Georgia Governor Caves On Syrian Immigrants
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 10 months ago
On Monday, Gov. Nathan Deal rescinded an executive order that prevented state agencies from any involvement in resettling Syrian refugees, clearing the way for newly arrived transplants from the war-torn nation to receive food stamp benefits.
This comes days after Attorney General Sam Olens said in a formal opinion that Georgia can’t legally resist the resettlement of Syrian refugees.
Deal joined more than two dozen other Republican governors who raised concerns about
President Barack Obama’s administration’s resettlement program in the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris in November.“We’re ready to defend it if we have to. I’d rather not spend taxpayer money defending something that can be avoided,” he said in December. “I just don’t know why the federal government wants to do this behind closed doors in total secrecy and don’t even trust state leaders charged with the security of our states with basic knowledge.”
Olens wrote that he is “unaware of any law or agreement that would permit a state to carve out refugees from particular countries from participation in the refugee resettlement program, no matter how well-intended or justified the desire to carve out such refugees might be.”
“Accordingly, it is my official opinion that both federal law and the State’s agreement to act as the state refugee resettlement coordinator prevent the State from denying federally-funded benefits to Syrian refugees lawfully admitted into the United States,” he wrote.
Follow the money. There is a lot of it being sent by the state to the federal government, and the federal government sends it back with strings attached.
It’s pathetic, really. All that has to happen is for a lawyer to throw his shirt up, flash his belly, and say someone can or can’t do something, and everyone cowers.
The governor can do what he wants to do, and for whatever he’s willing to send the state police and national guard to back him up. Deal doesn’t want this fight, and he would rather saddle his own state with Syrians than resist the *.gov.
Under this schema (where the feds control the states because they force taxes and control the money flow), no state has the power do to anything or resist any act, pronouncement or ruling. I believe in common parlance this is called a monarchy.
Sad, very sad.
|
|
On January 5, 2016 at 11:33 am, Archer said:
“We’re ready to defend it if we have to. I’d rather not spend taxpayer
money defending something that can be avoided,” [Deal] said in December.
I wonder, how do the actual taxpayers feel? Are they willing to spend their tax dollars fighting it, or are these just more worthless platitudes and excuses from state “leaders”?
“I just don’t know why the federal government wants to do this behind closed doors in total secrecy and don’t even trust state leaders charged with the security of our states with basic knowledge.”
I believe in common parlance this is called a “clue”. If the federal government doesn’t trust the state leaders — on whom they’re dumping all the responsibility — with even basic information, it’s the state leaders’ solemn duty to the people of their states to question the fed-gov’s dealings and motives.
Just my $0.02.
On January 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm, tjcrowley65@aol.com said:
The same governor Wallace harped on 20 years ago. Not a dimes worth of difference between a D & a R.