Can governors actually block refugee resettlement?

posted at 4:01 pm on November 17, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

So far, almost half of America’s governors have demanded a halt to Barack Obama’s plans to admit tens of thousands of refugees from the collapse of Syria. That includes one Democratic governor, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan, while seven other Democrats are giving the green light to resettlement. However, neither of these positions will end up mattering, at least not legally, as governors have no authority to restrict the federal government’s actions on asylum decisions:

Under Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, states do not have the authority to refuse foreign nationals who have been granted asylum or refugee status by the federal government. Additionally, the White House does not need to consult with states on decisions to parole or give refuge to foreign nationals.

“Under the INA, the president must only seek ‘appropriate consultation’ when deciding to admit refugees. The term appropriate consultation is defined to include cabinet level representatives and committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and House. State participation is not referenced in the resettlement process,” Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, told the Washington Examiner.

However, the Office of Refugee Resettlement is required to consult with state and local governments and nonprofit agencies to accept recommendations made by state officials.

Although 26 states do not wish to take in Syrian refugees, seven — Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington — have said they will.

Even if these governors had the ability to tell the federal government not to settle refugees in their states, which they don’t, how would they enforce that once the refugees are here? Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the Obama administration decided to settle all of the Syrian refugees in the state of Washington. What’s to keep them from loading up the family sedan and trekking to Alabama, Texas, or any of the other states that have put up the NO VACANCY sign? The US does not have internal passports or papers checks at state borders (nor do we want any), and in fact we’d have no papers to check.

In other words, these are political protests, not definitive actions. These governors might be able to use the INA to fend off the federal government if they wanted to open a resettlement center in their state, although that might still be ultimately outside their authority. But eventually, refugees who want to live in these states would get there, regardless of these statements, if Obama decided to grant asylum to the refugees. Once they’re in, they’re in, and to stay unless and until they commit an act that would prompt their expulsion. As we saw in Paris, the risk is that will be too late.

Also, it’s not like we’ve shut our doors until now; we have already been offering asylum and have taken in over two thousand refugees so far. One might expect that these would tend toward the Assyrian Christians who have been victimized by the genocides perpetrated by ISIS, but they account for fewer than 3% of those granted asylum in the US, according to CNS News:

Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday.

The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha’i, 6 Zoroastrians, 6 of “other religion,” 7 of “no religion,” and 3 atheists.

By comparison, Syria’s population breakdown in early 2011, before the civil war’s death toll and refugee exodus roiled the demographics, was 90 percent Muslim (including Sunnis, Shia, Alawites and Druze) and 10 percent Christian, according to the CIA World Factbook.

This has some wondering why we’re not focusing more on those fleeing obvious religious oppression and flat-out genocide, rather than just the broad population of those fleeing a war zone. The short answer to that is that the flood of the latter has stretched the capabilities of our allies, and they want us to pitch in, especially since they are on the front lines of a crisis that was mostly provoked by a US-EU misadventure in Libya and the decision by Obama to just pull out of Iraq with no residual force to sustain stability. The longer answer is that the Obama administration has avoided acknowledging the genocides as a way to push off the need to intervene to stop them — which was, after all, the supposed reason for the intervention in Libya that turned into a war of decapitation.

John Kerry points to the track record on refugee screening to essentially say, trust us:

“Since 9/11, we have allowed 785,000 refugees to come to the United States of America,” he said. “Out of the 785,000, 12 people were found to perhaps be problematic with respect to potential terror, and they were arrested or deported.”

“Do we need a process which is careful and deliberate and competent and guarantees that we know what we’re doing? Of course. And that’s exactly what we’ve been growing ever since 9/11.” …

“I think we’ve got to not run off, you know, half-cocked here in an early stage,” he said. “I think it’s appropriate for a governor to stand up and say I want to make certain, I want to protect my people,” he said. “I think we have to be thoughtful about this, Lester, and I hope the that people will step back and think hard about how we can do this in a way that can keep faith with America’s values as a nation.”

Well, maybe, but that assumes we will never find another problem among that group, including those who might have come most recently. That is a more remote possibility, perhaps, but the bigger and more acute problem with Kerry’s argument is the sense of unreality projected by Obama and his administration on ISIS and terrorism. Obama spent an hour scolding the media for questioning his policies when they have clearly failed, and refuses to even acknowledge the possibility that better options exist. When discussing refugees, Obama, Kerry, and the Left speak about values, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that this entails risk — risk that was proven in Paris. Jonah Goldberg made this point earlier today:

And now we see that three of the Paris terrorist suspects are now known to have entered Europe as refugees:

A second suspect directly involved in the Paris massacre is on the loose four days after the attacks, according to French officials, as German police revealed a third suspect in custody apparently posed as a refugee.

French officials did not identify the second fugitive. Speaking to The Associated Press, they said an analysis of the series of attacks on Nov. 13 indicated that another person directly involved was unaccounted for.

Meantime, police said they arrested an Algerian man linked to the attacks, at a refugee center in western Germany, Reuters reports.

Police say he apparently told Syrian refugees at the center that fear and terror would be spread in the French capital. Police are looking into whether he’s an accomplice or a confidante of the Paris attackers, Reuters adds. At least two other suspects reportedly entered Europe through Greece posing as refugees.

Given that track record in Europe and the fantasies spun by the White House on their ISIS policies, the governors are right to speak out and warn of the dangers. They may not be able to stop Obama from granting asylum to 10,000 refugees, but they can make it very politically perilous for his administration and those who support it. The protest could force Congress into action, requiring Obama and Kerry to address their legitimate concerns by detailing the steps that will be used to vet 10,000 or more displaced people from a terror-plagued region, a flight that has already proven to be a pretty good cover for ISIS terrorists looking to infiltrate the West. In fact, that’s exactly what most of these governors have demanded — a process that doesn’t just rely on White House platitudes about American values, but one with a realistic and tough approach to a real and acute national-security risk.

To put it more bluntly: is it possible to operate a refugee screening program that could prevent dangerous terrorists from entering the US? Sure. Can we trust the incompetents who are in large part responsible for this mess to do so? Hardly, especially when they’ve busied themselves of late with patting their own backs about “containing” ISIS while it expands into international terrorism, while making it clear that their main concern is in moral preening in the face of legitimate concerns and criticism.

The proper long-term strategy, though, would be to fix the problem at its source. Speaker Paul Ryan, who announced that the House would vote for a “pause” in admitting refugees until the security implications and screening processes were fully realized, reminded everyone of this in a short statement earlier today:

Ultimately, this refugee crisis is a result of the failure of Obama’s foreign policy and national security strategies, as well as his laughable approach to “degrading and ultimately destroying” ISIS. Let’s not lose sight of that fact in this debate.

Addendum: Their protests can cause headaches for the White House, however, and that seems to have produced a response.

Addendum II: Via Instapundit, Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum warns liberals to knock off the moral preening and answer the legitimate concerns being raised:

So it doesn’t seem xenophobic or crazy to call for an end to accepting Syrian refugees. It seems like simple common sense. After all, things changed after Paris.

Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?

The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should call for tighter screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we’re accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.

Because it is in fact a legitimate concern, and the competence of this administration is another.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If 2/3rds or more of the Governors go on record against this, then it is highly likely that the votes would be available in Congress to pass a law suspending the refugee imports, and possibly enough to overcome a presidential veto.

Reno_Dave on November 17, 2015 at 5:04 PM

oscarwilde on November 17, 2015 at 4:53 PM

But I do know a little bit about Christian beliefs. Hard to live in America and not.

Pretty sure that the guy who walked among the lepers, told us to tend to prisoners and forgave his executioners would take a chance on a few wretched (to steal a word from the Statue of Liberty — you do remember that, right) refugees.

urban elitist on November 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM

No, as a matter of fact, you know absolutely nothing about Christian Beliefs. Jesus Christ did not a take a Chance on anyone ever. PERIOD.

Jesus Christ called ALL to repentance, but make no mistake about it, he knew at all times exactly what each individual would do. When he sent his disciples out, he sent them our armed with a sword, because he knew who they were going to meet and how they would react.

The only thing you know about Christianity, is the ignorant bull$hit you and your ignorant atheist friends giggle back and forth to each other.

oscarwilde on November 17, 2015 at 5:06 PM

Pretty sure that the guy who walked among the lepers, told us to tend to prisoners and forgave his executioners would take a chance on a few wretched (to steal a word from the Statue of Liberty — you do remember that, right) refugees.

Yeah; pretty sure he also said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto the Lord that which is His.” Translation: Leave immigration policy as a legal issue, mm’kayy?
Funny how those who cry like wounded little girls if there’s a Nativity scene in a public park are the first to turn around and use Biblical examples as a convenient club.
Sorry, Saint UrbanElitist: Can’t have it both ways.

orangemtl on November 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM

Even if these governors had the ability to tell the federal government not to settle refugees in their states, which they don’t, how would they enforce that once the refugees are here? Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the Obama administration decided to settle all of the Syrian refugees in the state of Washington. What’s to keep them from loading up the family sedan and trekking to Alabama, Texas, or any of the other states that have put up the NO VACANCY sign?

States need to:

1) Stop providing ANY state welfare benefits to non-citizens

2) Stop providing any bi-lingual services

The states that earn a reputation for having the strictest rules for welfare benefits and language services will have the lowest number of refugees.

These policies should also help to reduce the number of ILLEGAL Aliens in these states.

Make it happen, Governors!

wren on November 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM

Sad that the Republican governors have chosen politics over their Christian beliefs and the traditional role of the U.S. as a moral leader.

Question: how do we persuade allies who are handling many times the number of refugees to cooperate with us, if we can’t carry this modest burden?

urban effetist on November 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM

No, what’s sad is that you obviously didn’t read the very second sentence of this thread:

That includes one Democratic governor, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan,

Of course, you have a legit excuse for ignoring that inconvenient truth; your Democrat Media have been doing their very best to censor that angle of the story. Pravda would be proud of them!

All three of the major broadcast networks’ evening newscasts tonight covered the largely-Republican pushback against President Obama’s plan to move 10,000 Syrian refugees on to American soil. But only NBC’s Hallie Jackson noted that the move by state governors was bipartisan, with first-in-the-nation primary host New Hampshire’s Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) objecting to the Obama administration placing refugees in the Granite State.

-snip-

Hassan’s position is particularly salient because it introduces a thorny dilemma for Democratic presidential candidates: do they or don’t they agree with the New Hampshire governor’s position on the issue? Hassan’s state hosts the first primary in the nation and all three Democratic hopefuls are looking to secure a win from the state’s voters. Do the Democrats running for office agree with their party’s chief, Mr. Obama, or do they trust Ms. Hassan’s instincts about the views her state’s residents have about possibly hosting refugees who haven’t been sufficiently screened?

F-

Del Dolemonte on November 17, 2015 at 5:09 PM

Isn’t he that guy who served in Vietnam?

Galtian on November 17, 2015 at 5:09 PM

BULL CRAP…there is NO ENUMERATED POWER IN THE CONSTITUTION that gives the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THIS POWER…and that which DOESN’T give..is left for the STATE TO DECIDE!!!

billofrights on November 17, 2015 at 5:15 PM

urban elitist on November 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM

The same study that cited that 20%/5% ratio also observed that many experts believe this nation has already reached its capacity to assimilate anymore migrants.

1 of every 7 people in this nation today is foreign born, which constitutes an all time record.

I agree with you on your point that no one is going to control where these ‘refugees’ ultimately decide to live. The 180 communities schedule to receive these refugees have high unemployment, offer no halal butchers, no restaurants that carry Syrian cuisine, no markets with a section dedicated to those food products, and no special classes other than ESL classes.

In all likelihood as soon as they’ve completed the initial 30-90 day period in which Resettlement Services assists them, they’ll get on social media, find communities that share their culture, and move there, green cards in hand. Those cities would primarily be suburbs of Chicago, New York City, Newark, Detroit, and Los Angeles.

If they’re going to plot any terrorist activity, those, and nearby cities, are the communities in which they’re most likely to commit these atrocities, much like the Tsarnaev brothers, refugees themselves, choosing the Boston Marathon to murder Americans.

thatsafactjack on November 17, 2015 at 5:15 PM

Anyone ELSE seeing this administration relabeling all the Guantanamo inmates to “refugees” so they can close it?

Snitchmo on November 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM

So odd that “the law” seems so very very important and MUST be followed only when it will screw over Americans. Screw Obama and the stupid law…. Block the the terrorists governors… Block them!

Caseoftheblues on November 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM

Wren,

There’s a map at the governors link above.

INC on November 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM

Thank you, INC!

wren on November 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM

What is the process to IMPEACH Governors who endanger the lives of American citizens?

wren on November 17, 2015 at 5:17 PM

anymore..any more *edit

thatsafactjack on November 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM

However, neither of these positions will end up mattering, at least not legally, as governors have no authority to restrict the federal government’s actions on asylum decisions:

This is a logical fallacy. Who gives the Federal government the authority to FORCE governors, who were elected by the populations of the individual states, to circumvent the will of the people? Certainly not the Constitution. The Feds have no legitimate authority to force any state to accept any immigrant. There is a fundamental reason for this: private property.

One of our nation’s underlying principles is that property is owned by the individual citizens, unless the government (local, state or federal) has PURCHASED certain plots of land. That is the essential point behind Federalism: that the federal government is simply an entity by which and through which the states can be coordinated and unified for their common good. To think that the feds can FORCE people to house anyone on their own private property, without any say, is, actually one of the grievances that led to the American Revolution.

The land DOES NOT belong to the Federal Government, nor does it belong to the State Government, or the Local government. It belongs to individuals. To assert that governors have no authority to protect the people of their own state is not only unConstitutional, but violates the underlying principle of private property and by extension, the concept of Federalism. Welcome to the new fascism…

mrteachersir on November 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM

Sad that the Republican governors have chosen politics over their Christian beliefs and the traditional role of the U.S. as a moral leader.

urban effetist on November 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM

IS THIS ANOTHER GHEY THREAD????

Nutstuyu on November 17, 2015 at 5:19 PM

You’re welcome, Wren!

INC on November 17, 2015 at 5:20 PM

As Rush Limbaugh pointed out (via Andy McCarthy, I believe), the Feds do not have the power to force states to do this. States still retain the police power.

Nutstuyu on November 17, 2015 at 5:21 PM

Sad that the Republican governors have chosen politics over their Christian beliefs and the traditional role of the U.S. as a moral leader.

urban elitist on November 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM

What has been interesting to me in this episode has been watching the number and type of people who all of the sudden have decided that our government is supposed to be a theocracy.

The Schaef on November 17, 2015 at 5:21 PM

Sad that the Republican governors Five Rulers in Robes have chosen politics over their Christian beliefs and the traditional role of the U.S. as a moral leader.

urban effetist on November 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM

FIFY.

Nutstuyu on November 17, 2015 at 5:22 PM

Pretty sure that the guy who walked among the lepers, told us to tend to prisoners and forgave his executioners would take a chance on a few wretched (to steal a word from the Statue of Liberty — you do remember that, right) refugees.

urban elitist on November 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM

Oh, so you’re not citing beliefs, you’re just extrapolating based on things he did that have nothing to do with national security.

The Schaef on November 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM

…again linked from Ace…coming to school children near you…

Captagon: the amphetamine fuelling Syria’s civil war

Separate investigations by the news agency Reuters and Time magazine have found that the growing trade in Syrian-made Captagon – an amphetamine widely consumed in the Middle East but almost unknown elsewhere – generated revenues of millions of dollars inside the country last year, some of which was almost certainly used to fund weapons, while combatants on both sides are reportedly turning to the stimulant to help them keep fighting.

…I feel pretty confident these governors can stop the drug trade in their own states whether Odykhead agrees or not…

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM

What is the process to IMPEACH Governors who endanger the lives of American citizens?

wren on November 17, 2015 at 5:17 PM

Load.
Sight.
Fire.

Nutstuyu on November 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM

..oops sorry link

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM

States can I think, and should, put unwelcome refugees on a bus, drive them to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and let them out. Let DC deal with its problem children.

james23 on November 17, 2015 at 4:15 PM

Or just drop them off at any gate that has a U.S. Property sign on it. That’s the only land that the Feds can dictate anything on.

Nutstuyu on November 17, 2015 at 5:28 PM

But I do know a little bit about Christian beliefs. Hard to live in America and not.

Pretty sure that the guy who walked among the lepers, told us to tend to prisoners and forgave his executioners would take a chance on a few wretched (to steal a word from the Statue of Liberty — you do remember that, right) refugees.

urban elitist on November 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM

You seem to be unfamiliar with this passage.

Matthew 15:21-28:

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

DFCtomm on November 17, 2015 at 5:31 PM

Much more focus is needed on the Resettlement Contractors and how they spend their federal dollars…who does what? Are they audited…? Do the Resettlement Contractors required to be licensed in the States they operate…?

d1carter on November 17, 2015 at 5:33 PM

It’s rather telling that the trolls are mad because people they don’t like don’t want these “refugees” living among them.

CurtZHP on November 17, 2015 at 5:44 PM

Actually Governors can do alot to block them

Brock Robamney on November 17, 2015 at 5:45 PM

BTW, did John Kerry say the Charlie Hebdo attack was more understandable…or did I miss something?

d1carter on November 17, 2015 at 5:56 PM

What can a Governor do? Gather the refugees and put them on buses or a plane and drop them off in front of the White House. They can be put up in the Lincoln bedroom.

thesorcerer on November 17, 2015 at 5:57 PM

Governors should identify and shine a bright light on the Refugee Resettlement Contractors who are being paid (largely via government grants) to resettle refugees in their states.

Examples of these contractors include:

• Church World Service (CWS)
• Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC)
• Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)
• Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)
• International Rescue Committee (IRC)
• US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI)
• Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
• World Relief Corporation (WR)

Then state residents can start organizing appropriate protests at their offices.

Find out if these refugee resettlement contractors are operating in your state.

wren on November 17, 2015 at 6:01 PM

I guess Kerry doesn’t understand how insurgencies get started or work. They require the support of a portion of the populace. So, while many insurgencies involve small numbers of actual fighters, they take large numbers of people to provide material support and hide their actions. Of the 700,000 that have come to the U.S. a small fraction may actually carry out attacks, but how many of the remainder will condone, support, and cover for those who do?

ReaganWasRight on November 17, 2015 at 6:03 PM

Missing Syrian Refugee From Louisiana Found in Washington DC – Breaking911 breaking911.com/alert-syrian-refugee-relocated-to-louisiana-goes-missing/

Just getting money, documents, weapons and last minute instructions from his Brother, Barry Hussein.

LegendHasIt on November 17, 2015 at 6:09 PM

States need to:

1) Stop providing ANY state welfare benefits to non-citizens

2) Stop providing any bi-lingual services

3) Announce that absolutely no law enforcement resources will be devoted to guarding the unwelcome; instead, those resources will be devoted to tracking and publicizing their locations.

FTFY.

SDN on November 17, 2015 at 6:09 PM

Yo TOTUS – you want refugees?

Lettem ALL into DC – no one will even NOTICE the increased criminal activity………

Katfish on November 17, 2015 at 6:18 PM

I couldn’t help but notice that NONE of the refugees will be coming to the Virginia and specifically the DC area. There are public housing units everywhere you look in DC. Lots of room. So why do you suppose the refugees are unwelcome in DC?

HotAirian on November 17, 2015 at 4:19 PM
______________________________

Google is a great tool. You should use it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/17/refugees-headed-180-towns-avoid-dc/

I get it though. Conspiracy theories are so much more fun!!!

Politricks on November 17, 2015 at 6:29 PM

How is the vetting to be done if there is little or no information…?

d1carter on November 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM
———————————————

Google is your friend. Not your enemy. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-the-syrian-refugee-vetting-process/

Politricks on November 17, 2015 at 6:31 PM

Sure caught the Tsarnev brothers before they could do any harm.

Whew.

WhirledPeas on November 17, 2015 at 4:18 PM

______________________________________________
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/the-boston-bombers-were-n_b_8584016.html
But they were not refugees.

Politricks on November 17, 2015 at 6:35 PM

Enemy.

John Kerry

B Obama

Clinton Family Foundation

Al Gore

DNC

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 17, 2015 at 6:37 PM

Have the smug and self-righteous Feds in the Obysmal administration indicated how the costs of this influx is to be borne? Are they strapping the states?

Will Obysmal and his cronies accept responsibility for any acts of terror caused by these newcomers? Or are the Clown-in-Chief and his Royal Jester Kerry going to blame the victims of any atrocities or downplay them?

Cannot an Ellis Island type of screening take place as a safeguard? And cannot questionable “refugees” be sent back home?

onlineanalyst on November 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM

But they were not refugees.

Politricks on November 17, 2015 at 6:35 PM

Yeah that whole asylum thing was just a lark, or something.

The Schaef on November 17, 2015 at 6:44 PM

Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were refugees from brutal Chechen conflict

The family lived in Tokmok, a town of about 55,000 people in northern Kyrgyzstan, near the border with Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz National State Security Committee said in a statement Friday. Kyrgyz officials said the family left the country about 12 years ago for Dagestan, and after a year there immigrated to the United States.

Anzor Tsarnaev and his wife arrived in the United States in early 2002 after gaining refu­gee status. Their two sons and two daughters followed a short time later with an aunt.

thatsafactjack on November 17, 2015 at 6:45 PM

Google is your friend. Not your enemy. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-the-syrian-refugee-vetting-process/

Politricks on November 17, 2015 at 6:31 PM

My Google says FBI Director says can’t vet all Syrian refugees….

d1carter on November 17, 2015 at 6:46 PM

Let’s start a running list of all the things that States can do to force the immigration of Muslims to grind to a halt:
(1) any facility must meet local building standards – fail them without remorse. No facility? No refugees.
(2) You want to put refugees here? Put them in a federal prison and guard them with federal employees. Follow them every time they move an inch.

Add yours to the list.

#NoRefugees.

chuckh on November 17, 2015 at 6:48 PM

FBI director James Comey said during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on Wednesday that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S.

The left media must know more than James Comey about how the vetting works….

d1carter on November 17, 2015 at 6:54 PM

thatsafactjack on November 17, 2015 at 6:52 PM

Wow. So maybe we shouldn’t let the Syrian terrorist refugees in until the government finishes it’s data bank.

Those geniuses who set up the ObamaCare website with an secure infrastructure and the guys from the geeksquad who setup Hillarys bathroom closet server could help set up that databank.

SpongePuppy on November 17, 2015 at 6:58 PM

Without a secure infrastructure.

SpongePuppy on November 17, 2015 at 6:58 PM

Not too much to worry about. Nearly all are going to Red states.The blues have been exempted.

docflash on November 17, 2015 at 4:16 PM

To get us to start shooting; to declare state of “emergency”; to make excuse for not stepping down in 1/17.

Who is John Galt on November 17, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Because it is in fact a legitimate concern

No, it’s not. It’s akin to banning airplanes after 9/11…a reaction which makes no sense and is motivated by blind dumb fear.

Tlaloc on November 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM

Have the smug and self-righteous Feds in the Obysmal administration indicated how the costs of this influx is to be borne? Are they strapping the states?

Will Obysmal and his cronies accept responsibility for any acts of terror caused by these newcomers? Or are the Clown-in-Chief and his Royal Jester Kerry going to blame the victims of any atrocities or downplay them?

Cannot an Ellis Island type of screening take place as a safeguard? And cannot questionable “refugees” be sent back home?

onlineanalyst on November 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM
———————————-

The answer to all of these questions can be found online. You have to be willing to step out side of your fox news echo zone. You can do it!!!!

Politricks on November 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM

Politricks on November 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM

Interesting that you can’t provide a single answer.

Perhaps you’re the one who needs to step out of the HuffPo fog.

thatsafactjack on November 17, 2015 at 7:21 PM

Oh how sweet the irony:

Republican state Rep. Tony Dale is concerned that Texas’ lax gun laws could allow Syrian refugees to launch terror attacks on American soil.

In a two-page letter sent to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on Monday, Dale asked state officials to reject the resettlement of more Syrian refugees within the Lone Star State’s borders after Friday’s terror attacks in Paris. He argued that immigration documents granted to refugees would allow them to obtain Texas drivers’ licenses, which in turn would allow them to procure firearms.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tony-dale-refugees-guns

Tlaloc on November 17, 2015 at 7:27 PM

Go fully cocked or don’t cock at all…

guido911 on November 17, 2015 at 7:39 PM

DHS Confesses: No Databases Exist To Vet Syrian Refugees

10/06/2015 06:47 PM ET

Under grilling from GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.

“Does Syria have any?” Sessions asked. “The government does not, no sir,” answered Matthew Emrich, associate director for fraud detection and national security at DHS’ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Sessions further inquired: “You don’t have their criminal records, you don’t have the computer database that you can check?” Confessed Emrich: “In many countries the U.S. accepts refugees from, the country did not have extensive data holdings.”
In sworn testimony before congress, Matthew Emrich, associate director for fraud detection and national security at DHS’ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services admitted that the federal government has no means to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.

thatsafactjack on November 17, 2015 at 6:52 PM

stick that in your pipe and smoke it, lefties.

Senator Philip Bluster on November 17, 2015 at 7:58 PM

National Guard.
Intercept passengers and check IDs.
Shut down the resettlement orgs In their states.
Put a chain on every door on every federal building in their state if King Hussein refuses to back down.

Spartacus on November 17, 2015 at 8:02 PM

Because it is in fact a legitimate concern

No, it’s not. It’s akin to banning airplanes after 9/11

Tlaloc on November 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM

…akin…? How?

Ricard on November 17, 2015 at 8:15 PM

Oh how sweet the irony:

Republican state Rep. Tony Dale is concerned that Texas’ lax gun laws could allow Syrian refugees to launch terror attacks on American soil.

In a two-page letter sent to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on Monday, Dale asked state officials to reject the resettlement of more Syrian refugees within the Lone Star State’s borders after Friday’s terror attacks in Paris. He argued that immigration documents granted to refugees would allow them to obtain Texas drivers’ licenses, which in turn would allow them to procure firearms.

Tlaloc on November 17, 2015 at 7:27 PM

No irony at all. If you read his full statement (difficult for leftists, I know), this isn’t a general concern about immigrants being able to access weapons, but a lack of screening that, unlike times past, lets anyone in willy-nilly, like the immigrants who are assaulting and raping girls in Germany for not dressing according to Islamist preferences. Obama’s policies that are the problem, not Texas gun laws.

Ricard on November 17, 2015 at 8:24 PM

Refugees are entitled to welfare, and free housing, ebt/food stamps, temporary assistance etc. They don’t actually get a green card, confusing, but they can work and file and pay taxes. The welfare and most of the social benefits are paid by your state, here is where your governor has to pay for these things, or reduce what everyone gets. Refugees somehow go to the top of the list for housing, which is mostly a state thing, but has HUD involved sometimes too. They get an apartment before a state resident does. Not really fair, but the dems just tell their constituents the republicans just make stuff up. It is possible that your state governor can interfere in that priority, making state residents come first, so the refugees have to wait and wait and might go somewhere else, or live in a motel. And the governor can tighten up the benefits, if NO one gets more than X, then that applies to the refugees as well. So, what state doesn’t say they have a waiting list for public housing? or Section 8? With the last wave of young migrants some of this came up, because they got classed as assylum seekers. Towns, cities have to pay for all the schooling, and special needs, and language classes/translators.

It would be a helpful change to make true refugee status short term. If they go back to the home country, like the Tsarneav’s they should not get back in. And able bodied men/young men should not seek refuge, they should be fighting in their own country to get their own back from the takers.

Make welfare limited to a few months, and require refugees to support their relatives which they can invite, only if they work and don’t take welfare, and the relative cannot have welfare.

Right now they get social security for granny if they can get her in. Everyone is also eligible for SSI, like checks for the kids if they have ADHD or some trauma, and checks for the kids of whomever is disabled.These are all federal things, of course, but they need to be changed as well.

It is a privilege to be selected as a guest in the U.S. you should not expect money too. Benefits have to be truly temporary, and above all cannot be sent by Western Union to the old country. Taking welfare and sending it back is a scam perpetrated on the American taxpayer.

Fleuries on November 17, 2015 at 8:37 PM

Can governors actually block refugee resettlement?

No. Because you’ll have defecrat governors like Hindlicker in Colorado who’ll bring them all in for their votes, issue them a drivers license and, with that id, they’ll be free to roam wherever they want.

Ruckus_Tom on November 17, 2015 at 9:07 PM

Good..i hear there is lots of room on cape cod and nantucket for these poor restless souls…even better on your yacht.

jaywemm on November 17, 2015 at 9:37 PM

US Citizenship and Immigration Services: Refugee status-Green Card for a Refugee

If you were admitted as a refugee, you are required by law to apply for a green card (permanent residence) in the United States 1 year after being admitted as a refugee. For more information on refugees, see our Humanitarian page.
Eligibility Criteria

You must apply for a green card 1 year after you are admitted to the United States as a refugee if you:

1. Have been physically present in the United States for at least 1 year after being admitted as a refugee

2. Have not had your refugee admission terminated

3. Have not already acquired permanent resident (green card) status

To qualify and receive refugee status:

1. Is located outside of the United States

2. Is of special humanitarian concern to the United States

3. Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group

4.Is not firmly resettled in another country

5. Is admissible to the United States

A refugee does not include anyone who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

For the legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

*

Filing for a Permanent Residency (Green Card)

If you are admitted as a refugee, you must apply for a green card one year after coming to the United States. To apply for permanent residency, file Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status. There is no fee for refugees to file the Form I-485. In addition, refugees do not have to pay for fingerprinting/biometrics fees.

For the entire process scroll down.

thatsafactjack on November 17, 2015 at 10:04 PM

Kerry didn’t the Obama administration memo that governors are not permitted to follow immigration law. That’s why he is Secretary of State…the State of Confusion, that is!

Christien on November 17, 2015 at 10:12 PM

Kerry should ask Kyrzakhstan to take them, instead, because Global Test.

Christien on November 17, 2015 at 10:19 PM

james23,

States can I think, and should, put unwelcome refugees on a bus, drive them to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and let them out. Let DC deal with its problem children.

Seriously, why not do this?

The relocation can be packaged with a cash incentive and assistance (ie. setting them up on welfare in their new places of residence). So long as it is perceived as voluntary, it would be untouchable by the courts. As for the cost of this relocation and assistance it would probably pay for itself. The vast majority of the refugees are basically just free loaders like Mama Tsarnaev, and it would be cheaper than having them on the state and local welfare rolls for years.

Ultimately the refugees will be happier where the benefits are more lucrative, the Red State residents will be happier and safer once they’re relocated and Barack Obama’s grand plan to transform these communities will be defeated.

Nothing but win here. Serious conservatives need to start thinking like this and start finding ways to translate those thoughts into policy. I’m tired of protests, feigned outrage and political posturing from our limp d!ck Republican governors.

Mike Honcho on November 17, 2015 at 10:46 PM

How would they enforce it? They would have them detained and then flown back to Washington DC.

K. Hobbit on November 18, 2015 at 12:53 AM

This is a union of sovereign states.

Yes, if any state wants to bar entrance of or deport islamic scumbags they are free to do so, but don’t expect the feds to be happy about it. They’ll come up with a zillion reasons why you CAN’T do something, but they have no reason at all for why THEY wont do a damn thing to protect sovereign citizens in those sovereign states.

The federal government thinks they own you one and all.

Andy__B on November 18, 2015 at 1:07 AM

The federal government thinks they own you one and all.

Andy__B on November 18, 2015 at 1:07 AM

While that may be the original intent, the States haven’t attempt to enforce this since the 60’s and before that the War of Northern Aggression. Maybe this is what is takes for a majority of states to grow some balls … it’s one thing to roll over on inconsequential issues for federal money, but a completely different beast when masses of citizens are killed by those policies.

smokeyblonde on November 18, 2015 at 2:25 AM

Can John Kerry be permanently exiled to Nantucket?

Another Drew on November 18, 2015 at 2:28 AM

Sanctuary cities in contravention of Federal immigration laws = okay

Refusing to allow settlement of unvettable Muslim “refugees” = not okay

Not cooperating with Federal immigration authorities is cool, except when it isn’t.

Moron Labe on November 18, 2015 at 3:54 AM

PERFECT RINO analysis…What can we do to stop from being blown up? NOTHING!!!

Ed and his fellow squish RINO’s play a large part in the fix we are in!

There is nothing we can do to stop OBAMA…could not be further from the truth!

They CHOOSE to do NOTHING!!!

LAME!!!

winston on November 18, 2015 at 4:34 AM

States should decide on the refugees, not “Big Brother” in Washington.

Amazingoly on November 18, 2015 at 1:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2