A controversy in South Carolina over the placement of Syrian refugees has implications for similar efforts throughout the nation.
The New York Times notes that The Obama Administration has pledged to increase the number of worldwide refugees allowed in the U.S. each year from 70,000 to 100,000 by the year 2017. In September, the Obama administration said it would take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees within the next year.
According to a November 2015 report by Business Insider “a number of immigration-law experts say that even if a state refuses to cooperate with the federal government, governors won’t technically be able to bar the resettlement of refugees in their states.
“States have absolutely no legal authority to bar someone who is granted refugee status from entering their state, since it’s federal law that determines whether someone is a refugee,” Greg Chen, director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told Business Insider.”
That view is partially supported by a Congressional Research Service analysis. “a state likely could not opt to participate actively in the resettlement of refugees from some countries but not others. In contrast, a state lacks the power to prohibit a Syrian refugee admitted into the United States from physically entering or remaining within the state’s jurisdiction… States can be seen to have some discretion as to whether their agencies participate in the federally funded refugee resettlement program. Nothing in federal law purports to require that states seek or receive federal refugee resettlement funds, and the Tenth Amendment proscribes Congress from directly ‘commandeering’ the states to administer a federal regulatory scheme. Thus, a state that previously made provisions for state agencies to participate in the federally funded refugee resettlement program could terminate these agencies’ participation, provided it complies with any conditions as to the time and manner of termination that it may have agreed to as a condition of its funding agreements.”
Basically, while governors cannot bar the refugees, they may not be forced to provide funding for their needs. However, it is unrealistic to believe that governors could effectively bar refugees from benefiting from state educational, health, and other benefits with danger of federal lawsuits being brought.
Originally, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had requested that refugees not be placed in her state due to security concerns, according to the Greenville Online site. Now, however, critics have accused her of changing course and supporting White House plans. In response, a civil action has been filed in the United States District Court, Columbia Division. While the case in question applies only to South Carolina, the points are relevant to any state that has been requested to take in Syrian refugees.
Paul Sutliff is an author and researcher on Islamic terror issues. Recently, he was accepted as an expert witness on the case. We asked him to summarize his affidavit on the legal contest:
“1. It is impossible to know if the South Carolina budget can afford the number of Syrian refugees sent.
- Federal funds for refugees in SC has expanded almost exponentially under President Obama, However, there is a history of demanding some of the funds back.
- Federal funds do not cover housing.
- Day one refugees are received they are taken to apply for state welfare benefits. This is counted as becoming independent.
- Federal funding does not cover the cost of schooling their children which could be a very high expense dependent on familiarity with English and the level of need. It is expected most young girls may not have had much education.
- 2. Are refugees actual legal refugees under the 1980 Refugee Act?
- “The term ‘refugee’ does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” (PL 96-212. Sec. 212)
- Sunni Muslims are not persecuted in Syria–they are the persecutors of Christians and Jews.
- The UN assigns who are to come as refugees. This bad because the UN classifies persons as refugees who do not meet the US definition of refugee.
- I list those who are under persecution in this area.
- We cannot know if the persons are who they say they are.
Today, most of the buy levitra uk ED sufferers prefer to buy kamagra rather than other ED pills. Specialized doctors associated with the viagra pill uk http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/bulwark/ team will provide comprehensive solutions to achieve healthy parenthood. Fire, to stop the burning, that is to eliminate the excruciating pain that happens when a person’s joints, ligaments and spine related problems. 100mg viagra cost Some injections combine alprostadil with other drugs such as Super Kamagra and Extra Super Tadarise that help to treat this problem. cialis pharmacy online
[Editors Note: A RedState analysis agrees with Sutliff’s point, noting that the people involved “are not refugees as we ordinarily consider them. The UN High Commissioner On Refugees says 65% are military aged males. The original plan was to import 10,000 job seekers and potential terrorists, but Senate Democrats, deciding that they may not get enough bang for their buck, demand that at least 65,000 be brought into our communities.”]
- Refugee Plan places refugees as state dependents costing SC residents.
- It is difficult to get persons weaned off from the welfare system.
- The cost of refugees is then transferred from the feds to the state.
- Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Badadhi has stated he has sent some of his men amongst those who are coming here and to Europe.
- Both Muslim sources and American intel sources warn us of this.”