Refugee Resettlement Watch

Appeals court rules on Syrian refugees: states cannot block their resettlement…

Posted by Ann Corcoran on October 4, 2016

…..if the state is taking federal money for refugee resettlement.

(That is the hook, always the hook, states take federal money and then lose their states’ rights!)

U.S. Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) arrives for a news conference about their goal of permanently extending Bush-era tax rates at the Capitol in Washington, DC, U.S. on December 2, 2010. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

Vice Presidential nominee and Indiana Governor Mike Pence loses Appeals case on Syrian refugee resettlement on eve of VP debate. What a timing coincidence? Come to think of it, maybe Pence can lead Kaine into a trap tonight and ask Kaine how many Syrians he and Hillary want to admit to the US.

The lesson in this decision is that if you, the citizens of any state, want to control admission to your state of refugees being placed there by the US government, you have to either work to scrap or reform the Refugee Act of 1980 (long term) or, you have to work right now to limit federal spending for the program (so fewer refugees can be admitted in the first place).

Monumental task ahead….

Both solutions involve convincing a Congress where the Republican leadership is working against you with the help of most of your own representatives, the so-called religious charities, big greedy-for-cheap-labor global corporations, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

A political solution!

There are still some legal avenues (where is the Tennessee case?) that need to be attempted, but hanging your hat on some legal decision years down the road strikes me as an avoidance measure. Time to tackle your Congressmen and US Senators!

Here is the news from a conservative (we are told) Appeals Court (story posted by Nina Totenberg of NPR):

A federal appeals court panel Monday blocked Indiana Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence’s attempt to keep Syrian refugees out of Indiana.

The court upheld a lower court judge in barring Pence from interfering with the distribution of federal funds to resettle Syrian refugees in his state. The appeals court panel said that federal law bars discrimination based on nationality.

The three-judge panel that issued the ruling is an all-star group of conservative judges, including one of the judges on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

In a unanimous opinion, the appeals court said Gov. Pence acted illegally in accepting federal money for refugee resettlement and then refusing to use that money to aid Syrian refugees.

The panel rejected Pence’s argument that terrorists are posing as Syrian refugees to gain entry into the U.S., calling it a “nightmare speculation” based on no evidence. Indeed, the court said, the state presented no evidence that any Syrian refugee had been involved in a terrorist act in the U.S.

The court added that resettlement of persecuted refugees is a federal responsibility under the 1980 Refugee Act, which authorizes the president*** to determine, on the basis of “humanitarian concerns or … the national interest,” how many refugees to admit each year. In 2016, President Obama set the number at 85,000, including 10,000 Syrians.

It is about the money!

When Congress returns in November they will have to finish and approve the federal budget for the remainder of the 2017 fiscal year (it began Oct. 1, this past Saturday). Congress will either fully fund Obama’s 110,000 refugee plan for 2017 or it won’t appropriate enough of your money for the full 110,000.  It is that simple.

For new readers, I don’t want to go too deep in the weeds, but Texas withdrawing from the program last week, is only a stop gap measure because the federal government will assign a non-profit refugee contractor to run the program. Sure, they will be in chaos for a couple of months there, but it will eventually mean that Texas will be just like all the other Wilson-Fish states. (You are going to have to search RRW for ‘Wilson-Fish’ because I want to move on to other things this morning).

***No easy outs, only two things to save us—Trump is elected and you work your butts off to change Congress on this issue.

LOL! Here comes ‘Mom for Trump’ as promised!

Ann, could you tell all your readers on a daily basis to call our useless Congress @ 202 224 3121 and have them say DEFUND REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM. I call daily and if enough of us do so, we can make a difference.

16 Responses to “Appeals court rules on Syrian refugees: states cannot block their resettlement…”

  1. dotsword said

    * * * FYI ANN & ALL * * * * *


    • dotsword said

      p.s. anyone else having probs re twitter ??sensoring??

      My retweet re TX Gov/halting Refugee Flow– last Friday did not show up until today {while non refugee-related RTRs showed up just fine}; I tried repeatedly RTR’g on Fri, then jokingly asked the orig poster if Twtr was censoring again.

      ….and… I just now noticed that as soon as I tweeted this re Yahoo, the TX Gov/Ref. RTR has disappeared again while all others remain.


  2. […] Pence as governor of Indiana may not have the power to block certain refugees from his state, but the WaPo acknowledges that a President Trump does!  […]


  3. Adopt-a-refugee plan under consideration by Obama administration


  4. The feds do NOT have the constitutional authority to facilitate the importation of persons who are, demonstrably, a threat to the citizens of this country. Permitting such a violation is treasonous, not “discriminatory”. It’s a simple matter of homeland security. States are duty-bound to NULLIFY any and all fed actions which imperil the sovereignty and security of their citizens. And if that means States must do without federal handouts to do the right thing, then so be it. Without a principled stance, without a spine, States and their citizens are being imperiled with impunity. The onus is upon weak-kneed STATES for this crime.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. EdwardTeach said

    As a tax paying United States citizen I’m fed up with these people using my money for their personal wants. We need a revolution an American spring if you will.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. […] Appeals court rules on Syrian refugees: states cannot block their resettlement… October 4, 2016 […]


  7. The Politicians assume PERSONAL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY for the crimes of ILLEGALS that they “sponsor” through their “sanctuary” laws and by importing REFUJIHADIS from abroad.
    By WHAT authority are they manipulating Society? Where in the Constitution are they allowed to “SOCIAL ENGINEER”?
    “our” politicians take oaths to uphold the LAW and the Constitution. When they REFUSE to, when they openly DEFY and circumvent the LAW, they FORFEIT their “Governmental Immunity”. Every Politician who goes on record as supporting ILLEGAL INVADERS should be held financially responsible for PAYING REPARATIONS for the crimes done by the ILLEGALS.
    ALL immigrants must have SPONSORS who will be accountable for the actions of the immigrant. Supporters of ILLEGALS are ASSUMING SPONSORSHIP of all Illegals and therefore are FINANCIALLY responsible for CRIMES and LIFE SUPPORT of ALL illegals. NO illegals should be on TAXPAYER DOLE, they should be living on the wealth of their SPONSORS and in THEIR HOUSES.
    Start CIVIL FORFEITURE on the assets of Politicians that cover for ILLEGAL INVADERS. Since their “Government DUTIES consist of securing the Border” and they not only failed but REFUSE to secure the border they are no longer protected by “immunity”


  8. TwoLaine said

    “The appeals court panel said that federal law bars discrimination based on nationality.”

    That’s funny Didn’t we once ban the Japanese, Germans, Italians, Iranians, East Asians….?

    Liked by 2 people

    • dotsword said

      yep….Eisenhower, jimmy carter, made bans ‘based on nationality’

      Liked by 2 people

      • dotsword said

        ….wish Trump would specificlly Remind the Dems re Carter DURING next debate –while he has most of Amer watching


      • It has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with national security. Per our founding fathers, the United States is NOT required to blindly permit immigration into the US irrespective of those prospective immigrants’ willingness and ability to assimilate into American culture. Why oh why do States routinely defer to FEDERAL courts to defend their constitutional authority and duty to protect their citizens?

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Reblogged this on .


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: