No, State Governors Can’t Refuse To Accept Syrian Refugees

It appears that the governors of the 25+ states attempting to refuse refugees don't have a legal leg to stand on. The program is federally funded, for one thing, and apparently SCOTUS upheld Article VI of the Constitution.

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.

Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 US 52 - Supreme Court 1941

First. That 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, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787,[9] and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court.[10] When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and 63*63 regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article VI of the Constitution provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

They can make it ugly, they can make it hateful or difficult or dangerous, they can take it back SCOTUS, and they may get their way, but it's not legal to deny refugees if they meet all the necessary criteria.

Some are worried that the screening process is not enough, yet are seemingly ignorant about what that process is.

What Kind of Screenings Do the Refugees Go Through?

All refugees have to go through biographic screenings where they detail their name, date of birth and other personal information.

"Iraqis and Syrians tend to be a very, very heavily documented population," the official said, noting that many have family registries and military documentation.

The second screening all refugees must go through is a biometric screening that includes fingerprinting.

The results of the biometric screenings are then run through the FBI and its records to see if anyone has a criminal record from previous visits to the United States. The results are also run through the Department of Homeland Security records and civil records from an individual's previous interactions with authorities to see if the person has been consistent about their biographical information.

Refugee Screenings Are More Intensive Than Some Politicians Would Have You Think

The U.N. is doing the vetting," Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) told reporters on Tuesday. "That's insufficient."

That's not the case. It's true that UNHCR is often involved -- although not always -- in referring refugees to the U.S. Before doing so, UNHCR goes through its own vetting process, which determines whether an individual should be classified as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

How a Syrian refugee gets to the US...With Enormous Difficulty

That's exactly not just strolling in.

U.S. governors don’t have power to refuse refugees access to their states. There are statements from all the governors attempting to refuse at this link in case you're interested.

So what do we conclude from all this? Is is what's going on here is fear mongering? Partisan politics (among these 27 states, all but one have Republican governors) and opportunistic campaigning using the events in Paris and the one crazy who snuck in among some refugees to scare people? All of the above?

I'm not sure. But what I am sure of, is 1.) if I were a refugee, desperate, homeless, torn from my homeland by war, these states would get their way because I wouldn't set foot in them, and 2.) sometimes I am very ashamed to be an American, and this is one of them. Turning away victims, people who have lost their homes, families, livings, savings, and entire way of life just doesn't seem like the way to be.

We are a nation of immigrants and refugees. Yet we always fear who is coming next.

The question of the refugees isn’t if we’ll honor our values; it’s which ones we’ll choose. Will we embrace our heritage of inclusion or reject it for nativism? Will we be a country of actual open arms or one where our rhetoric is in recurring contrast to our actions?

Yeah. This time it's different. So was the last time, and the time before that. It's always different, and it's always difficult, but in the end, it always turns out to be the right thing to do.

“The day America says ‘Close the gates, build the wall,’ then I say take down the Statue of Liberty because you’ve gone to a different place.” ~Mario Cuomo

Peace.

PA? Good bring them, I'm not scared.

If Syrians need a place to get away from the carnage I'm glad we can help.

If Syrian Islamic Extremophiles want to bring the war to us, that's fine too. If this is really about some crazies trying to convert me and my family bring it. Id rather take my chances with Islamic Extremophiles than militarized police state.

And having to face that threat to save innocent people is ok with me.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

Partisan politics (among these 27 states, all but one have Republican governors)...

I am counting 30 opposed on that map which means there are more than one Democratic governors opposed as well.

This makes me giggle some days we cry for state rights unless its something we don't agree with then it's states shouldn't have any say in the matter.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Fear mongering? It has been stated that 72% of the refugees are males of fighting age. Legitimate fears and concern for constituents is what is happening. The Feds first responsibility is to protect citizens of the US, and any conflict of interest should be trumped by citizen and national sovereignty.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Fear mongering? It has been stated that 72% of the refugees are males of fighting age. Legitimate fears and concern for constituents is what is happening. The Feds first responsibility is to protect citizens of the US, and any conflict of interest should be trumped by citizen and national sovereignty.

It has been stated and it has been debunked. Seek and ye shall find.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Thanks for the good thread. I wonder if the governors will get their way anyway.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
States have no voice if have a federal facility within their borders; an inactive military base for example. Vietnamese refugees were treated to this armed camp scenario (Subic Bay,/Camp Pendleton /Fort Chafee Arkansas) guarded by marines until vetted.

originally posted by: thesaneone
This makes me giggle some days we cry for state rights unless its something we don't agree with then it's states shouldn't have any say in the matter.

This is something that happens to be under federal jurisdiction. That's just a fact.

Maybe states should have a say in everyone who wants to move in, even people from other states. That'd be fun, eh?

originally posted by: thesaneone
This makes me giggle some days we cry for state rights unless its something we don't agree with then it's states shouldn't have any say in the matter.

They don;t, in this matter though.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.

This is not a Constitutional Power, it is an Act of Congress that came into law in 1980 and was (presumably) not opposed by the State Governors.

This law may be struck down by the same people who voted for it. The Governors are now objecting. It is a new situation.

It is not as simple as you want it to be.

As far as I am aware, the Constitution does not directly tackle immigration. Immigration is handled under Federal Laws that can be changed for new situations.

Lastly, the Feds are not allowed to choose what laws to follow and thus the huge number of undocumented illegals show that the Feds just do whatever the hell they want to based on whims of whomever is in power.

It is not clear cut at all, not by a long shot.

P

Illinois sure isnt denying for any other reason than THEYRE BROKE. Illinois is incapable of even paying lottery winners money and are delinquent on just about all payments for everything else. I wouldnt take the fact that states are not wanting "refugees" as ANY indication of anything other than financial motive.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Legal ?
Since when does Obama himself follow the law?
When it suits him ?
When he "has a pen and a phone" he can unilaterally overrule Congress?

Google "separation of powers"

a reply to: ~Lucidity

So the government is 100% responsible for immigration of foreign persons to the US?

Then we should expect to see heads begin to roll over those "sanctuary" states, right?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The governors can throw a fit. Most of them have 0 Syrian refugees nor were any planned to go there. I said in a post like this earlier, they are looking for airtime when they make this 'declaration'.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Thanks for the good thread. I wonder if the governors will get their way anyway.

Depends on how tough it gets, I guess. The president seems to have very strong feelings on the subject and so do the governors.We'll see. Should be interesting.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Fear mongering? It has been stated that 72% of the refugees are males of fighting age. Legitimate fears and concern for constituents is what is happening. The Feds first responsibility is to protect citizens of the US, and any conflict of interest should be trumped by citizen and national sovereignty.

It has been stated and it has been debunked. Seek and ye shall find.

Actually it hasn't been debunked. Those figures are those crossing the Mediterranean and the other figures of the lower estimates are from the total registered refugee population.

a reply to: M5xaz

I don't recall him being convicted of any crimes.

As for the rest, take it to SCOTUS.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
As for the rest, take it to SCOTUS.

I'm sure that's the plan.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Because Obama does not have to follow "separation of powers".
It's OK for him to do what the hell he wants, right ?

If you want to fix the refugee crisis, just tell Obama to stop funding and arming ISIS.