Do you know the reasons behind Texas, and other states refusing Syrian Refugees?

Cause Texans don't take kindly to Syrian refugees because they don't trust them. And why should they?

Isn't it easier to just come here on a tourist visa? Why wouldn't the terrorists try that instead?

if the governor of texas wants to protect his people he should institute gun control - a texan with a gun seems to be like a lieutenant with a compass

accept those young men only if they are coming with their Entire Families: mom, dad, younger siblings, then you will have system of warning of my son is acting strange, younger siblings will americanize fast, however there is risk of americanized sisters driving elder brother over the edge to radicalization. and accept young men who are coming with wives and children. the refugees are running from the terrorists, if you ban the refugees, you are giving IS just what they want.

"Do you know the reasons behind Texas, and other states refusing Syrian Refugees?"

Plain as the nose on your face.

Americans are cowards and racists.

Walt

Surprisingly red states say no to refugees

Here is a very thorough article concerning the refugee process and the concerns about bringing Syrian refugees here. Good information. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/can-terrorists-really-infiltrate-the-syrian-refugee-program/416475/

" As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.

Just in case there is any doubt, President Obama has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the president may admit refugees who face “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States, and the president’s power to do so is particularly robust if they determine that an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” such as the Syrian refugee crisis exists.

This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. Indeed, in describing the executive branch’s broad authority to make discretionary calls regarding immigration matters, Arizona seemed to explicitly contemplate the circumstances that face President Obama today. The United States may wish to allow a foreign national to remain within its borders, the Court explained, because the individual’s home nation “may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return.”