Posted on 02/17/2018 2:47:19 PM PST by Twotone
Can states just say “no” to foreign refugees? Tennessee is testing that proposition in federal court.
Tennessee vs. U.S. Department of State is a case every state and taxpayer should watch closely in light of new FAIR research showing per-capita refugee costs running nearly $80,000 over five years.
Like other states, Tennessee experienced a surge in refugee arrivals during the Obama administration, with attendant increases in social-service costs to the state and its localities.
The FAIR study does not break down the costs by state. Nor does it incorporate all the expenses incurred by them. So the $80,000 price tag is necessarily a lowball figure.
Tennessee argues the larger point: The U.S. Constitution does not endow the federal government with unbridled power to direct state spending or interfere with a state’s control over its own budget.
Richard Thompson, attorney with the nonpartisan Thomas More Law Center, asserts, “The federal government commandeered state funds to operate a federal program. In doing so, Tennessee lost its ability to control its own budget and was deprived of its sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at immigrationreform.com ...
Refugee Entitlements?
Where’s that in the Constitution?
Nowhere.
So probably the same place they point to for the non-existant right to abortion.
And marriage and gay marriage.
I would hope that President Trump would give the State Department direction on how to defend FedGov’s outrageous position.
I’m sure that AG Jeff Sessions is right on this. </sarcasm>
Tennessee argues the larger point: The U.S. Constitution does not endow the federal government with unbridled power to direct state spending or interfere with a state’s control over its own budget.
Big waste of time, the Supreme Court already granted the State’s a remedy for cases such as this, the KELO Decision.
Begin SEIZING Property and Assets from Federal Employees for Economic Gain, to pay for their Program.
It would be amusing if the state began seizing the homes of federal judges, under Kelo, to pay for the refugees, if the judges ruled against them.
“The federal government commandeered state funds to operate a federal program. In doing so, Tennessee lost its ability to control its own budget and was deprived of its sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.”
You bunch of weenies, the Supreme Court has Already given you the “necessary and proper” tools to deal with this situation.
The “KELO” decision gives the “State” absolute Authority to SEIZE Private Property for “Economic Activity”.
Start SEIZING the Property and Assets of Federal Employee’s in your State to create the “Economic Activity” necessary to cover your expenses. Begin with the Federal Court Employee’s, turn their properties in to Refugee Centers and Bill the Feds for their stay, when they don’t pay, SEIZE MORE PROPERTY!!!
THIS IS ALREADY THE LAW OF THE LAND!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
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.