DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Sunday, August 07, 2016

Obama to States: Accept Refugees, Or Else. . .

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The last time we had a President of the United States with a basic working knowledge of the United States Constitution was Ronald Reagan.  He was one of three during the twentieth century, including Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding.  So, getting a president who is willing and able to defend, preserve and abide by the U.S. Constitution is constantly a tall order.  Oh, by the way, there has been exactly zero in the twenty-first century, and based on what's available in 2016, in this century we are destined to continue to bat nil.

Of the U.S. Presidents since 1900, a few of them were not only ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, but were downright hostile to it.  Few in American History, however, have shown the amount of hostility, and willingness to blatantly stomp all over the law of the land, like President Barack Obama.

In his latest defiance of constitutional principles, Obama has decided to threaten any States who refuse to accept the Muslim refugees his federal government are trying to unconstitutionally force upon the various States.

According to Obama, the States have no constitutional grounds to refuse his dictatorial edicts, especially when it comes to immigration, or "refugees".

Let's back up, for a moment.  First of all, the federal government only has authorities over what the Constitution expressly delegates to it.  If the Constitution is silent on something, the federal government does not have the authority.  With the States, if the authority is not given to the federal government, and the States are not prohibited to do something according to the text of the U.S. Constitution, it is a State authority.

So, let's break down immigration and refugee authorities as they appear, or don't appear, in the Constitution.

The powers afforded the federal government on these issues are as follows:
  • Article I, Section 8: Congress is given the authority to ensure rules regarding naturalization is uniform throughout the States.  This is not an authority regarding immigration, but an authority regarding naturalization procedures after a person is legally inside the United States, and would like to pursue citizenship.
  • Article I, Section 8: Congress is authorized to call forth the militia to "repel invasions."  Invasion is defined as an unwanted encroachment.  Therefore, Congress can authorize the federal government to take actions, or provide personnel, to assist in repelling illegal immigration.
  • Article I, Section 9: Congress, as of 1808, may write legislation prohibiting certain persons from coming into the United States.  There are no limitations on who these people can be, based on any criteria as some Democrats may claim.
  • Article I, Section 9: States are authorized to, without the consent of Congress, keep troops (activate militia) if invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
  • Article II, Section 3: The President of the United States "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", which would include immigration laws Congress have made in pursuance of Article I, Section 9, of which President Obama has refused to execute (and even sued Arizona for trying to execute).
  • Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall . . . protect each of them [the States] against invasion.  To protect the States from invasion, it is necessary to secure the national border.  It would also be necessary to round up and deport any invaders who have entered the country illegally.
  • Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
No place in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government given the authority to force States to accept persons who are not citizens.  The Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV. and the 14th Amendment do not apply to non-citizens, and therefore the States are not required to treat non-citizens who are in their States illegally with the same "protection under the law" attitude as they are required to treat citizens.   Also, there are no prohibitions in the Constitution regarding how the States may treat immigrants who have refused to reside legally, and since it is a State's business how they may protect themselves internally, it is constitutional for a State to refuse to accept illegal aliens, or refugees, and to deport them accordingly.  It is none of the federal government's business how a State operates internally.  Their internal issues are their business, except in certain cases as prescribed by the Constitution (such as the equal protection of all citizens under the law).

The letter also indicated that the heavy Federal boot of compassion will come down hard on the necks of those who do not comply and bend to the will of Obama.

The office then referred to the 1964 Civil Rights Act which disallows racial discrimination (once again, that does not apply to non-citizens who have refused to follow the law).

The Federal government is also threatening extortion, which is the willingness to withhold all federal financial assistance to those States rejecting acceptance of members of the Muslim invasion.

Two dozen Republican governors have indicated they will not invite ISIS militants into their States and said they would resist refugee placement.  They provided a letter to Obama citing their concerns and reminding him of strong public sentiment against the program.

In the House of Representatives a bill was approved that would improve screening for Iraqi and Syrian refugees. The bill does not halt the refugee influx, it questions the ability of the immigration department to properly vet refugees, and is demanding stronger procedures.

Obama claims the vetting process is already thorough and can take two years to complete.

The bill requires comprehensive background checks of every refugee from Iraq or Syria before they can be admitted into the United States and certification that each does not pose a threat.  As we have examined, just because a Muslim is not violent, it does not mean they are not committing jihad.

“While the United States has the most generous refugee system in the world, the American people are rightly concerned about admitting Syrian refugees and the impact it would have on the safety of their families and neighbors,” Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement.

“In light of these concerns, the majority of state governors have taken positions that reflect the views of their residents. It’s hypocritical for Obama Administration officials to threaten enforcement action against these states when they refuse to enforce the vast majority of our immigration laws, such as cracking down on sanctuary cities that openly defy federal law and endanger the American people,” he said.

Obama has promised to increase the number of refugees coming into this country, and he has vowed to make sure the States accept them.

If the States, even after the extortion and threats, continue to refuse accepting the "refugees," is Obama then going to move in with military troops to force the States into compliance with his royal decrees?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


Kerwin Hieb said...

And Obola considers himself a "Constitutional scholar"... He's more a constitutional hater!

richard1j said...

The states and the people have every right to not send money to the Federal government.

Francis W. Porretto said...

This is a clear demonstration of why states, counties, and municipalities should never accept Federal money, regardless of the rationale. But politicians react to "free money" the way cats react to catnip: Once scented, they can't bear to let it go.

Anonymous said...

People of the United States to hussein Obama, 'Fuck off'.

Anonymous said...

Frankly the Governors should just arrest the people doing the resettlement, case closed, problems solved. They can also rescind their approval of them operating in the state. If they really want to stop this its would not be hard to enforce