Posted on Sep 22, 2016
Texas Threatens to Pull Out of Refugee Resettlement Program
1.8K
30
19
13
13
0
Who the HELL does Obama thinks he is???! Other states have pulled out of the Refugee program, yet Obama is fighting TEXAS tooth and nail to keep us...or rather FORCE us TEXANS to stay in this program.
All our GOVERNOR wants is better VETTING system...and until that happens, Texas DOES NOT want to receive any more Refugee's. Our GOVERNOR just wants to make sure HE KEEPS TEXANS SAFE!
THIS IS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH!! What the FREAK, Obarfma! okay, I could not help myself because he just makes me SICK to my stomach....
All our GOVERNOR wants is better VETTING system...and until that happens, Texas DOES NOT want to receive any more Refugee's. Our GOVERNOR just wants to make sure HE KEEPS TEXANS SAFE!
THIS IS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH!! What the FREAK, Obarfma! okay, I could not help myself because he just makes me SICK to my stomach....
Texas Threatens to Pull Out of Refugee Resettlement Program
Posted from nytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Refugees
National Security
Refugees National Security
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
2
2
0
Texas is a red state and has too many electoral votes going to the 'enemy'. The best way to turn it blue is to fight all immigration issues that Texas wants and to import a bunch of democrats in the name of refugee resettlement. Same thing is going on here in Arizona, a die hard red state transformed to a battle state due to MASSIVE illegal immigration and our increasing
high share of refugees as well. It amuses me to hear about lawsuits saying that not enough minorities are part of x y z workforce, because here, it is normal to see businesses 100% minority run. Panda Express (Chinese fast food) near our house has a standard crew of about 12 employees....100% Mexican. Our Wells Fargo bank has even more employees and mostly Mexican. Etc etc etc. its an effective practice because we are now a toss up state. McCain was just in his self described reelection battle of his career and was looking to lose. He dropped his support of the 2nd Amendment and got mega-cozy with Hillary just to get reelected. The NRA has removed their support of him now. These career politicians will sell out their own constituents in order to stay in power. We now have a democratic Senator on the Republican ticket.
high share of refugees as well. It amuses me to hear about lawsuits saying that not enough minorities are part of x y z workforce, because here, it is normal to see businesses 100% minority run. Panda Express (Chinese fast food) near our house has a standard crew of about 12 employees....100% Mexican. Our Wells Fargo bank has even more employees and mostly Mexican. Etc etc etc. its an effective practice because we are now a toss up state. McCain was just in his self described reelection battle of his career and was looking to lose. He dropped his support of the 2nd Amendment and got mega-cozy with Hillary just to get reelected. The NRA has removed their support of him now. These career politicians will sell out their own constituents in order to stay in power. We now have a democratic Senator on the Republican ticket.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sad but true all over, but especially in states they want to turn. This is pretty much what this next election is all about. The Democrats don't have a fair primary because of super delegates. The establishment (Congressmen, Senators, and all the bureaucrats, and the media) tried giving us the worst choices possible for president just so they can keep their positions.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Obama is the President of the United States plain and simple. Texas is a member of the United States so that makes them under his control legally and literally. Texas can vote for succession from the Union, it's been mentioned a few times, but it never goes anywhere. The President is in charge and where the buck stops on immigration and national issues. This is indisputable fact. What TX and other states claim to think they are a country within a country and the Governor sets the tone, and the policy. No they set local policy and work to improve things within the borders of their state. The President still trumps them being he has sea to shining sea authority over the country.
This whole deal about wanting a better vetting process is smoke and mirror BS. They do not want the Syrian refugees based on actions seen overseas and sensationalized by the media and their legislators in office. Many want to use that whole "All Muslims are bad" thing and feel it's justified, but the second you reverse it, then you find the argument twists into well "not all of us are bad"....but you just said based off what you see on TV they are all bad, but you're not? Texas and the border states keep talking about securing the borders UNTIL you ask them why aren't they doing more to secure them on their own? What are they doing? You'll soon see the deflection go to blaming the federal government saying it is their responsibility to secure the borders. Stop. Wait. Hold on. You're wanting to halt one federal program saying it oversteps their legal boundaries yet one that would overlap that is their fault not yours? How can you "vet" someone who's country IS at war, did NOT have a stable system of their own before the war of tracking their own populace, or visitors to their location, have a long history of immigration issues, and that's not Syria, that's the United States itself.
Texas and the border states have no issues with illegal immigration as long as those immigrants are working off the books, being paid pennies on the dollar, and keep the prices of things low. When some heat comes their way, now we need to get rid of the "parasites" and secure the borders. We went through that with Operation Wetback and we were rounding up Mexicans who were working the fields, doing the jobs we won't do, and when it got hot, we sent them home fast as hell. As soon as it started, you see ranchers complain they have to do the work themselves, actually PAY the legal wage to get citizens to do the work, and suddenly roundup stops.
Texas and the other states who've challenged this are making a hell of a mistake. Islamaphobia is equally as bigoted as that whole Trump and skittles ad. It serves no one to make a whole of one religion the sum of the few, and that is exactly what is going on now. So if you ever got a Black governor and he said we're going to halt the travel of foreign White Christians folk who are going to be resettled in Texas, ALL HELL WOULD BREAK LOOSE.
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong
This whole deal about wanting a better vetting process is smoke and mirror BS. They do not want the Syrian refugees based on actions seen overseas and sensationalized by the media and their legislators in office. Many want to use that whole "All Muslims are bad" thing and feel it's justified, but the second you reverse it, then you find the argument twists into well "not all of us are bad"....but you just said based off what you see on TV they are all bad, but you're not? Texas and the border states keep talking about securing the borders UNTIL you ask them why aren't they doing more to secure them on their own? What are they doing? You'll soon see the deflection go to blaming the federal government saying it is their responsibility to secure the borders. Stop. Wait. Hold on. You're wanting to halt one federal program saying it oversteps their legal boundaries yet one that would overlap that is their fault not yours? How can you "vet" someone who's country IS at war, did NOT have a stable system of their own before the war of tracking their own populace, or visitors to their location, have a long history of immigration issues, and that's not Syria, that's the United States itself.
Texas and the border states have no issues with illegal immigration as long as those immigrants are working off the books, being paid pennies on the dollar, and keep the prices of things low. When some heat comes their way, now we need to get rid of the "parasites" and secure the borders. We went through that with Operation Wetback and we were rounding up Mexicans who were working the fields, doing the jobs we won't do, and when it got hot, we sent them home fast as hell. As soon as it started, you see ranchers complain they have to do the work themselves, actually PAY the legal wage to get citizens to do the work, and suddenly roundup stops.
Texas and the other states who've challenged this are making a hell of a mistake. Islamaphobia is equally as bigoted as that whole Trump and skittles ad. It serves no one to make a whole of one religion the sum of the few, and that is exactly what is going on now. So if you ever got a Black governor and he said we're going to halt the travel of foreign White Christians folk who are going to be resettled in Texas, ALL HELL WOULD BREAK LOOSE.
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12986886/donald-trump-jr-terrorist-skittles-wrong
Donald Trump Jr.'s terrorist-Skittle analogy is completely wrong
In a bowl of 10.93 billion Skittles — each representing a refugee — only three would pose a risk.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Actually no, not Texas nor any other state is "under the control of the President". The President is the chief executive of the federal government and even in that is limited to proscribed powers. He cannot dictate to any state.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
CPT Jack Durish - "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.
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".
Yes. He. Can.
https://thinkprogress.org/no-state-governors-cant-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees-13c8db9cbc5b#.pt4j8y1rg
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/17.htm fourth one down.
If you want to cherry pick words, the very fact that congress made the law, and he is to enforce said law being he cannot make them himself, means in this case congress HAS made a law in 1980, and in 2016 the current POTUS will use that law to bring them here. That enforcement will stomp on the states "desires" to deny them entry into their state. President > Governor. He can and will dictate to the states. Want federal assistance? Say no and see how long that lasts. NC is catching HELL now. Want federal monies? He can deny if it's within the wording of the law.
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".
Yes. He. Can.
https://thinkprogress.org/no-state-governors-cant-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees-13c8db9cbc5b#.pt4j8y1rg
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/17.htm fourth one down.
If you want to cherry pick words, the very fact that congress made the law, and he is to enforce said law being he cannot make them himself, means in this case congress HAS made a law in 1980, and in 2016 the current POTUS will use that law to bring them here. That enforcement will stomp on the states "desires" to deny them entry into their state. President > Governor. He can and will dictate to the states. Want federal assistance? Say no and see how long that lasts. NC is catching HELL now. Want federal monies? He can deny if it's within the wording of the law.
No, State Governors Can’t Refuse To Accept Syrian Refugees
More than half a dozen state governors have come out against President Obama’s plans to relocate several thousand Syrian refugees within the United States.…
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSG Warren Swan - Yes, he can accept refugees, but I believe that states may keep them off their lands. Yes, Obama could put them on federal lands in any state, but that is where they could be limited to. I'd have to research that one further, but I think the case could be made and tied up in court until he was gone
(0)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
CPT Jack Durish - None of what I posted made any "conditions" on who does what. It clearly states that he CAN due to the laws passed by congress. Now if congress wanted to redo them, they would've already. Same as congress sparring over the border and blaming everyone but themselves. 50 states make up the United States, not 49 and when a state feels like it. Doesn't work that way, and no Governor can make it so. They can refuse, but again the butthurt goes both ways with the states loosing more than the President. If you want to take it to court to drag it out, he can also after taking the federal money normally given to the state back, wait and see who blinks first. It won't be him.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google