States can guard against Fed-sponsored refugees

Listening to so many talking heads unequivocally stating that the federal government can fly, bus or sail refugees into the country and unload them in any state is somewhat disingenuous. Yes, the administration can load up planes and boats with refugees overseas and bring them to our shores, but where they are landed at federal ports of entry is where their jurisdiction ends. The federal agencies have no power outside of their domains to force states to accept and settle refugees, particularly if the security of the state's population is endangered. Again, Title 8 is distinct in stating that the feds must "cooperate" with the states.¹ Every governor, state official and law enforcement officer is sworn to defend the people of that state against foreign and domestic threat. The president and federal officials also take such an oath and, yet, in this circumstance, where it has been incontrovertibly demonstrated that among the refugees fleeing the Middle East nations, they are operating in, what is termed in the insurance industry, bad faith. It could be argued that the administration and any elected or appointed officeholder pursuing the forced resettlement of foreign nationals that could pose a threat to the American People, have abrogated their duty and even placed America in evident peril. The latter point could be construed as hostile action against Americans by those officials sworn to serve and protect Americans. What is it called when Americans take-up arms or abet harm against their own people? And forcing the settlement of probable enemies within unsuspecting neighborhoods, does that not also come under the same category? The words don't even require spelling out as anyone with common sense understands the implications of the foregoing. (Admittedly, common sense is no longer common having been educated out of the general populace.) For those who claim the Constitution as their evidence that the feds have rightful power to force states to comply with the administration's hostile actions to its own constituents, they need read the document again. First, there is no statement within the Constitution granting the executive branch authority over immigration; Congress was given to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," (article 1, Section 8), and Title VIII covers much of that and any authority granted to the executive branch is coded here with caveats. Further action taken in relation to immigration and naturalization was the establishment of USCIS as an administrative agency under the Homeland Security Act that supposedly vets potential immigrants before granting documentation for entry and U.S. citizenship. The background checks are actually conducted by the FBI, which has complained of being overstressed by the more than 900 ongoing investigations of possible terror links, let alone undertaking vetting tens of thousands of refugees which the director said is "impossible." It is this problematic situation that inspired the House vote on HR 4038, "American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act," to restrict entry of refugees until more stringent requirements are met by the administration. Voting against this bill were two republicans, Steve King (IA), who felt the bill wasn't strong enough, and Walter Jones (NC) despite 47 democrats adding their "yea" to the legislation.

Amendment 10 of the Constitution guarantees "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." (Emphasis mine.) In respect to this umbrella of protection of the rights of the Individual States, the administration cannot coerce any of one of them to accept their administrative rulings, in this case regarding the forced placement of refugees that could be harboring enemies among their numbers. Should the president press the issue by bringing in refugees onto federal bases or under cover of night (as was done with the unsupervised illegal immigrant children through states like California. As an aside, I personally encountered one of these incognito buses in Victorville, California at a truck stop. All of the windows were covered and the bus driver admitted the passengers' identities to a fellow traveler.), each state may block the individuals from leaving the federally controlled depots. In a situation such as this, federal jurisdiction ends at the bounds of any federally controlled property. The administration, that governs the military and immigration agents, cannot compel the states to allow free passage, let alone settlement, of individuals beyond the federal port of entry. A quiet challenge could ensue between state and county law enforcement (sheriffs) and federal agents, but the federal agents would recognize the limits of their jurisdiction and end up dealing with either having to house refugees at their point of entry or return them to their place of origin. All one need do is refer to how INS has been ordered by the president to refuse custody of individuals arrested by sheriffs for deportation to understand the scofflaw president's attempt to usurp and deny the power of the People. To clarify, sheriffs trump federal officers and agents as immediate representatives of the People, their constituents, and their protection. Any confrontation between county or state and the federal administration will, as usual, end up in court unless Congress takes the issue in hand, just as it should. By the way, this was Rep. King's argument. It is imperative that leaders in Congress finally address the protection of this nation from the insidious importation of terror under the guise of poor, despondent refugees and properly contain the executive branch within Constitutional parameters. States must prosecute their authority as expressed by the Constitution. 1. Title 8 Chapter 12 subchapter IV Section 1522 (emphasis mine) Authorization for programs for domestic resettlement of and assistance to refugees (1)

(B) It is the intent of Congress that in providing refugee assistance under this section-

(iii) local voluntary agency activities should be conducted in close cooperation and advance consultation with State and local governments.

(a) Conditions and considerations (2)

(A) The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) of this section shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities. (B) The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States. (C) Such policies and strategies, to the extent practicable and except under such unusual circumstances as the Director may recognize, shall-

(ii) provide for a mechanism whereby representatives of local affiliates of voluntary agencies regularly (not less often than quarterly) meet with representatives of State and local governments to plan and coordinate in advance of their arrival the appropriate placement of refugees among the various States and localities, and

(D) With respect to the location of placement of refugees within a State, the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) of this section shall, consistent with such policies and strategies and to the maximum extent possible, take into account recommendations of the State.