General Discussion

SickOfTheOnePct

(8,710 posts)

25. Currently, the federal government

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 08:14 PM

Nov 2015

relies on state governments to aid them in resettlement - finding housing, etc. States aren't required to do this, and I'm guessing that many will refuse to do so.

And right or wrong, they are within their rights to refuse to allocate funding and other resources to aid in resettlement of refugees. State money is state money - the federal government can't force them to spend it on refugees.

The case you cite is completely different - those refugees were already settled, and the schools refused to provide them with an equal education. Huge difference.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can the states refuse to accept these immigrants that the Federal goverment brings in? [View all] oneshooter Nov 2015 OP

I doubt they can refuse to let them into the state. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2015 #1

Which they will. FLPanhandle Nov 2015 #28

i dont know where in the constitution it says the states have to take in immigrants that potus saturnsring Nov 2015 #2

That's an amusing comment in several respects jberryhill Nov 2015 #4

they maybe here lawfully but they arent citizens and potus has a history of backing down saturnsring Nov 2015 #10

It doesn't fucking matter jberryhill Nov 2015 #13

You are missing the point. former9thward Nov 2015 #18

Oh yes, the states would love to open themselves up to civil suit. joshcryer Nov 2015 #21

Lawsuits based on what? SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #22

Discrimination? joshcryer Nov 2015 #23

Currently, the federal government SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #25

Sure, state welfare offices have all that information. joshcryer Nov 2015 #82

Ridiculous. former9thward Nov 2015 #24

I'm on my phone, this is blown out of proportion. joshcryer Nov 2015 #29

Here's how resettlement works: joshcryer Nov 2015 #81

I think you are neglecting 8 USC, Section 1522 (a). former9thward Nov 2015 #87

That's a rather arbitrary reading. joshcryer Nov 2015 #89

"Potus as a history of backing down" - here in GA Shady Deal has lost every fight he's picked with Erose999 Nov 2015 #88

That durn potus TBF Nov 2015 #15

I don't know the part of the Constitution where it reads meow2u3 Nov 2015 #32

No jberryhill Nov 2015 #3

Except possibly by plane next year GummyBearz Nov 2015 #5

That's neither here nor there jberryhill Nov 2015 #8

The "right to travel" != "the right to travel on a commercial airplane". n/t X_Digger Nov 2015 #63

If the citizens should have the ultimate say... ileus Nov 2015 #6

The correct answer is both yes and no Xithras Nov 2015 #7

The states cannot set immigration policy. branford Nov 2015 #9

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face �persecution or a well-foun saturnsring Nov 2015 #11

A bigger problem is how the public is going to perceive them davidn3600 Nov 2015 #12

The Italians were considered bomb throwing anarchists jberryhill Nov 2015 #14

They had support in the Italian community at the time. former9thward Nov 2015 #19

I think they WERE the first big annabanana Nov 2015 #26

Regardless, no state or federal aid. former9thward Nov 2015 #27

You need to consider the political implications too davidn3600 Nov 2015 #34

Or, my goodness, what if someone buys a gun and shoots people jberryhill Nov 2015 #35

I don't think that the Vietnamese and Cambodians hifiguy Nov 2015 #45

"Part of the jihadi mindset is to infiltrate and pass before doing what they intend to do all along" alcibiades_mystery Nov 2015 #51

Just like the Italians jberryhill Nov 2015 #53

Vietnamese were never trying to blow us up over here davidn3600 Nov 2015 #49

Italian anarchists were doing so in their day jberryhill Nov 2015 #52

Not the same situation at all davidn3600 Nov 2015 #59

Oh good golly jberryhill Nov 2015 #60

I'm not in favor of this mass migration davidn3600 Nov 2015 #61

How often are you IN Europe? jberryhill Nov 2015 #62

Could you please answer my question? jberryhill Nov 2015 #70

I've been to Europe several times and know several Europeans davidn3600 Nov 2015 #84

And it is a virtual dead certainty hifiguy Nov 2015 #20

So Europe has gained no more than 800 to 2400 refugees? Thor_MN Nov 2015 #30

One could easily extrapolate "refugees" to "immigrants" more generally and probably should. hifiguy Nov 2015 #31

Did they come in as refugees? Because that is the topic. Thor_MN Nov 2015 #37

My core point is that you have no way to eliminate the small hifiguy Nov 2015 #39

Well then, by all means, let's turn into xenophobes and close our borders to all. Thor_MN Nov 2015 #47

I can recall no other immigrant group hifiguy Nov 2015 #48

6 million Muslims live in France. They say there may have been 8 terrorists. Thor_MN Nov 2015 #50

Hey, the person you are "conversing" with... ret5hd Nov 2015 #57

And the murder rate per capita is lower in all of Europe jberryhill Nov 2015 #64

Beyond that, all the terrorists identified have no refugee connections. Thor_MN Nov 2015 #65

Raw knee jerk fear jberryhill Nov 2015 #67

Yes. Mass immigration from traditionalist Muslim countries is a bad idea at present Yorktown Nov 2015 #38

Agreed. hifiguy Nov 2015 #41

The Italians brought the Mafia and Communism! jberryhill Nov 2015 #54

Well, to be fair, Italians did bring the Mafia Yorktown Nov 2015 #58

The point being that humans have issues jberryhill Nov 2015 #66

Granted. But some humans have more issues than others. Yorktown Nov 2015 #68

Well, golly jberryhill Nov 2015 #69

You are wrong on many counts Yorktown Nov 2015 #71

Your point three is amusing jberryhill Nov 2015 #73

My point 3 is worrying: Islam teaches anti-democratic values Yorktown Nov 2015 #75

Does the Japanese internment strike you as an oddity of US history? jberryhill Nov 2015 #77

History does not produce carbon copy situations Yorktown Nov 2015 #78

What the ever living fuck? jberryhill Nov 2015 #83

And a virtual dead certainty that many more of them will join the fight on our side jberryhill Nov 2015 #36

I wish there were some evidence to back that up hifiguy Nov 2015 #42

The dynamics are pretty simple to understand jberryhill Nov 2015 #43

Were the potential for trouble limited to that caused by hifiguy Nov 2015 #46

Pretty good analogy....and I agree, its justifiable to exclude them from entry Joe the Revelator Nov 2015 #72

I hope but CT gov Malloy already said he will accept them. bigwillq Nov 2015 #16

No, they'll have green cards. joshcryer Nov 2015 #17

My faith in the general American public (and many of its "leaders") is continually shaken Proud Liberal Dem Nov 2015 #33

I don't think the legalities matter goldent Nov 2015 #40

Solution: Bring them here, make them citizens. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2015 #44

As lawful residents of any kind jberryhill Nov 2015 #55

They can't; however, they can make it politically difficult for the administration to admit them. Algernon Moncrieff Nov 2015 #56

I'm happy to report that Alaska's governor has said he has no plans Blue_In_AK Nov 2015 #74

Nothing more than cheap theatrics, COLGATE4 Nov 2015 #76

It's not just the RW obnoxiousdrunk Nov 2015 #79

I know. Was trying to be polite. COLGATE4 Nov 2015 #80

I agree--it's an investment in their next campaign for office Orrex Nov 2015 #86

So if , in a few years, some to come out as radicals oneshooter Nov 2015 #85