It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas to Sue over Syran Refugees

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
www.texastribune.org...

So I really only posted this because I have a question.
But first there's a law from 1980 that requires the federal goverment to be able to answer questions on refugees. This isn't happening and people are really not happy.

"Abbot and Paxton have cited concerns about security and the adequacy of refugee screening for their opposition. Resettlement leaders have reiterated that the security screening of refugees, administered by the U.S. Department of State, is a rigorous process that can take up to two years and includes background and biometric checks against intelligence databases.

At least 242 Syrian refugees have been resettled in Texas since 2012. That number is relatively small for Texas — a hotbed for refugee resettlement — but the count of Syrian refugees was expected to increase significantly in the next year as the United States prepares to take in as many as 10,000 Syrian refugees.

Abbott had directed resettlement nonprofits in Texas to halt the resettlement of any Syrian refugees last month. After the International Rescue Committee informed the state it was planning to resettle two families in Dallas in early December, the state warned the nonprofit that it was at risk of being sued or losing its state contract if it moved forward."

My question is why bother to go through all this? Wouldn't it be easier to take refugees and then deport them for not following the rules or something?

The only point I see in suing is to be vocal about how these people are not properly vetted.
edit on 2-12-2015 by Iamthatbish because: added quote




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
My question is why bother to go through all this?


Because the federal government is refusing to listen to the voices of their own citizens.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Yes. However, by taking it to court there's a possibility of losing. This would set presidency. If they simply took the refugees and then audited them for themselves they would be in a better legal position, right?


edit on 2-12-2015 by Iamthatbish because: predict a text totally winning



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think you are partially right, but with any kind of immigration governments must make money or get something out immigration, the days of good governments doing the right thing has disappeared.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

You think we are set to take only 10,000 Syrian refugees? Add another zero or two.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Redress of grievances only means that states (and individuals) have the right to petition the federal government without any reprisal or penalty, it doesn't mean their grievance must be resolved "their way." The problem here is the feds aren't even hearing the grievances, they're dismissing them and effectively refusing to listen. Suits like this at least force them to the table. This particular administration flat refuses to even allow the audits! Look at how they treated Arizona when Arizona attempted to follow the law and actually defend themselves from the flood of illegals when the feds refused to... the feds filed suits and injunctions, blocking AZ from any avenue of redress.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

The feds aren't after money, they're after increasing their base of Kept Voters.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I have said it before. there could be a patient army being brought it to the country and will wait patiently for orders to carry out the biggest attack this country has ever seen.
All under the cover of being refugees. Women and children could be refugees but military age men should not be afforded that label.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

The days of good governments have disappeared... if such ever truly existed, that is.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
This is very well explained.
So... My question can be sumerized with these words: take them and then deport them for noncompliance. Refugees have criteria and rules to stay refugee status.

I'm reading this article to say this process is being bypassed. So do some bypassing of their own.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Think it goes the other way around



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Think it goes the other way around



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

The problem is who has the power to 'deport'? The Feds....

Which isn't going to happen. Back to square one.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
This is interesting. A quick look tells you all about who ,When, and why a person gets deported but no info on the agency that does it.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: rajas

We the People (as a whole body) don't have to listen to the government's voice. The government is allegedly "By the people, of the people, and for the people." Nowhere is it written that the people are "by the feds, of the feds, or for the feds." It's why much of what is coming out of DC these days is fascist bullcrap and the must have their chains snapped back, returning them to their place at the People's heel.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, no. Everything you proclaim is about your rights in the state, without obligations. Sustainable small city development does work, but you dont practice modesty. So do i think an american could care for himself, no. So im for the state in your case.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: rajas

I vehemently disagree. I think your school of thought is what has lead us to the nanny state we're in now in which those who can are told "No, you can't" and are systemically prevented from demonstrating that they actually can to ensure those who are happy being mothered at all turns by the state don't realize their inadequacies and failure.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Actually , it is not just Texas , It will be a coalition of 36 (at the time of this post , the number is still growing) States.My State is one.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: burdman30ott6
This is very well explained.
So... My question can be sumerized with these words: take them and then deport them for noncompliance. Refugees have criteria and rules to stay refugee status.

I'm reading this article to say this process is being bypassed. So do some bypassing of their own.



The problem is that they just might go postal if they are about to be deported. Just like in California.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
My question is why bother to go through all this? Wouldn't it be easier to take refugees and then deport them for not following the rules or something?

Because when they blow themselves up along with a hundred other people there is not much left to deport.




top topics



 
2

log in

join