

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.

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?

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.

You know NY carebear, or whatever you call yourself; can I assume you are from New York.......New York City?

I bet that if you were at the base of the twin towers as they were ablaze, you would have told our emergency personnel not to enter to save Americans because it was all OUR fault! You. Obama, RIGHTWINGER, and a host of others are WEAK Americans. All you can do is tell us how to SURRENDER. I betcha when you woosies were in school, some 5ft young female stole your lunch from each of you every, damn, day.

Oh, you guys talk a good game. You tell us to enlist and go fight the war we claim we need to save us, then sit there smugly.

Good point!

Then why is it when we tell you people who are sitting in your parents basement in your UNDER wear to go get a job, along with the illegal aliens, we are called RACISTS, lol! Guess it is beneath you guys/gals to actually DO ANYTHING BUT WHINE, and post your whines to the tune 10 to 40 thousand posts, lol, and heaven forbid if we want illegals to get off the dole; but of course it is ok if you put our country at risk, because YOU KNOW BETTER! Yes, you arrogant, young, incompetent, socialists have to much time on your hands, and you better hope and pray a conservative doesn't get elected, because you won't be seeing that keyboard to much, and instead, doing some manual labor.

I have a feeling that most of you aren't even qualified to flip burgers, but never fear, we COMPASSIONATE conservatives are going to set up a network where all of you can cut our grass for fair pay! That is right-) While I sit by my cement pond drinking an ice tea, you can cut my grass; no phones or earbuds though.

No need to thank us, we want to contribute to the Obama economy, and if you send us your real names, we will send our offers to your local unemployment office so as you can have a REAL job, of course if you refuse to take it, we will have to let everyone know, meaning if you are on any type of dole, it COULD be cut off-)

 

[leftwinger]

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

too many big lawyer words. what it say?

 

[bripat9643]

Naturalization is one thing, refugees are another.

Are you trying to claim that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional? I don't think I'm understanding your point.

Where does the Constitution grant authority to the federal government to bring in refugees of any kind?

The Constitution does so by giving Congress the power to create laws of naturalization, which they did - specifically, the Refugee Act of 1980.

We've been over this before. How many times would you like to run around in circles about it this time?

"Naturalization" is the process of becoming a citizen, not the process of admitting refugees.

So you are trying to argue that the Refugee Act is unconstitutional.

Take it up with the last 150 years of legal precedent.

The refugee act has only been around since 1948.