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

If states and their governors secede, then they can refuse.

I see no problem with that.

Lets break this *)*&)(*&)( country up and reform it based on common regional foundations again.

Red states don't need blue states, or vice versa.

----

I know that this really can't or won't happen, but it is fun to dream as if it might, no?

It would be nice if states had rights again. I can keep dreaming .... and I will!

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: Obama wants the caliphate to occur (the destabilization of the middle east). WHY?

Lucidity: Because he's being forced to play the hegemony game. Why else?
Good question. Start a thread. This one's about the states' behavior about refugees.

The States have no choice but to except refugees if they already have a federal facility existing within their borders that can be altered into a camp; guarded by Marines. It is not as if ever done before (I can site historical evidence of this having already occurred).

The federal government will implode unto itself resulting in food riots, violence, panic and despair but not anything greater than other generations have faced. The saving grace, the lifeline, will be the states and the rise of their power again
building from the ground up, eliminating entire levels of local government in order to just survive.

The spontaneous organization of people at the ground level to look not to government but to look to their neighbors, their church, their temple, secure their family and then see who needs help.
Once stability is restored the economy will start again but
not with imports from foreign lands because their collapse will be far greater, far more violent, far more starvation as they are ripped from the American tit of consumption.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: Obama wants the caliphate to occur (the destabilization of the middle east). WHY?

Lucidity: Because he's being forced to play the hegemony game. Why else?
Good question. Start a thread. This one's about the states' behavior about refugees.

The States have no choice but to except refugees if they already have a federal facility existing within their borders that can be altered into a camp; guarded by Marines. It is not as if ever done before (I can site historical evidence).

Enormous federal programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the recently pass Healthcare Reform. What happened to the enumerated powers?
How did these things possibly get by the Supreme Court? Not that aid to citizens is wrong but it was never intended to be the role of the federal government.
That's what the 10th amendment was for, reserving all other powers than those enumerated to the federal government for the states.
The states should be providing these programs if they so choose and if they work they will compete with other states for populace and hence power in the House. This is how it was meant to be.

the states are engaging in no competition other than that for federal funds.

a reply to: madenusa
The States for 7 years now have been blackmailed by Obama; toe the line or we defund your federally subsidized programs. No surprise after Jan Brewer called him out regarding AZ/Mexico border leakage concerns.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Clearly this administration is out of control and will trample on state's rights to enforce their agenda. Just because you can legally get away with something doesn't mean you should. Forcing states to do something of this nature should be unconstitutional.

I would like to see states start to withdraw from the U.S. and break into smaller republics much like what happened with the break up for the Soviet Union. There are irreconcilable differences between the Feds and many if not most of the states at this point and not just on issue.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: madenusa
The States for 7 years now have been blackmailed by Obama; toe the line or we defund your federal programs. No surprise.

schemes fail there will be riots as the people are withdrawn
It is the natural course of events,will it take our kids to make it work??
the government works for us they need to be reminded
they right now have there hands in everything even our toothpaste
our every move.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Clearly this administration is out of control and will trample on state's rights to enforce their agenda. Just because you can legally get away with something doesn't mean you should. Forcing states to do something of this nature should be unconstitutional.

I would like to see states start to withdraw from the U.S. and break into smaller republics much like what happened with the break up for the Soviet Union. There are irreconcilable differences between the Feds and many if not most of the states at this point and not just on issue.

no one rules if no one obeys.........

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: madenusa
The States for 7 years now have been blackmailed by Obama; toe the line or we defund your federal programs. No surprise.

schemes fail there will be riots as the people are withdrawn
It is the natural course of events,will it take our kids to make it work??
the government works for us they need to be reminded
they right now have there hands in everything even our toothpaste
our every move.

Our children are not prepared for this eventuality (they have no clue what they may face) as are indoctrinated into a place of "Why am I being bullied" and no recourse. This is a social problem. Accept/protest something that should have been decided in a schoolyard at the age of 8 or 9? Transfer this to Universities of higher learning where no thing is politically correct as all things are potentially politically incorrect. A HOTBED that has no solution. This is dangerous; as there is a grand plan for/of the manipulation of our youth for a purpose.

Welcome to the NWO were all nationalities will live together.

After all the countries are flooded with all religions and all different nationalities, the next move will be a global currency reset.

The final move will be to eliminate all forms of governments as laws are being passed in the UN.

Do you think we will finally have global peace then?

White House Holds Call With 34 Governors on Syrian Refugees

All the SJWs in this thread should sign up to be a host family or just be quiet. Seriously, I'm sure the Governors could use the help placing the refugees. Right?

So tired of the sniping, bickering and all the drama that stems from the flood of refugees and they aren't even here yet.

Our immigration issues were contentious and problematic even before this yet we are being asked to take in more. It doesn't matter where they're from, their ethnicity or their religion, how many people should we keep shoving into this crazy clown car at the circus that is America?

And if anyone with the least bit of common sense says enough, we're labeled racist, bigoted, fearful or whatever troll label people can come up with to shame and bully us into getting their way. So ironic coming from SJWs.

I have no problems with taking in refugees with family here or education/job skills. Others should be resettled closer their home because it probably won't work out no matter which state or country they're placed in.

I support any Governor challenging the forced placement of refugees, this is exactly what the Supreme Court is for.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Where in the constitution does it say states must take in refugees?

This. It's not in there.

Obama, and in fact most liberals, just don't know our Constitution. He wipes his ass with it when it's convenient to do so, and he thinks it can say anything he wants when he needs it to support an agenda.

The OP mentions Article VI of the Constitution. Here is Article VI:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

'

The only way the States would be required to accept refugees is if the United States was required to do so by a treaty. Treaties require Senate approval:

www.senate.gov...

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

So I would have to ask: Who were the two-thirds of our Senate that approved such a treaty? I haven't heard of such a treaty being ratified, but if that was the case I would say we definitely need to hold this against them and remove these bastards from office.

Please note that Article VI states that the states shall be bound only by treaties made under the authority of the United States. International treaties do not apply.

Here is an article about international treaties and how they sometimes slide by without a two-thirds senate vote:

www.washingtonpost.com...

The dirty little secret of U.S. international negotiations is this: Exactly how our government approves of most of this stuff is decided on a case-by-case basis.

Depending on what the president calls a deal with another country -- is it a treaty? an executive agreement? -- and the political movement du jour, a deal like the one with Iran could need a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to be approved or could slide by without any vote at all.

I would like to point out that Article VI states that states must adhere to treaties made under the authority of the United States. A treaty made without a two-thirds senate vote is not under the United States authority.

There might be an international treaty with Syria to accept refugees. However if the United States senate didn't uphold that treaty with a vote then I believe state governors have the authority to refuse them.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

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.

I hear you. I spent over 4 years fighting this same monster.

I felt a lot more than shame every time I had to tell an American Vet, a homeless person, a single mom; "Sorry, no one is willing to take you in, our State and Federal Government says that the funding isn't available to help "you".

So maybe they are doing the right thing. They make promises they can't deliver to the American people. Why allow them to dupe the refugee/asylum seekers? They have been through enough. Bringing them in and just throwing them into some make shift shelter or tent is only going to further piss them off.

Take a look around your local tent city. See how grateful and happy the folk are there. If you are ashamed about the way they treat the stranger, you will surely not be able to look in the mirror, when you see how we treat our own.

“We believe that people across the Middle East and across the world are weary of poverty, weary of oppression, and yearn to be free,” he said, pausing for applause. “And all who know that hope, all who will work and sacrifice for freedom, have a friend in the United States of America.”

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Stating that on this topic does not mean I don't disagree about the other.

I've been looking for possible treaties made between the United States and Syria.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here I see some executive orders made in regards to Syria, but no ratified treaties.

www.state.gov...

Here you can find a list of treaties in force as of 2013. They don't have anything more recent. The pdf does list a number of international treaties made with Syria that range from providing agricultural commodities, customs, telecommunication, postal matters, and economic cooperation.

I'm particularly interested in the customs treaty. I don't know where I would go to find out more about it. Here is a quote from the pdf:

CUSTOMS SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC — CUSTOMS^
Agreement between the United States and France relating to customs privileges for educational, religious, and philanthropic institutions in Syria and Lebanon. Exchange of notes at Paris February 18, 1937.
Entered into force February 18, 1937.
51 Stat. 279; EAS 107; 7 Bevans 1017; 184 LNTS 479.

It still doesn't sound like it pertains to refugees though. It sounds like it pertains to charity work.

a reply to: JetBlackStare

And if anyone with the least bit of common sense says enough, we're labeled racist, bigoted, fearful or whatever troll label people can come up with to shame and bully us into getting their way. So ironic coming from SJWs.

Yeah, this seems to be the flavor of the month.

All it takes is a few, certain people, to plant a thread or post a sentiment around the board, and the stars and flags start shooting across the boards like fireworks on the 4th of July. Then the offshoot post start popping up like weeds in a Florida lawn.

If they were sincere in their sentiment, they would realize these tactics only fuel the flames of the fire, they claim they are trying to put out, and it only makes people more suspicious of the people they claim to support, and the agenda they are trying so hard to sell.