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.
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.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy
The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy
The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.
originally posted by: introvert
The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.
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 ?
Does he also have an anti-Obama agenda or maybe he is trying to do the right thing to protect his constituency?
is part of a larger NWO agenda to destroy cultures and breakdown international borders. THAT is the truth and what we are up against.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: introvert
The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.
There is one Democratically held state on that list as well, I would wager there will be more added/
I bet there are at least 10,000 households who voted for Obama and support taking more refugees in.
Send all the refugees to those households. let people put their money where their mouth is.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
I wonder how many of those states already have them. I can see two on the list without any kind of research already.
As I said in a previous thread, the children that were recently placed in my area are very terrifying whenever they're on tv. I'm very glad somebody is willing to step up and keep these six year old girls out of state. I'll sleep better at night now.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy
The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.