No, State Governors Can’t Refuse To Accept Syrian Refugees
More than half a dozen state governors have come out against President Obama’s plans to relocate several thousand Syrian refugees within the United States.
Some have pledged to actively resist settlement of these refugees.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ®, for example, signed a letter to Obama that
begins “as governor of Texas, I write to inform you that the State of Texas will not accept any refugees from Syria
in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack in Paris.” Louisiana Gov.
Bobby Jindal ® issued an executive order instructing all “departments,
budget units, agencies, offices, entities, and officers of the
executive branch of the State of Louisiana” to “utilize all lawful means to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the State of Louisiana while this Order is in effect.”
The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to
admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that
permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the
president in this way. As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz,
“the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign
affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and
deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to
overrule the federal government on matters such as this one…
Very true. States are in control of welfare money distribution, however. While they may not be able to keep the refugees out, they could make it extremely difficult for them to receive financial help while in the state.
The number of states not wanting to take the refugees is now quite large, more than half.
More interesting to me than a few refugees is the growing division between the federal and state governments. We may be entering an era where civil disobedience is perpetrated by state governments against the federal government.
The poor refugees will probably all end up in California, clustered around Berkeley, no doubt.
