The States can do nothing, the refugees will be settled wherever the Federal government desires and will receive food stamps, housing assistance, free medical care and monthly cash for living expenses.
This has happened before. Remember when Alabama's Democratic Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway to block black students from entering the the University of Alabama in 1963? Well President John Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and Wallace promptly moved out of the way to avoid violence.
So the answer to the original question would be along the lines of the above.
[This message has been edited by Hudini (edited 11-17-2015).]
PHOENIX – “Given the horrifying events in Paris last week, I am calling for an immediate halt in the placement of any new refugees in Arizona. As governor, I am invoking our state’s right under 8 USC, Section 1522 (a), to receive immediate consultation by federal authorities per the United States Refugee Act, and that the federal government take into account the concerns and recommendations of the state of Arizona as they are required to under federal law, in our efforts to keep our homeland safe. I also call on Congress and the President to immediately amend federal law to provide states greater oversight and authority in the administration of the placement of refugees. These acts serve as a reminder that the world remains at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Our national leaders must react with the urgency and leadership that every American expects to protect our citizens.”
I agree. Though I doubt it will stop the influx, it sends a message to the feds about what the people want. Washington needs to pay more attention to what the U.S. citizens in “flyover country” believe, or things will only get worse.
Here in Arizona, we already have enough of a problem on our southern border, with the unchecked import of drugs and violence.
Just send them to the states that are protecting all the other illegal aliens.
I resent that remark,....by default. BTW, I joke, but I don't want them in America. They belong in their home County and we should be cutting out a "safe zone" for them over there.
This has happened before. Remember when Alabama's Democratic Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway to block black students from entering the the University of Alabama in 1963? Well President John Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and Wallace promptly moved out of the way to avoid violence.
So the answer to the original question would be along the lines of the above.
Governor Faubus in Arkansas used National Guard troops to keep blacks out of High Schools in 1957. President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent them home.
Governor Wallace tried a similar stance in Alabama in 1963 but he didn't use National Guard troops. President Kennedy did federalize some Alabama National Guard troops but they were never used because Wallace backed down later the same day.
The integration of the University of Mississippi earlier in 1962 didn't go as smoothly and turned into a full scale riot. That's the only time I've seen federal troops used against a domestic civilian population but there were other earlier historical events when it happened.
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 11-17-2015).]
More information would help answer the question. Why, would an American be in another American's sights?
Ray is referring to a standoff between State governor controlled national guard troops and national guard or reserve troops called out by the president. Each can, mobilize those guard troops, tho the CiC is the only one AFAIK that can mobilize Army reserve units. The other possibility is federal troops called in to ensure immigration of the refugees but contested by State Guard troops called out by a governor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-17-2015).]
Ray is referring to a standoff between State governor controlled national guard troops and national guard or reserve troops called out by the president. Each can, mobilize those guard troops, tho the CiC is the only one AFAIK that can mobilize Army reserve units. The other possibility is federal troops called in to ensure immigration of the refugees but contested by State Guard troops called out by a governor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard
Ray, Though anything is potentially possible, a state Governor only has control of the Guard units until the President orders them to active duty. Once orders are received from the higher authority, the game is over.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Ray, Though anything is potentially possible, a state Governor only has control of the Guard units until the President orders them to active duty. Once orders are received from the higher authority, the game is over.
not so, If they really believe in the oath they took, by your thinking, if urkel, oops Obama ordered them to collect all non liberals, they'd also follow orders ?? I think any service man/woman would stand down to an order to force Americans to take in refugees..
Cause if they ever did that.. we'd all know they are not service men/women for protecting us, and are working for an enemy..
Ray, in my opinion, individuals on either side of the coin may refuse to open fire, but generally, the 2 groups would pull the trigger on each other.
Why? Once people are separated into groups, a strange transformation takes place. A "Us vs Them" transformation and it really does't matter who the 'them' is. Now, the longer the time period between the separation and the actual encounter, the stronger the likelihood that more individuals would balk, but if, in that extended time period, indoctrination were implemented, the higher the likelihood that each group would in fact engage in mortal combat with the other side. The American Civil War was no fluke, and neither was any civil war around the world. Neighbors killed neighbors and brothers killed brothers, tho maybe not on an individual and personal basis. The real question is, will the military and it's unit officers and senior NCOs allow itself to be separated into 2 opposing sides? That, is where the major 'refusal' will originate. For instance--if Commandant of Marine Corps tells it's division and wing COs "Standown"- they will more than likely obey CMC instead of their civilian superiors. There has been a long history of corps, division and large unit commanders being able to control their troops regardless of contrary orders from higher up. Troops don't care who is in the White House or in a Governor's mansion--their allegiance is to their commanding officers and senior NCOs. Just ask any of the young guys and women that served under Gen James "mad dog' Mattis.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: I think any service man/woman would stand down to an order to force Americans to take in refugees.. ..
I doubt it. Sadly. They may even be used to disarm American citizens someday.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: Once people are separated into groups, a strange transformation takes place. A "Us vs Them" transformation and it really does't matter who the 'them' is. Now, the longer the time period between the separation and the actual encounter, the stronger the likelihood that more individuals would balk, but if, in that extended time period, indoctrination were implemented, the higher the likelihood that each group would in fact engage in mortal combat with the other side. The American Civil War was no fluke, and neither was any civil war around the world. Neighbors killed neighbors and brothers killed brothers, tho maybe not on an individual and personal basis. The real question is, will the military and it's unit officers and senior NCOs allow itself to be separated into 2 opposing sides? ...
Send them to san fran in cali... muslums don't like gays.. lets see liberal tolerance at work..
That is one of the BEST ideas on topic,..EVER. I would even vote for it. Let's see the liberals problem solve that technicality. Liberals like to say they do not discriminate, so they should be the ones to live with a culture that is as intolerant as they get. Talking about a clash of culture.
They are quick to dump problems on others ,but I want San Fran to show us how it's done as an example BEFORE they are sent anywhere else. In fact why not Washington DC?
I'm very interested in some INFORMED, EXPERIENCED opinions on this subject so, if you don't mind, for once, could we stay on topic?
Are you implying that any of the comments made are off topic? Are you implying that nobody should have an opinion? Are you implying that nobody that has replied in this thread has insight into bad political policy?
If YOU don't mind, could YOU contribute to the topic? This is a very personal topic because it is about public safety as well as VERY possible negative implications in our own back yards. ALL opinions and insight should be welcomed or considered to some degree.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 11-18-2015).]
They discussed this exact problem on radio a few days ago. The Congress has it in the US Constitution the final say on any immigrants is with the state. They purposely declined giving that authority to the Federal Government for just this reason. The Congress and Fed government ONLY can list the requirements of anyone wanting to immigrate. Any enforcement is given to the states in question. So someone show me where you think the Feds have the right to put immigrants wherever they want as it would be laid out in the Constitution. A few of the representives have pointed out there is nothing giving the Fed Government any authority to do such.The people have been given a whitewash story for years that the Feds have the say so and apparently they do not. Obuma on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge the Constitution anyway, so he might try to intimidate states to doing things his way...as he always likes to do. If the government wants to let them in the US, I have no problem with them being kept in a fenced and guarded area within a US Military base and housed and fed on that bases present budget. Obuma wants them, let him cover the costs.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 11-18-2015).]
I say we should send them all to some closed military base like Loring here in northern Maine. Let them sit there while they are checking them all out, one by one. And if they can't prove they are not terrorist then back they go. Lets see how they like their new country when they have to live threw a northern Maine winter.
We have how many closed military bases in this country, ship them all there and keep them there. Check them out like they were giving them top secret clearance, check their friends and family's out all the way back to the stone age, and oh ya, Boogie Woogie can pay the bill for that out of his own dam pocket, not mine.
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 11-18-2015).]
What would they do if presented with this admittedly terrible choice?
"SENIOR" NCOs Ray--there's a difference. E7 and above. They will have had years of experience, much of it in combat and the politics of combat, knowing when to fire and when to hold fire. The young E-4-E6...not so much. I believe the Senior NCOs would refuse the order, especially if it came from a young butterball Lt or even a Capt, (those are the officer pay grades that usaully command a fire team or rifle platoon). The troops themselves would follow the senior NCOs, as few people have any real respect for the lower echelon officers., especially if those officers are aviation influenced. (Yes, they get saluted, but they generally get laughed at behind their backs, especially by .......Senior NCOs.)
Are you implying that any of the comments made are off topic? Are you implying that nobody should have an opinion? Are you implying that nobody that has replied in this thread has insight into bad political policy?
If YOU don't mind, could YOU contribute to the topic? This is a very personal topic because it is about public safety as well as VERY possible negative implications in our own back yards. ALL opinions and insight should be welcomed or considered to some degree.
On the face of it, a ridiculous post. You are looking for a fight but you won't find one here.
Now go away, please.
Don, thank you for sticking to the subject and for clarifying what I suspected to be the case.
I can only hope that, push comes to shove, the senior NCO's would do the right thing.
Bear in mind Ray, that it has been 3 decades since I wore a uniform (4 yrs USMC-Then 5 yrs USN) but things have not changed all that much in regards to the respect the line troops and ship's company hold for those senior NCOs (US Army/USMC) Senior Petty officers (USN/USCG). This fact is not lost on the officer corps either, and they did (at least back in those days), seek advice and guidance from those senior NCOs..
Guys like this,
chew up and spit out guys like this every day, tho usually in a diplomatic way.
BUT, throw a charismatic, tough and well seasoned leader like these into the mix, and all bets are off. General Boomer--CO All Marine forces Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
General Mattis-call sign and nom de guerre= 'chaos' --every Marine--active, reserve, retired or just Marine knows the name. We’ve backed off in good faith to try and give you a chance to straighten this problem out. But I am going to beg with you for a minute. I'm going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years. But leaders like those 2 don't come along every day.
