Guess What State Settled the Most Syrians..

[Clean]

That's right it's Texas. I thought after our governor sued the Feds, we probably wouldn't get anymore....wrong.

After the governor of Texas announced that the state would stop accepting Syrian refugees, the Obama administration went behind his back secretly conferencing with a mayor that offers illegal immigrants sanctuary and Syrians a welcome mat. The plan, evidently, was to continue sending Syrian refugees to the Lone Star State, even as the governor initiated litigation to halt the flow. This week Judicial Watch obtained records of the administration’s behind-the-scenes efforts to keep sending Syrians to Texas despite fierce opposition from state officials over the security threats created by refugees from an Arab nation that’s a hotbed of terrorism.

The White House looked to Austin Mayor Steve Adler, going around the governor to confer with a city leader who espoused the controversial Syrian resettlements, the records show. Shortly after Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that the state wouldn’t accept any more Syrian refugees, the administration responded by colluding with Adler, according to records of a conference call between the mayor’s office and the White House. The administration also furnished Adler with “talking points” involving the refugee resettlement and the parties discussed Abbott’s lawsuit. It seems bizarre that the feds would discuss legal action with a town mayor operating in the state suing them.

Texas and California resettled the overwhelming majority of refugees in 2016, according to federal data, and <b>Texas has absorbed the most Syrians. </b> More than half of the nation’s governors oppose letting Syrian refugees resettle in their state for security reasons. Among them are Michigan, Arizona, Illinois, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Georgia and New Hampshire. A recent national poll found that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose accepting Syrian refugees. Just 36% said they were in favor of “accepting Syrian refugees into the United States,” the poll found. The figures show a big decline in support for accepting Syrian refugees in the last year and a half.

At least two of the terrorists who carried out the deadly attack in Paris last year entered Europe as Syrian refugees, according to French prosecutors, who say the jihadists came through Greece by posing as refugees fleeing from the Syrian conflict. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has confirmed that individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria have tried to infiltrate the United States through the Obama refugee program that has admitted more than 12,000 Syrians and counting. FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach has also conceded that the U.S. government has no system to properly screen Syrian refugees.

Texas Governor Abbott cited this in the lawsuit, which eventually got dismissed by a federal judge in Dallas who ruled that the state didn’t have grounds to sue the federal government. In the complaint, Texas accused the federal government of breaching its legal duty because the state was prevented “from receiving vital information to assess the security risk posed by the refugees in advance of their arrival” and that federal authorities refused “to consult with the state in advance on placement of refugees in Texas.” The state appealed the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals but quietly withdrew it a few days after a separate appellate court rejected a similar appeal from Indiana.

While the legal process was taking place, the Obama administration reached out to a friendly official to assure the Syrian refugees would have a place to land in Texas. Adler, Austin’s mayor since 2014, had publicly proclaimed that Syrian refugees would be received in his city of about 900,000 residents. He even wrote a piece in a local publication last year titled “Syrian Refugees are Welcome in Austin.” Adler assures his constituents in the state’s capital city that “any Syrian refugee coming to the United States faces the most stringent background checks of anyone entering the country.” He proceeds to write that the U.S. only considers refugees screened by the United Nations (the famously corrupt world body) who are then vigorously vetted by the FBI Terrorist Screening Center and other federal agencies. Last month Adler participated in an immigration rally outside City Hall to reiterate his commitment to protecting illegal aliens.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...colluded-texas-gov-sued-keep-syrian-refugees/

 

[NJlonghorn]

That's right it's Texas. I thought after our governor sued the Feds, we probably wouldn't get anymore....wrong.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...colluded-texas-gov-sued-keep-syrian-refugees/

If Abbot didn't like the resettlement process, his recourse was to convince Congress to step in and/or elect a new President. Option 2 has happened, and will be in effect soon. Until then, like it or not, Obama is president and is entitled to exercise any prerogative lawfully belonging to that office.

I am less concerned than many of you about the resettlement process, but even I agree that Obama has gone too far. That said, I am even more concerned about governors feeling that they can flaunt Federal authority over clearly Federal issues. This is not Abbot's call, and Obama was within his rights to seek cooperation where it would be available.

 

[Clean]

Whenever I ride my bike, I wear the bicycle equivalent of a rear view mirror on my helmet. I'm used to keeping a wary eye on approaching cars and trucks. Now, I may have to start wearing one anytime I'm out walking around in public. Thanks Obama.

 

[iatrogenic]

If Abbot didn't like the resettlement process, his recourse was to convince Congress to step in and/or elect a new President. Option 2 has happened, and will be in effect soon. Until then, like it or not, Obama is president and is entitled to exercise any prerogative lawfully belonging to that office.

I am less concerned than many of you about the resettlement process, but even I agree that Obama has gone too far. That said, I am even more concerned about governors feeling that they can flaunt Federal authority over clearly Federal issues. This is not Abbot's call, and Obama was within his rights to seek cooperation where it would be available.

Texas clearly indicated its unwillingness to accept refugees, but instead of sending the refugees to States willing to take those refugees (I assume the liberal states that have "sanctuary cities"), the Feds secretly relocated them to Austin. The Governor is trying to protect the citizens of Texas, and your concern is with the Governor instead of the Feds? I think you're missing the bigger picture.

 

[Brad Austin]

Wow, so sanctuary cities have the right to defy ICE and protect criminal illegals from being deported, but Abbott has no right to refuse settling refugees from terrorist countries in Texas? Got it.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Texas clearly indicated its unwillingness to accept refugees, but instead of sending the refugees to States willing to take those refugees (I assume the liberal states that have "sanctuary cities"), the Feds secretly relocated them to Austin. The Governor is trying to protect the citizens of Texas, and your concern is with the Governor instead of the Feds? I think you're missing the bigger picture.

When it comes to immigration/refugee issues, protecting citizens is a Federal role, not a state role. The fact that the governor doesn't like the job the Feds are doing doesn't empower him to step in and usurp the Federal role. That is, imho, the "bigger picture".

 

[NJlonghorn]

Wow, so sanctuary cities have the right to defy ICE and protect criminal illegals from being deported, but Abbott has no right to refuse settling refugees from terrorist countries in Texas? Got it.

I never said that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Wow, so sanctuary cities have the right to defy ICE and protect criminal illegals from being deported, but Abbott has no right to refuse settling refugees from terrorist countries in Texas? Got it.

I'm anti-sanctuary city, but they aren't required to turn people over to ICE. They should, but they don't have to.

And the federal government has the legitimate authority (and therefore supremacy over the states) in deciding who gets to come into the country and where they can be settled. Not saying it's a smart move by the Administration, but Abbott is blowing smoke.

 

[iatrogenic]

When it comes to immigration/refugee issues, protecting citizens is a Federal role, not a state role. The fact that the governor doesn't like the job the Feds are doing doesn't empower him to step in and usurp the Federal role. That is, imho, the "bigger picture".

Well, you apparently have mistaken the big picture for legal authority and the assumption that because the Fed has the legal authority, they are doing right by the State of Texas.

 

[Brad Austin]

I'm anti-sanctuary city, but they aren't required to turn people over to ICE. They should, but they don't have to.

I'm not saying they are required to notify ICE. They are ignoring ICE detainers when contacted to hold for pickup and release convicted illegal offenders back into the population. Are you saying that is their legal right under our federal immigration laws?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm not saying they are required to notify ICE. They are ignoring ICE detainers when contacted to hold for pickup and release convicted illegal offenders back into the population. Are you saying that is their legal right under our federal immigration laws?

Yes, I'm saying it's their right. A few points to keep in mind. First, let's identify what such a detainer is and what it's not. It is a request by ICE to local law enforcement that a person in custody be held for up to 48 hours so that ICE can go apprehend the person. It is not a court order. It's not even expressly authorized by statute. It is simply an enforcement tool the agency assumes that it has.

Second, the ICE detainer asks the law enforcement agency to detain a person who would otherwise be released. (Otherwise, the detainer would be unnecessary.) In other words, we're talking about people who have duly posted bond, served their time, or even been exonerated for the underlying offense.

Third, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the detention of a person without probable cause that the person has committed a crime. When the person is held in compliance with an ICE detainer, what crime is he being held for? (Mere illegal presence in the US isn't a crime. Maybe it should be, but it's not as of now.) Cities and counties have had to pay out money for going along with the detainers.

Fourth, under the "anti-commandeering doctrine," the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring state and local governments to enforce and administer its laws. Even if Congress decided to expressly authorize detainers and make them mandatory, this would almost surely sink them in court if the city challenged them. Furthermore, ICE doesn't pay for these detentions. The cities do. If we're talking about small numbers of detentions, then the money isn't that significant, but if we're talking about big cities with thousands of detainees, the costs add up in a hurry.

This doesn't mean Congress has no tools in the shed. They can criminalize illegal presence in the US, and then I think there would be probable cause to detain. Furthermore, Congress could withhold money to cities that don't comply with the detainers, and that would put an end to the sanctuary city, especially if Congress appropriated money to reimburse law enforcement agencies for the detentions. But all of that would require significant changes in federal immigration law.

 

[Clean]

When the person is held in compliance with an ICE detainer, what crime is he being held for? (Mere illegal presence in the US isn't a crime. Maybe it should be, but it's not as of now.)

I thought that illegal immigration is at least a misdemeanor. This site agrees with me.

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime

You use the phrase "illegal presence" instead of illegal immigration. Unless they came over legally and overstayed their visa, they broke the law.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I thought that illegal immigration is at least a misdemeanor. This site agrees with me.

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime

You use the phrase "illegal presence" instead of illegal immigration. Unless they came over legally and overstayed their visa, they broke the law.

Illegal entry is a crime. Being in the country illegally isn't by itself a crime. So, if you entered legally and didn't leave when required, you haven't committed a crime.

Youuse the phrase "illegal presence" instead of illegal immigration. Unless they came over legally and overstayed their visa, they broke the law.

I use a different phrase because words matter. They broke the law either way, but there's a difference between a civil violation and a criminal violation.

 

[ShAArk92]

Yeah, Deez ... I'm with Clean on this one.

Illegal is illegal. Now there is jurisdiction, of course, but a Deputy Sheriff has the authority to hold a poacher, stopped for speeding, for the Game Warden's taking possession of the perpetrator and advancing the case through the judicial system ...

I don't know, but can't imagine that same Deputy Sheriff cannot do the same thing with a person who is "present" by virtue of committing a crime (illegal immigration) ... that perp can ALSO be held until the "authorities" (ICE in this case) takes custody of the perp.

There's no rational justification for the attempt to prevent local/state law enforcement to be opting-out of holding federal offenders for a reasonable period of time to allow the Feds the opportunity to take custody.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Illegal is illegal.

No, illegal is not illegal. Some things are illegal because of state law. Somethings are illegal because of federal law. Some things are illegal because of local law. Some illegal activities give rise to civil penalties. Some illegal activities give rise to criminal penalties. Each one of these distinctions have major procedural and substantive implications.

Now there is jurisdiction, of course, but a Deputy Sheriff has the authority to hold a poacher, stopped for speeding, for the Game Warden's taking possession of the perpetrator and advancing the case through the judicial system ...

I don't know, but can't imagine that same Deputy Sheriff cannot do the same thing with a person who is "present" by virtue of committing a crime (illegal immigration) ... that perp can ALSO be held until the "authorities" (ICE in this case) takes custody of the perp.

You're comparing apples to skunks. Poaching and speeding are state offenses, and deputy sheriffs are law enforcement officers of political subdivisions of the state. The state can require or permit them to enforce any state laws they choose. Immigration violations (whether civil or criminal) involve federal law. It makes a difference.

There's no rational justification for the attempt to prevent local/state law enforcement to be opting-out of holding federal offenders for a reasonable period of time to allow the Feds the opportunity to take custody.

What are they "opting out of?" It isn't their job. If they want to help, they can (if they don't mind assuming the risk of civil liability), but it's not the federal government's right to tell them that they must. It feels weird having to explain that to somebody who claims to be a conservative. It just shows that people only care about laws, constitutions, and federal power when it affects them or someone with whom they sympathize.

 

[texas_ex2000]

When it comes to immigration/refugee issues, protecting citizens is a Federal role, not a state role. The fact that the governor doesn't like the job the Feds are doing doesn't empower him to step in and usurp the Federal role. That is, imho, the "bigger picture".

Of course Obama has the power to do this.

Is the discussion about whether he can do this, or should he do this?

It's still a douche move - especially when his administartion supports the mental gymnastics of sancutary cities.

 

[NJlonghorn]

It's still a douche move.

On this, I think we all agree.

The question is, when a president pulls a douche move that is solidly within the scope of his Constitutional authority, should a governor take matters into his own hands in clear violation of the Constitution? I vote no.

 

[Clean]

It's still a douche move - especially when his administartion supports the mental gymnastics of sancutary cities.

Just BO having his cake and eating it too.

 

[I35]

Sounds like we just need an administration that is for the American People. 01/20/17 will be here within a month.

 

[ShAArk92]

No, illegal is not illegal.

que???

i think you're beaming off into the minutiae of the justice system and legislative authority. If illegal isn't illegal, then what is it ... without pointing the differences in degree & or jurisdiction I've already stipulated.

Poaching and speeding are state offenses

OK ... bad example ... I should have used the oft-employed tactic of the Game Warden's authority to search a premise/check hunting licenses under probable poaching cause to take custody of a murder suspect for the sheriff.

I think you very well understand the point I'm trying to make ... again, employing finer lines to object rather than refine.

What are they "opting out of?" It isn't their job.

An LEO doesn't OPT OUT of doing their job any more than I would mine or you would YOURS.

There's shaark and deez cruising across the atlantic. The pilots are poisoned and incapacitated. I'm on the only one aboard who knows how to safely land the aircraft ... but ... it's not my job. Sorry deez, today is your day to die.

It feels weird having to explain that to somebody who claims to be a conservative.

what is not conservative about expecting the law to be enforced? that civil liability for holding a suspect is ridiculous ... probably accurate ... but ridiculous.

No SFO cop would have held Kate's murderer long enough for an ICE agent to arrive? yeah, whatever.

I think this is one of those topics about which you have too much specific and current knowledge ... forest for the trees.

 

[NJlonghorn]

what is not conservative about expecting the law to be enforced? that civil liability for holding a suspect is ridiculous ... probably accurate ... but ridiculous.

No SFO cop would have held Kate's murderer long enough for an ICE agent to arrive? yeah, whatever.

I think this is one of those topics about which you have too much specific and current knowledge ... forest for the trees.

Yes, a law enforcement officer should be expected to hold people who are suspected of committing a crime. There are Federal/State sovereignty issues that sometimes come into play, but for serious crimes (such as your murder example), that goes out the window.

The point you are missing is that overstaying a visa IS NOT A CRIME. Maybe it should be a crime, but it isn't. Law-enforcement officers have absolutely no right to detain a person suspected of a civil violation, and doing so violates that person's rights.

If you don't like this, the answer is to change the law rather than ignore it.

 

[ShAArk92]

point you are missing is that overstaying a visa IS NOT A CRIME. Maybe it should be a crime, but it isn't. Law-enforcement officers

I didn't say anything about overstaying a visa.

 

[Mr. Deez]

i think you're beaming off into the minutiae of the justice system and legislative authority. If illegal isn't illegal, then what is it ... without pointing the differences in degree & or jurisdiction I've already stipulated.

I think this is one of those topics about which you have too much specific and current knowledge ... forest for the trees.

what is not conservative about expecting the law to be enforced? that civil liability for holding a suspect is ridiculous ... probably accurate ... but ridiculous.

You don't want the law enforced. You want your own preconceived desired outcome reinforced. If you wanted the law enforced, then you would be concerned with what the law actually says rather than dismissing any laws that might conflict with or complicate your desired outcome as "minutiae." And I'm not really getting into minutiae. I'm going just a little deeper than the bumper sticker/talk radio level.

I could get into the specifics of your post, but if you're going to dismiss my comments as you have, then I can't help but assume that it would be a waste of time for me to write them and for you to read them.

 

[Statalyzer]

Illegal entry is a crime.

And that's the crime people are talking about here.

Sounds like we just need an administration that is for the American People. 01/20/17 will be here within a month.

That's an odd pair of statements to go in the same post.

 

[Mr. Deez]

And that's the crime people are talking about here.

No, they aren't. They're blurring it with illegal presence so they can invoke criminality into the discussion. If they were talking specifically about illegal entry, then they wouldn't be bringing up ICE detainers, which are generally about deportation, not charging people with illegal entry and imposing a small fine or jail sentence.

 

[ShAArk92]

could get into the specifics of your post, but if you're going to dismiss my comments as you have,

I guess we are failing to communicate.

In every example you cite I was acknowledging you probably hold a greater level of knowledge on the process itself ... perhaps I should have done so with better language.

If you're gonna build your own exit strategy, that's your choice, sir.

In your construction, you did not acknowledge my corrected scenario wrt difference jurisdiction ... the game warden and the deputy sheriff.

The issue is whether local law enforcement has the authority ... not whether they opt to do so ...

The former is clear. The second is not because ... politicians get involved. And then we have murdered co-eds when there was a much better answer.

Here comes your exit ...

 

[Mr. Deez]

In every example you cite I was acknowledging you probably hold a greater level of knowledge on the process itself ... perhaps I should have done so with better language.

I don't care if you acknowledge whether I have greater level of knowledge on the process. I'm here to discuss the law, but if you're going to dismiss it, there's little point.

In your construction, you did not acknowledge my corrected scenario wrt difference jurisdiction ... the game warden and the deputy sheriff.

Not that you'll care, but it doesn't make a difference.

The issue is whether local law enforcement has the authority ... not whether they opt to do so ...

No, it isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. The issue raised by Brad (which is what started this discussion) was whether police agencies have the right to disregard ICE detainers. In other words, the issue was what they chose to do, not what they had authority to do.

 

[ShAArk92]

I'm here to discuss the law, but if you're going to dismiss it,

You can repeat that if you want but it doesn't make it so. I'm dismissing nothing. I tried to make an appeal but YOU dismissed that effort.

I have access to this very issue and will investigate it myself without your higher level. It makes NO sense for any LEO, when presented with the knowledge of "an offense" to "let it go" simply because

That doesn't mean there's to be no discretion so do not throw down some attempted parallel to a traffic violation. The point is ... because this is what's been argued by some on the left WRT this insane "sanctuary city" nonsense ... a city cop cannot detain/hold for a Fed to take custody.

He certainly can and should ... if politicians are putting local SOP that prohibits this, then they should be seeking work in some other sector.

Why do you let "right" vice "Authority" slide? Never mind. I'm not sure why you're bowed-up and fussing at me, but I'll survive, I suppose.

Not that you care, but I appreciate your participation.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You can repeat that if you want but it doesn't make it so. I'm dismissing nothing. I tried to make an appeal but YOU dismissed that effort.

But the point is that you are dismissing it when you deem it "minutiae" and say I'm missing the forest for the trees. Issues like jurisdiction, the 4th Amendment, the 10th Amendment/federalism, what is a crime (as opposed to a civil violation) are not minutiae or minor technicalities. They're paramount. If you can't discuss them, won't discuss them, or diminish their importance, then you're not going to understand the issue no matter how much you investigate it yourself.

 

[ShAArk92]

But the point is that you are dismissing it when you deem it "minutiae" and say I'm missing the forest for the trees. Issues like jurisdiction, the 4th Amendment, the 10th Amendment/federalism, what is a crime (as opposed to a civil violation) are not minutiae or minor technicalities. They're paramount. If you can't discuss them, won't discuss them, or diminish their importance, then you're not going to understand the issue no matter how much you investigate it yourself.

OK Deez, I apologize.

I did misunderstand the direction of Brad's question ... can the Fed force enforcement of Federal Law from State/local LEOs ... vice can the city cop use a violation committed in his jurisdiction to detain while ICE travels to take custody of an illegal immigrant.

No the Fed cannot force state/local enforcement of Federal law ... that doesn't mean it's prudent to reject it.

After discussions with a sheriff, a DPS officer, a city cop and my local marshall ... I was right in the answer to the question I thought I'd read. I was wrong in understanding the question.

What's happened under this administration is that ICE has been heavily restricted from that "taking custody" of an offender ... that resulted in the tragic event of Kate Steinle's death (and many many others) ... and it clearly SHOULDN'T have had the opportunity to occur. So, there's been a logistical problem with holding these perpetrators as the current POTUS/staff/et al have made it unnecessarily difficult for one of those State/Locals to detain long enough for the Fed to arrive.

My expectation isn't that patrolmen should be detaining folks after a speeding citation to await the arrival of a Treasury officer to enforce the collection of an IRS fine ... we're talking about people who have posed physical threats. There's no articulation which makes proper the release of an illegal immigrant who's been deported 5 times and has committed violent offenses while being in the country illegally.