The governors denied cooperation with the U.S. State Department’s Refugee Admission Program after hearing evidence that leaders of the Paris attacks snuck into Europe as refugees under false identities. Many governors, such as Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, have stated their views are for protection of the country and “will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm's way” (Flores). Multiple of them had additionally stated that they are not completely against a ban on refugees, but would like an increase in travel security and scrutiny of refugees entering the US. In addition, states have taken action limit nonprofit and private groups from helping with refugee resettlement. Despite the action taken by states, the national government has taken additional action to manage the Syrian refugee …show more content…
Executive and Legislative Branch have opposing views, but one view reigns over the states. President Obama and his administration has approved the acceptance of Syrian refugees and has increased the number greatly within the past three years. However, Congressional Republicans have attempted multiple bills to increase the amount of screening of refugees and limit the refugee amounts. Despite action from Congress, the Executive Branch has cooperated with the Judicial Branch to overrule the constitutionality of state's decisions to regulate refugees. Within the past few weeks, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Gov. Mike Pence was unconstitutional in ruling that the state of Indiana could not discriminate refugees from the State Department. The judges ruled that “there’s no evidence that Syrians are more dangerous than other refugees, and he said even if they are, allowing Indiana to refuse to resettle them would only foist the problem onto neighboring states” (Dinan). The court panel continued to describe that the state did not have to cooperate with resettling refugees, but would have to listen to the federal government’s