FRANCE, November 19, 2015– On Wednesday, French President Francois Hollande announced that France would still accept upwards of 30,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years despite the recent ISIS terror attacks on Paris that left at least 129 dead.
“30,000 refugees will be welcomed over the next two years. Our country has the duty to respect this commitment,” said Hollande.
Receiving a standing ovation, Hollande made the announcement while meeting with mayors from across France.
“We have to reinforce our borders while remaining true to our values,” said Hollande as he noted that it was France’s “humanitarian duty” to honor their commitments to refugees.
Meanwhile, the majority of American governors have called upon the federal government to not place Syrian refugees in the respective states.
[RELATED: Judge Napolitano: States Cannot ‘Refuse’ Refugees Under Federal Law]
While President Obama has made attempts to paint the refusal of accepting refugees as a partisan issue driven by Republicans, a handful of states controlled by democratic state legislators and governors have also demanded that no refugees be placed within their states including Massachusetts and Maryland, which are considered the most democratic states in America.
“As governor of Maryland, the safety and security of Marylanders remains my first priority,” said Maryland’s Democrat Governor Larry Hogan. “Following the terrorist attacks on Paris just four days ago, and after careful consideration, I am now requesting that federal authorities cease any additional settlements of refugees from Syria in Maryland until the U.S. government can provide appropriate assurances that refugees from Syria pose no threat to public safety.”
As of Tuesday, more than two dozen governors issued statements saying that they would not be accepting refugees. Meanwhile, another half dozen say they will, but not without increased vetting.
The move by these governors has created a constitutional crisis of sorts. Many, including President Obama, say that states have no say in the matter. Meanwhile, others disagree and believe the issue may make its way to the Supreme Court.