Texas sues US to block resettlement of 6 Syrian refugees

[webfact]

Texas sues US to block resettlement of 6 Syrian refugees
PAUL J. WEBER, Associated Press
JAMIE STENGLE, Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas on Wednesday sued the U.S. government in an effort to block six Syrian refugees from resettling in Dallas this week.

The lawsuit comes after the nonprofit International Rescue Committee defied orders from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott to halt the arrival of Syrian refugees in Texas following the deadly attacks in Paris last month.

Texas, citing security concerns, wants to delay the arrival of the refugees for at least a week until a federal judge can hear the challenge.

Abbott is among more than two dozen governors, mostly Republicans, who have vowed to keep Syrian refugees from resettling in their states. The Obama administration has said states don't have the authority to block refugees.

The IRC has repeatedly noted that Syrian refugees are the most security-vetted group of people who come into the U.S., and it has said it will continue to help all refugees in accordance with its obligations under federal guidelines.

More than 170 Syrians have settled in the U.S. since the Paris attacks, including in states whose governors have resisted, according to the U.S. State Department figures.

The Justice Department said it would review the complaint after formally receiving it. The White House declined to comment. The IRC did not immediately comment on the lawsuit.

Also Wednesday, Indiana's governor said he has asked a Roman Catholic archdiocese to not bring a Syrian refugee family to the state.

The archdiocese says the family of four is expected to arrive later this month after a two-year vetting process. Spokesman Greg Otolski noted it may not happen if Indiana is perceived to be hostile or unwelcoming.

Gov. Mike Pence said that in the wake of the Paris attacks, he can't justify making an exception for the family. Indianapolis Archbishop Joseph Tobin said he'll be considering what steps to take next.

Also Wednesday, the Indianapolis-based Exodus Refugee Immigration requested a temporary hold on Pence's order. In a federal court filing, the organization said Pence's action would "frustrate and thwart" its mission of helping refugees and that it would be difficult to make up the lost government funding. A judge is scheduled to talk Monday with attorneys from both sides to set a hearing.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-03

[NeverSure]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

[kblaze]

lol, big tough Texas scared of 6 refugees. I fully support the rights of states to choose as they will, but I also support the rights of others to criticize them for those choices.

[Ulysses G.]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

If they are not Christian refugees, send them back.

[Seastallion]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

If they are not Christian refugees, send them back.

So, after a 2 year vetting process and for this group the most rigourous of security screening, you'd turn back a family of Syrian Jews or Bahais.

Why are you so bigoted against non-Christians?

[Publicus]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

SCOTUS has the case for a ruling by June.

Texas seems to think it can determine its own foreign policy to include immigration, refugees, asylum and the like. Could be Texas eventually will declare war against Mexico or some such. Texas had already declared war against the United States (1861 against President Lincoln). As we know it lost. Big time.

Gov. Walker in Wisconsin wanted to build a wall to keep out Canadians. He lost too.

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

If they are not Christian refugees, send them back.

That would only extend the exhaustive and lengthly vetting process further.

Things apparently such as blood tests for Xistian cells and soul X-rays etc. MRI exams to find images that prove it conclusively.

There's a Thai family I well know who are Christian (Catholic). They're in church all the time and give barrels full of cash to the church. Yet as a priest friend says they don't know the first thing about Christian doctrine or the Bible. They can talk all day however about the magical mysteries of Buddhism. Don't care frankly but rather look at a statue of the Virgin.

[Seastallion]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

SCOTUS has the case for a ruling by June.

Texas seems to think it can determine its own foreign policy to include immigration, refugees, asylum and the like. Could be Texas eventually will declare war against Mexico or some such. Texas had already declared war against the United States (1861 against President Lincoln). As we know it lost. Big time.

Gov. Walker in Wisconsin wanted to build a wall to keep out Canadians. He lost too.

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

If they are not Christian refugees, send them back.

That would only extend the exhaustive and lengthly vetting process further.

Things apparently such as blood tests for Xistian cells and soul X-rays etc. MRI exams to find images that prove it conclusively.

There's a Thai family I well know who are Christian (Catholic). They're in church all the time and give barrels full of cash to the church. Yet as a priest friend says they don't know the first thing about Christian doctrine or the Bible. They can talk all day however about the magical mysteries of Buddhism. Don't care frankly but rather look at a statue of the Virgin.

The whole thing is pointless grandstanding and the Texas govenor playing to the rednecks. This family could be settled just inside the border of Akansas and commute every day to jobs 5 minutes away in Texas and nobody could stop them if they're legal US residents.

[oneday]

Texas has every right to refuse refugees. The federal government is overstepping their authority.

Go Texas!

[Seastallion]

Texas has every right to refuse refugees. The federal government is overstepping their authority.

Go Texas!

Texas has a right to object on financial grounds to settle them, but can hardly refuse entry to the state to persons legally in the UNITED states.

As I said, it's grandstanding to the rednecks.

[mrwebb8825]

Now, if I recall my American History classes, not ALL federal mandates apply to the states just as the local federal laws in DC aren't applicable outside the borders of the Distric of Columbia. It's 1 of the main reasons there are now so many states with legalized cannibis while possession is still a federal crime in DC.

ETAL An easy solution would be for all the refugees to be housed in DC.

Edited December 3, 2015 by mrwebb8825

[Publicus]

Governor of Texas is the redneck in chief there.

[sgtsabai]

States do NOT have the right to refuse refuges or anybody else that has passed the security screening. Based on a recent supreme court ruling, texas didn't get the 30 day extension of the right wing 5th circuit court. It will be 8 days and they go to court. With the federalist right wing "gang of 5" (traitors) there is no real prediction but many legal experts are thinking an overturn of the right wing 5th circuit is very possible. Might just not be texas 2-O. I would be extremely concerned about an increasing muslime population and based on multiple conversations with my English friends who BTW are anything but right wing racist rednecks like Abbott (damn it took some dumb people to elect that scumbag), I wouldn't just start opening the door to them either. On the other hand, the federal government makes the immigration rules and the states are obliged to follow as they should be. texas and the old confederacy should learn a bit of history and get with the program, they LOST! As for those northern/midwest states, those governors are ALEC bought and paid for, see koch (John Birch Society) traitor brothers, and have ruined their states economies. They march to right wing extremist orders.

[Ghostnigel]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

If they are not Christian refugees, send them back.

So, after a 2 year vetting process and for this group the most rigourous of security screening, you'd turn back a family of Syrian Jews or Bahais.

Why are you so bigoted against non-Christians?

Is there such a thing as selective bigotry?

[ilostmypassword]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

If they are not Christian refugees, send them back.

There is one party to this conflict that is in 100% agreement with you on this. They're called Isis.Or Isil. Or Daesh. You see, Isis represents its "nation" as being a paradise for Moslems. And, in fact, Isis now threatens would be refugees with death if they should attempt to flee. So it looks really bad for them when Moslems flee. And not only flee, but flee to non-Moslem nations. There is a huge amount of Islamic scholarship on whether Moslems should even live in non-Islamic nations. The Salafists, like Isis, denounce it. So it looks really bad for Isis when Moslems do flee to the West.Worse than just fleeing to, say, Jordan. So, it may be that the intent of the Paris attacks and others, was precisely to make it impossible for Moslems to find refuge in the west.

Now those of us who are are serious about defeating Isis know that in this war,some sacrifices have to be made. And if that should entail the occasional lunatic getting through and killing innocents, well, this is war. At least for those of us who truly believe that this is war. For the fear-ridden others, who just want to vent, they will continue to indulge their Islamophobia at the expense of winning this war.

Here's a link to an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.businessinsider.com/former-isis-hostage-says-how-we-can-defeat-isis-2015-12

[Usernames]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

[ilostmypassword]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

If they are not Christian refugees, send them back.

So, after a 2 year vetting process and for this group the most rigourous of security screening, you'd turn back a family of Syrian Jews or Bahais.

Why are you so bigoted against non-Christians?

Is there such a thing as selective bigotry?

Except for misanthropy, Is there such a thing as non-selective bigotry?

[ilostmypassword]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

This is why:

There is one party to this conflict that is in 100% agreement with you on this. They're called Isis.Or Isil. Or Daesh. You see, Isis represents its "nation" as being a paradise for Moslems. And, in fact, Isis now threatens would be refugees with death if they should attempt to flee. So it looks really bad for them when Moslems flee. And not only flee, but flee to non-Moslem nations. There is a huge amount of Islamic scholarship on whether Moslems should even live in non-Islamic nations. The Salafists, like Isis, denounce it. So it looks really bad for Isis when Moslems do flee to the West.Worse than just fleeing to, say, Jordan. So, it may be that the intent of the Paris attacks and others, was precisely to make it impossible for Moslems to find refuge in the west.

Now those of us who are are serious about defeating Isis know that in this war,some sacrifices have to be made. And if that should entail the occasional lunatic getting through and killing innocents, well, this is war. At least for those of us who truly believe that this is war. For the fear-ridden others, who just want to vent, they will continue to indulge their Islamophobia at the expense of winning this war.

Here's a link to an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.businessi...at-isis-2015-12

[Seastallion]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

The terrorists are going to get in no matter what you do to refugees.

They'll get in by stealthly psychological means by radicalisation of people already in (as in your example) and they'll get in as tourists and students. Refugees are the least of your worries. At least refugees are screened, whereas tourists are not. Nor are the sneaks that go to Mexico and cross over quietly from there.

[Scott]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

The procedure for immigrants is hardly extensive. It is slightly above a regular criminal record check and the collection of biometric information.

[grumpyoldman]

Too many generations removed for these bigots to understand. America is a country of immigrants, unless you are a Native American Indian, your family came from abroad. Hypochristians.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

[Publicus]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

Another poster just reiterated the obvious and the unavoidable, i.e., someone always slips through any net no matter how tightly the net is woven or how widely the net is spread.

The point is of course that those who demand perfection are insatiable. So they continue to ruin reality in pursuit of absolutism. Yet the perfectionists never get used to ending up with nothing while creating new problems and complications instead.

So we need to continue to admit people and to do background research while continually improving the process and results. Which is what we are in fact doing.

Muslims fleeing Islamic societies and countries for the West is a great free publicity and statement in favor of Western society and civilisation. The right sector in the West which fails to recognise the reality would spoil it. The right does detract from our strengths, all the while claiming to defend and to protect them.

The irony of it is more than apparent.

[Usernames]

Too many generations removed for these bigots to understand. America is a country of immigrants, unless you are a Native American Indian, your family came from abroad. Hypochristians.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Thank you, grumpy. In fact, I'm Cherokee and Choctaw. The rest of you are indeed invited to leave.

[Usernames]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

This is why:

There is one party to this conflict that is in 100% agreement with you on this. They're called Isis.Or Isil. Or Daesh. You see, Isis represents its "nation" as being a paradise for Moslems. And, in fact, Isis now threatens would be refugees with death if they should attempt to flee. So it looks really bad for them when Moslems flee. And not only flee, but flee to non-Moslem nations. There is a huge amount of Islamic scholarship on whether Moslems should even live in non-Islamic nations. The Salafists, like Isis, denounce it. So it looks really bad for Isis when Moslems do flee to the West.Worse than just fleeing to, say, Jordan. So, it may be that the intent of the Paris attacks and others, was precisely to make it impossible for Moslems to find refuge in the west.

Now those of us who are are serious about defeating Isis know that in this war,some sacrifices have to be made. And if that should entail the occasional lunatic getting through and killing innocents, well, this is war. At least for those of us who truly believe that this is war. For the fear-ridden others, who just want to vent, they will continue to indulge their Islamophobia at the expense of winning this war.

Here's a link to an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.businessi...at-isis-2015-12

There are probably other things I "agree" with them on, too. They want to be martyrs. I want them to be martyrs, too. Right now. As many as possible. I also do not want them getting a foothold in my country.

[Usernames]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

The terrorists are going to get in no matter what you do to refugees.

They'll get in by stealthly psychological means by radicalisation of people already in (as in your example) and they'll get in as tourists and students. Refugees are the least of your worries. At least refugees are screened, whereas tourists are not. Nor are the sneaks that go to Mexico and cross over quietly from there.

Oh, okay. Why bother with any checks at all, then. Let them all in. It doesn't make any difference by your logic.

[Publicus]

Too many generations removed for these bigots to understand. America is a country of immigrants, unless you are a Native American Indian, your family came from abroad. Hypochristians.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Native Americans originated from abroad, other continents or lands. Which is why they're called 'native' to the Americas rather than aboriginals. Native Americans are not aboriginals. They migrated to what became known to other aboriginals as the Americas.

Native Americans didn't like or accept immigrants either, from around the 15th century forward. Look at what happened to them.

Now Texas thinks it owns the whole of the place and can throw up walls both physical and legal. Fact is the other 49 states are outside of the jurisdiction of Texas. Washington says so and has always has had the Constitution it was provided as the legitimate basis of the legal assertion. The assertion continually needs to be restated. So Texas et al who want to throw up a wall around the country will have to get set straight once more and yet again.

States haven't ever had the right of the foreign policies of the United States. The fact includes immigration.

[Usernames]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

The procedure for immigrants is hardly extensive. It is slightly above a regular criminal record check and the collection of biometric information.

Well, let's at least shut down the fiance/marriage visa from countries like SA, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and the like. The US at one time closely monitored who it let in the country. Former Nazis were ineligible. Tight restrictions were put on people from Communist countries.

[Publicus]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

The terrorists are going to get in no matter what you do to refugees.

They'll get in by stealthly psychological means by radicalisation of people already in (as in your example) and they'll get in as tourists and students. Refugees are the least of your worries. At least refugees are screened, whereas tourists are not. Nor are the sneaks that go to Mexico and cross over quietly from there.

Oh, okay. Why bother with any checks at all, then. Let them all in. It doesn't make any difference by your logic.

My post is based in reasoning and the reality of experience. It is based in the practicality and pragmatism of everyday life across the board. It is based in fact, logic, reasoning. Empiricism. It presents the issue in balance and perspective.

It thereby critiques absolutism. My post concomitantly points out the inherent flaw of being absolutist in respect of this issue.

[JUDAS]

So far Texas is 2 - 0 against Obama in immigration court rulings. I doubt if they would have sued if they didn't think they'd go 3 - 0.

If they are not Christian refugees, send them back.

You gotta laugh at those who claim to be Christian yet turn their back to those in need. Utter hypocrites.

sent from my left foot

[Publicus]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

The procedure for immigrants is hardly extensive. It is slightly above a regular criminal record check and the collection of biometric information.

Well, let's at least shut down the fiance/marriage visa from countries like SA, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and the like. The US at one time closely monitored who it let in the country. Former Nazis were ineligible. Tight restrictions were put on people from Communist countries.

United States from its founding has always rejected wars of religion and it continues to do so.

Wars against fascism in whatever form have however been persecuted with extreme prejudice against the fascists. This is true whether the fascists were European or Asian.

Presently the fight against fascism happens to include a tiny number of people from a religion that is other than Christianity. That's all there is to it in the 21st century. A small number of barbarian fascists and the fact they are of a different religion are the only difference from 1900 to the present.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

The wife of Farook the California jihadi was presumably given an extensive background check when she applied for her fiance visa. She got through clean as a whistle. The background check apparently means nothing. Why take a chance on letting these people in?

The procedure for immigrants is hardly extensive. It is slightly above a regular criminal record check and the collection of biometric information.

The poster's problem that you reference seems to be that he conflates refugees and ordinary everyday immigrants.

You'd know more about this, but it seems each is documented but in different ways and by differing processes. It seems refugees to the US normally have higher requirements and standards to meet than do the normal flow of immigrants. Asylum seekers yet even greater requirements to meet.

So stopping a Farook is sort of like trying to stop Justin Bieber coming in. It happens no matter what.