Posted on 11/26/2015 5:07:15 AM PST by markomalley
The federal government shot a warning to state resettlement officials, telling them they do not have the authority to deny the entry of Syrian refugees.
In a letter sent Wednesday, Office of Refugee Resettlement Director Robert Carey said he is aware of the concern expressed by some local leaders in allowing Syrian refugees into their states. Casey advised that "all refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States," in what he called a "multi-layered and intensive screening and vetting process involving multiple law enforcement, national security, and intelligence across the Federal government."
"Syrian refugees are subject to even more precautions than other refugees," he added.
More than half of the nation's governors have pledged not to allow Syrian refugees into their states following the wave of terror attacks that hit Paris earlier in the month, which left 130 dead and hundreds more injured. It is suspected that at least one of the attackers gained entry into France through the European refugee resettlement program. The governors cited security concerns on the possibility of terrorists slipping into the U.S. using the refugee program.
States are required to provide "assistance and services ... to refugees without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex or political position" according to the Refugee Act of 1980, the letter points out.
"States may not deny ORR-funded benefits and services to refugees based on a refugee's country of origin or religious affiliation," the letter states. "Accordingly, states my not deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees." States that do not comply with these terms are subject to "enforcement action, including suspension or termination."
According to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination based on race or origin is against the law in all programs that receive federally-funded assistance, the letter adds.
The letter, first reported on by the Houston Chronicle, marks the first official statement by the federal government in response to state governors' public declarations that they do not welcome the entry of Syrian refugees into their states.
Last week the White House held an emergency call with 34 governors who had expressed opposition to having refugees placed into their states. The call, led by White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough, sought to ease their concerns and share details on the federal refugee resettlement process and security screening measures.
Still, some governors did not budge on the administration's plan to relocate 10,000 refugees from warn-torn Syria in the present fiscal year. Over 2,200 Syrian refugees have already been resettled into the U.S. since October of 2010, says the State Department.
In a Fox News interview last week after the White House call, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot said "What the national intelligence leaders are telling us is that Syrian refugees could be embedded with those who are ISIS terrorists."
"It's our responsibility, for me as governor of the state of Texas and for all leaders in this nation, to ensure that we put national security and the security of our fellow Americans first," he added.
On Monday American Civil Liberties Union sued Indiana Gov. Mike Pence for attempting to suspend Syrian refugee relocation into his state.
"Decisions concerning immigration and refugee resettlement are exclusively the province of the federal government, and attempts to pre-empt that authority violate both equal protection and civil rights laws and intrude on authority that is exclusively federal," said ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk in a press release.
Read the full text of the ORR letter below:
Letter from federal Office of Refugee Resettlement about Syrian refugees
Well said. Or, the governors should agree to take in all refugees from anywhere......but, it will take 18-24 months before they are prepared to absorb them.....he-he-he. Never say no......just delay delay delay. Kind of like what the Obama did with the pipe-line decision. Both sides can play politics.
molon labe’
Yes, this could easily stretch on another 12-18 months. Shrillary may not have the mandate to continue the policy because she is going to have to go on record as opposing the Syrian refugees during the general campaign. Most polls indicate that 25% or less approve Syrian immigrants, and Hillary's going to have to do a lot better than that, so she'll have a "change of heart".
Non-citizen, non-residents of the US have civil rights. Who knew?
Bring it then. It’s time to have the showdown between the states and Washington. If the gop-e has a backbone now is the time to show it.
Pure tyranny. No other word for it.
Good point. No such thing as a free lunch. There’s always a price to be paid when you accept “assistance” from the government.
The government is not here to help you; its here to CONTROL you.
Put them all in Fairfax County.
Too bad the Senate no longer represents the States.
This country was founded to be a democratic republic run be We The People, not a dictatorship ruled over by His Majesty In Washington.
The Civil War was fought over states sovereignty. Let the games begin!
Interestingly enough, Ted Cruz has a new Mockingjay button!
Uh...foreign refugees, who aren’t even on U.S. soil yet, don’t have “civil rights” under our law!
Good one.....do they really think we’d object to that?
“”are subject to “enforcement action, including suspension or termination.””
I often wonder, how would this actually happen? It didn't work so well in 1860 and I think the result would be the same today.
Can someone propose a scenario where a state or group of states could actually leave the US?
The closest I can imagine is that the people weaken the Federal government to the point that it can not effectively mandate to the states. I can not see this happening either. Too many feebies to the people at stake.
Thoughts?
I think more states would be in it now.. I also think the Convention of States might just be what we need right now.
“settle them on the southside of Chicago”
Any settlement should be in sanctuary cities. I recall seeing a map and the vast majority are in the socialist states. But really, the only resettlement should be in Middle Eastern countries. (Ask yourself why none of them are volunteering to take them in...)
Besides, since we need to take climate change into consideration when discussing war and terrorism, the refugees’ carbon footprint will be smaller because they can walk to their new tent city, and then walk back to their bombed out homes after Obozo defeats the JV team. No burning of jet and diesel fuels needed for refugees’ transport!
Simple solution, cut the funding to ORR. States may have to refuse federal funding for some programs. And Congress has the ability to limit or reduce the number of refugees we accept, all the way to zero. And likely to allot allocations by region.
We know the Republican Congress will not stand up to Obama.
Now we get to see if the Republican Governors stand firm or cower.
Since the socialists can’t seem to make their urban utopias functional, they shouldn’t be allowed to experiment with other group until they prove they can handle it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.