It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: butcherguy
I am seeing articles (mostly liberal sites) that say that it is Unconstitutional for States to refuse the refugees.
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.
My personal opinion.... States Rights have been trampled that we are at this point. If a Democrat POTUS wants to fill a Red state with immigrants from wherever... he can and there is nothing they can do about it?
A survey last week from Public Policy Polling found that 40 percent of Republican voters in North Carolina believe the practice of Islam should be made illegal.
Only 40 percent of GOP voters believe Islam should definitely be legal, and the other 20 percent said they weren’t sure.
The findings are not unique to North Carolina, Mr. Jensen said, as PPP found similar results in Iowa last month.
originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Semicollegiate
You should probably go a lot further back in history. The French and British colonized that region. Not saying the us goV didn't continue the problems with regime changes, etc. But let's not be ignorant of history.
originally posted by: woodsmom
a reply to: Annee
No, the migration for a better life should never be stopped. People should not be forced to stay in a war riddled community fearing for their lives.
My reasoning was similar to yours only from a different perspective. I see the war zone as the unsafe area to quickly remove your family from. I have been in unsafe, albeit wilderness, situations with my family. Typically it is me who removes the children from harms way while my husband secures the situation. Maybe it is just a cultural difference. I meant no disrespect.
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Vroomfondel
It would be interesting to know how many on that list refused to take Jews who where fleeing Nazi Germany ?
The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 908 Jewish refugees from Germany, after they were denied entry to Cuba, the United States and Canada, until finally accepted in various European countries, which were later engulfed in World War II. Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in concentration camps.
St Louis was turned away from Cuba … America not only refused their entry but even fired a warning shot to keep them away from Florida's shores". Legally the refugees could not enter the United States on tourist visas, as they had no return addresses. The U.S. had passed the Immigration Act of 1924 that restricted numbers of "new" immigrants from eastern and southern Europe.
Schröder said he circled off the coast of Florida after leaving Cuba, hoping for permission to enter the United States. At one point, he considered running aground along the coast to allow the refugees to escape. He was shadowed by US Coast Guard vessels that prevented such a move. US Coast Guard historians maintain the two cutters involved were not ordered to turn away St. Louis but dispatched "out of concern for those on board". Ultimately the United States did not provide for entry of the refugees.