
At least 16 governors,
all but one of them Republican, have vowed not to accept any refugees from
Syria into their states in response to the revelation that one of the Paris
terrorists may have entered Europe as part of a wave of migrants from the
war-torn region. The move complicates the Obama administration’s plan to accept
10,000 Syrians into the country over the next year.
“I will not stand
complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way,” Gov.
Robert Bentley of Alabama announced Monday. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal also
refused to accept any more refugees and demanded that the Obama administration
“confirm the identities” of 59 Syrians recently settled in his state. The
governors of Indiana, Michigan, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Maine and Arizona also stated their opposition to
accepting Syrian refugees. Meanwhile, presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Ted
Cruz have suggested that only Christians from the region should be granted
refuge.
“That’s shameful.
That’s not American, it’s not who we are,“ President Obama responded Monday.
These governors are
likely standing on shaky ground, as there is no legal way for them to prevent
refugee resettlement, according to multiple experts. And their opposition is
largely symbolic, since once Syrians (or any refugees) are in the U.S., they
have the right to travel anywhere they want, just like any other resident. If
the Obama administration wanted to challenge these governors on their threats,
they would handily beat them in court, experts say.
Lavinia Limon, former
director of the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement under Pres. Bill Clinton,
said these governors misunderstand the Constitution.
“It’s really a question
of fundamental freedoms,” Limon said. “If you’re legally residing in the United
States, you have the right to move wherever you wish to. We could resettle a
refugee in New York City today, and tomorrow they could decide to move to
Dallas.”
But that might not
matter. Refugee resettlement involves the coordination of local nonprofits and
government officials with federal agencies, and forcing newly arrived legal residents
into communities that don’t want them likely sounds unappealing to everyone
involved.
“My suspicion is that
if a state was firmly opposed to having Syrian refugees in their borders then
as an initial matter, the government might choose to put them somewhere else,”
said Jack Chin, a law professor at the University of California at Davis. “Why
fight that fight?”
State Department
spokesman Mark Toner’s muted reaction to the governors’ threats on Monday
seemed to confirm that suspicion. Toner told reporters Monday that the
department’s lawyers were reviewing the question of whether governors could
refuse to settle Syrian refugees. He struck a conciliatory note, saying he
understood the governors’ concerns but reassured them that the department’s
security vetting of Syrian refugees was thorough.
No comments:
Post a Comment