There is a clear divide among the states. Some are very welcoming and eager to take in Syrian refugees. While others are resistant and seek to opt out of the program design to resettle the refugees. So a judge has decided which states are right and which are wrong.
The Washington Times reports
Judge Richard Posner, writing for the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said there’s no evidence that Syrians are more dangerous, and he said even if they are, allowing Indiana to refuse to resettle them would only foist the problem onto neighboring states.
“Federal law does not allow a governor to deport to other states immigrants he deems dangerous,” Judge Posner wrote, saying the governor should instead report his fears to federal bureaucrats for redress.
Now this comes on the heels of the report that there was a great likelihood that there were terrorists hid among the refugees. The leaked document stated that there was a high probability of radicals and terror agents mixing themselves within the group of people that we are trying to help.
And according to the Washington Times, the number of Syrians processed this year could double from that of last year.
A number of states balked last year when President Obama announced he wanted to accept some 10,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016. The administration blew past that goal, with a final tally of 12,587 Syrians as of Friday, which marked the last day of the fiscal year.
Mr. Obama hasn’t set a Syrian target for 2017, but at the pace of the last few months, the U.S. could process as many as 30,000. Still, the year got off to a slow start with just 17 refugees in the first few days: a family of nine that was resettled in New York and a family of eight settled in Massachusetts.
And all the states must take what the Fed gives, like it or not.