Ted Cruz Proposes Law That Would Allow Governors to Block Refugees


#1

Cruz proposed three new pieces of legislation on Tuesday. One would establish a nationwide”moratorium on all refugees coming from countries where ISIS or al-Qaeda control a substantial amount of territory,” another would give governors the explicit legal authority to “opt out of” receiving new refugees, and the last, which reintroduces an older bill, would strip Americans of their citizenship if they went abroad to fight with a terrorist organization.time.com/4140502/ted-cruz-syrian-refugees-isis/


#2

Good.


#3

I don’t see how that is going to stand up legally. Immigration is under federal control not state control and you can’t limit where non criminals that are in the country legally, can live.


#4

Good.

I try to take a charitable attitude toward Islam, but when it’s difficult-to-impossible to do background checks and some pose a very real threat, charity is difficult.


#5

Congress does have the authority to pass laws on immigration. They can delegate authority within the law for executing portions of it in the same way they delegate execution of the law to various federal agencies. I think it would stand up.

However, its a ‘horse is gone, shut the barn door’ kind of a thing. We’ve gone so long (I mean decades) with only token efforts at immigration/border enforcement occasionally. And the last decade we’ve all but stopped with states prohibiting LEOs from investigating suspicions of immigration status, sanctuary cities, issuing deportation orders but not following up when they’re ignored. (Careful when you see ‘deportations’ in articles-- they confuse deportation orders with actual deportations. Orders are up, people actually being moved out of the country are down.)

Look up the congressional report ‘A line in the Sand’, latest version I think was in 2012. We’ve been catching Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Queda operatives at the border for a while-- assumption is that far more have entered than have been caught. They pay a lot more than the typical illegal immigrant.


#6

Nice try, but it doesn’t work…Let’s say only one state does not opt out, do states bordering that state have to have interstate immigration check points? Is everyone going to need to show citizenship papers if travelling to another state?


#7

Nice work Ted. I also think he’s spot on about the Climate lie.

Worries me the way that “Global leaders” line up on immigration and then when Senator Cruz, Donald Trump, Viktor Orban or the Le Pen ladies speak up they get smacked down.
I say “Global” but what I mean is “Western”!
Suggests to me that most in the West are aligned with globalism. What about a country’s national identity and the ability to be charitable to its own citizens and by extension poorer people in other countries?
Multiculturalism foments divisiveness because these leaders never make any demands for the migrants to learn a country’s culture. It’s as if the leaders either want it eradicated or what is more likely is that they want cheap labour and they don’t want to discourage these slaves from coming. Immigration is presented as “diversity” and “nice” but it’s an elitist policy to supplement falling birth rates and to exploit people. Migrants are treated like dirt and the country’s inhabitants are ignored and crimes against them are dismissed. It’s so evil on many levels.
What annoys me even more are the games these politicians play when they lie to a country’s inhabitants about tackling it and bringing numbers down. I think countries need to vote in parties who rail against the Western globalist cartels. Watch them squirm and crank up the MSM or in the case of that French mouse Hollande, try to form alliances to ensure democracy is defeated. I was delighted with the way Monsieur Sarkozy told him to do one. Hollande is toast


#8

Shhh…don’t talk commonsense Neo. :smiley:


#9

You say all that like they’re bad things. :smiley:

First, we can’t have our number one security concern being that we don’t hurt the feelings of Muslim people.

Second, until there is a definitive way of telling “good” refugees from “bad” refugees, the borders are closed.

Third, forget the border fence with Mexico. We build a fence around DC, & then the Administration can import every immigrant they desire as long as they stay within those boundaries.

Done & done. :thumbsup:


#10

…and we wonder why nothing gets done in DC. You don’t have to be a Constitutional genius to see some that won’t fly for one moment. How about our Senators and Congresspeople do crazy stuff like propose and negotiate laws that run the country and have a remote chance of passing instead using them to run for President?


#11

President Carter blocked Iranians from entering the USA, I know it was the 70s but still. Some hysteria with Trump.


#12

But that’s ok. He had compelling reasons other than “HATE”!!

:rolleyes:

How soon we forget


#13

I suppose if you make it a federal law it would stand up. However once someone enters the US I don’t see how you would constitutionally be able to prevent them from migrating to any state.


#14

Yes it is constitutional to block people on the grounds of where they originate. Happens all the time we have caps on immigration from many countries.


#15

Indeed, every country does this sort of thing to one degree of another either through outright bans or more likely visas. Westerners and similar nationalities benefit disproportionately as we often get automatic 90 day tourist/business visas upon entry. This is mainly because we generally have enough money and come from nice enough counties that we reliably leave.

So citizenship is a widely accepted basis for banning or allowing entry into a country. However gender, race, religion, age, and so on are not. Hence the difference between Carter and Trump here.


#16

Good for Cruz.:thumbsup:

The bill he proposed to stop immigration of refugees from countries where ISIS and
al Qaeda are active neatly skirts the complaint that we shouldn’t limit immigration
to any group based upon their religion.

Any one who thinks Cruz doesn’t know the Constitution should think again. >>

Cruz attended elementary and high school in and around Houston, graduated from Princeton University in 1992, and then from Harvard Law School in 1995.

He served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, after being appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic, and the longest-serving solicitor general in Texas history. Cruz was also an adjunct professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, from 2004 to 2009. While there,** he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation.**

Cruz served as a law clerk to J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1995 and William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States in 1996.

Cruz has authored 70 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court.

Cruz successfully defended the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5–4 in Van Orden v. Perry.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz


#17

^^ I very much like Ted Cruz. Impressive achievements.^^


#18

Shhhh. Barry might make another cringeworthy Oval office address…


#19

I wonder if George Stephanopolous will have a special report on this and go into a spittle spraying rant?

Nah. I hear the unrelated Clinton foundation payments are withheld for much less :wink:


#20

We do it to sex offenders. Of course this doesn’t prevent them from moving, but it does make it a crime. Which means that if they are found out, they get arrested.

Heck, if we think gun laws are going to stop criminals from getting guns, why won’t laws stop them from moving from state to state?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.