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

a reply to: JetBlackStare

I'm sure that when and as the events in Paris and the associated emotional tides recede, and if this still remains in the forefront, challenges may be brought and may make it to SCOTUS.

I'm not as sure, based on your comments, why and where you see the screening and qualifications falling short. Are they? Any concrete examples?

ALSO, I'm not all that familiar, or at least not ad familiar as you appear to be, wirh the term SJWs. Its origins. Why it appears to be being used here in a pejorative manner. Could you give some ecamples, six at least, if SJWs? Thanks.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
Stating that on this topic does not mean I don't disagree about the other.

I was responding to, and agreeing with your comment:

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.

I thought you were speaking of the lack of concern and compassion for all people facing these misfortunes, not just one particular group, at this particular time. So please disregard my post. I didn't mean to go off topic.

Is this new?

AFter reading through the thread I get the idea the OP is potentially wrong on the point that states cannot refuse to accept refugees. This is primarily because the requirement to accept refugees is not in the constitution, unless a treat is established by the senate with a 2/3 majority vote. But there does not seem to be a treaty. The law which was passed in 1980 was an act of congress, so it's not immutable.

Here's the Act:
en.wikipedia.org - Refugee Act (1980)...

These posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My own personal feeling is as long as there're solid background checks I feel ok with it. My only problem with any of these refugees--whether it's in the US or Europe or anyhwhere--is if they're being let in without appropriate checks. I think especially in the case of Syria, wherein their own president is not on good terms with the US and ISIS is in fact deeply rooted in both Syria and Iraq, we need to be careful about who we let in.

This isn't just about Arabs or Islam and treating everybody equally and saving these refugees from persecution. It just isn't that simple. This is about ISIS. This is about the Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. This is about longstanding issues the US has with the ME. This is about extremism, terrorism and war. So much is at stake and so much blood and tears.

EDIT: I also realize we cannot do perfect checking. If ISIS was organized enough they can probably fake records. We can't protect from that. ISIS will be here if it wants to be here. Yet requiring some solid checking on the immigrants we're letting in is permissible and responsible.

Lastly: OP, thanks for the thread. I leanred a bit about our "vetting process". I'm more confident my country is watching who comes in.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
Stating that on this topic does not mean I don't disagree about the other.

I was responding to, and agreeing with your comment:

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.

I thought you were speaking of the lack of concern and compassion for all people facing these misfortunes, not just one particular group, at this particular time. So please disregard my post. I didn't mean to go off topic.

No no. We're cool. That's how I read it. I was agreeing with you by adding a bit to it. Might have been better if I prefaced it with a "yes."

Anyway, sometimes I think the lack of compassion and concern is just plain selfishness and greed. Other times, fear. More likely a little of both but all things that sometimes you just have to set aside for the greater good.

a reply to: jonnywhite

The places I sourced might be potentially wrong. My primary reason for posting this was for discussion and to learn if this is indeed the case. I'm no Constitutional scholar or lawyer and sure as heck don't understand a lot of this stuff, but I do realize that the road can be very winding to finally reach what seems to be a conclusion, as with the SCOTUS ruling, where both the majority and dissenting opinions also left me scratching my head.

Thanks for the additional info.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
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.

Your support puts innocent people directly in to harms way! Oh well, at least you can pat your own back.

That is kinda like saying that no state governors can allow the growth and selling of mj in theirstate.

• Luke 10:25-37. The Good Samaritan story.

• Luke 3:11. John the Baptist: “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

• Hebrews 13:2. “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”

• Matthew 25:35-40. “35: For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in. 36: I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. 37: Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38: When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? […] 40: The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

• James 2:14-17. “14: What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16: If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17: In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”

• 1 John 3:17. “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?”

• Philippians 2:3-4. “3: Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4: not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.”

[Source].

originally posted by: Poppcocked

Poppcoked: Is this new?

If regarding the status of 'stranger danger/murder men AND women) housed near your community YES (if you lived near an SS WW2 death camp and were clueless to the human massacres happening in your backyard). I think most of those local townships were obliterated in the aftermath of discovery. The only place the Feds can legally put these refugees in on federal property; and there are facilities existing in all states; Parks, military bases...

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Unless of course THAT is how they intend to create an excuse to do so...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Unless of course THAT is how they intend to create an excuse to do so...

Do you doubt it; this is exactly how it will be accomplished legally. To what purpose; Obama wants destabilization. If anyone is the great one very well HIDDEN; he is.

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.

It is no longer 72% and has went down. As of this moment, it is 62% males.

data.unhcr.org...

originally posted by: infolurker

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.

It is no longer 72% and has went down. As of this moment, it is 62% males.

data.unhcr.org...

Or...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

...

Time to find out.

Here is a link DIRECTLY from the UN:
Facts and Figures about Refugees

Last year, 51% of refugees were under 18 years old. This is the highest figure for child refugees in more than a decade.

So over HALF were children.

Here's another UN source:
Syria Regional Refugee Response

Male : 49.7%
Age 0 - 4 : 8.8%
Age 5 - 11 : 10.8%
Age 12 - 17 : 6.6%
Age 18 - 59 : 22.1%
Age 60+ : 1.3%

Looks like the UN is saying that over half of the refugees are children. Also only 22.1% of the refugees are military age males. So now it's time to see who is about to be objective or not. Again this information is DIRECTLY from two UN websites. 77.9% of Syrian refugees are children, women, and the elderly.

PS: Thanks for helping me to strengthen my argument against the fear rhetoric from people such as yourself.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
Place them in a predominately Catholic Nation (France a no go); perhaps Italy, they may learn to live in unison with other differing ideologies and become tolerant to others. The Vatican; a walled city would be perfect.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Your stats are not for Europe, the stats I linked are:

Yours:

This figure includes 2.1 million Syrians registered by UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, 1.9 million Syrians registered by the Government of Turkey, as well as more than 26,700 Syrian refugees registered in North Africa. Regional demographic breakdown below is based on available data from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon

a reply to: infolurker

Who was talking about Europe?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: infolurker

Who was talking about Europe?

"who profits from your fear"? Terrorists.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Among others...yes.

Governor Who Started Stampede Against Refugees Says He Only Wants Answers

Michigan's Rick Snyder was the first governor to urge a pause in admitting Syrian refugees into the United States. He triggered a national debate about refugee resettlement, and insists now that he only wants answers. The Republican has described himself as "the most pro-immigration governor in the country," but he argues the caution he wants the U.S. to show doesn't conflict with the compassion thinks should be shown to refugees.

Pretty sure he got his answers....