“I was a stranger, and you did your best to starve me, my wife, and our four year old…”

“I was a stranger, and you did your best to starve me, my wife, and our four year old…” December 18, 2015
Governor Deal is acting like a goat.  Goats don’t have happy endings.  Sign the petition and help Governor Deal repent of being a goat.

“After successfully fleeing war-torn Syria in an effort to escape ISIS, Mohammad and his wife Ebtesam, along with their 4-year-old son, were resettled near Atlanta, GA.  Having had his attempt to block Syrian refugees from coming to the state, Governor Nathan Deal ordered that state agencies not assist with the resettlement in any way.

This led to the Department of Human Services refusing to process the family’s application for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.  Fortunately, the good people at World Relief and Johnson Ferry Baptist Church are helping with the newly settled family, but this isn’t enough.

Local churches and organizations should not have to step in due to Governor Deal’s refusal to implement federal law as required under the statutes of our great nation.  Additionally, there’s only so much these two groups can do. By refusing benefits, Governor Deal is essentially trying to starve this family out of Georgia.

Governor Deal and the Georgia Department of Human Services are in direct violation of federal law that says “states cannot discriminate based on national origin or religion” when it comes to implementing federal programs like SNAP.  Deal has stated that he’ll defend his decision in court even though it will cost the taxpayers money.

Even his own attorney general, Sam Olens, has stated that Deal has no legal ground to do this and that he hopes litigation can be avoided.  Mr. Olens, it can.  Governor Deal must immediately rescind his executive order commanding state agencies ignore federal law and allow this application to be processed.

Any other choice will simply cost taxpayer money with the exact same outcome.”


"I shared all your concerns at one point. But …This movie is apparently centering on ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"It shouldn't be that hard to write a script capturing Tolkien. Just write a movie ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"Then you will appreciate this....The Louisville Courier-Journal reports:Should pregnant women be monitored by the state? ..."

Simcha Fisher Has a Great Idea

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • keithmestrada

    This guy sounds like he’s being an ass

  • Dave G.

    Another thing I’m going to miss from CAEI is the nuanced and careful examination of complex issues that so often takes place. We’re on the side of the angels, and they’re on the side of the demons. It’s so simple. And as always, quite popular. FWIW, I disagree with the governor’s actions.

    • jroberts548

      What’s complex about this? Deal has no legal authority whatsoever to discriminate here. There isn’t anything in the constitution to suggest he might have authority. He has no colorable argument. It would be just as blatantly illegal to declare himself king of Georgia. What nuance is there to discuss?

      • LFM

        The habit of ignoring the Constitution and the law to impose the policies one really wants was set before Governor Deal took this action.

        • jroberts548


          • LFM

            So it has become a worthless complaint that makes no impression on anyone. Nearly all the progressive movement’s “achievements” of the last 50 years or so, from abortion on demand to same-sex marriage, have been achieved at the expense of the law, misreadings of the Constitution, and similar devices, usually coupled with the insistence that certain rights, arbitrarily defined, should always take precedence over the legislative process and democracy. Once you’ve broke a rule repeatedly, it’s difficult to persuade others to take it seriously.

            • jroberts548

              What does that have to do with Syrian refugees and Nathan Deal?

            • jroberts548

              If you don t think the government has to obey the law, it’s a stupid criticism for you to levy at roe and obergefell.

              • LFM

                I do think governments have to obey the law. The rest of your comment is obscure to me: why is that a stupid criticism to levy at Roe and Obergefell, under the circumstances? Those were deliberate and successful efforts to subvert the process of law-making by democratic debate. Many people have come to believe that their elected representatives are indifferent to their views. But now a few of those elected representatives – Deal? – are turning to a kind of extra-legal populist nativism because they sense this might be a way to win support.

                As far as I can tell as a non-American, one of the major reasons in the US behind the anger directed at refugees is that for so long illegal immigrants were allowed to enter your country with little official effort to stop or contain them. Neither of your political parties supported such an effort. Those who were upset that their hospitals, roads and schools were inundated by the tide of newcomers found no voice anywhere. It is not surprising that the voice they have now found is an angry one, or that they show a certain contempt for the law. After all, so did the politicians who turned a blind eye to illegal immigration.

                • jroberts548

                  You can’t tell me that it’s wrong for the Supreme Court to misinterpret the constitution in roe and obergefell while telling me that it’s right for state governors to completely disobey the constitution.

                  Illegal immigration and taking in refugees don’t have anything to do with each other. If you’re mad about one and you take it out on refugees (who are legal immigrants), that’s a personal problem.

                  No one has pointed to anything that makes Deal’s actions even plausibly justified.

                  • LFM

                    Illegal immigration and taking in refugees don’t have anything to do with each other? Only if you regard both as theoretical legal problems. If you bear in mind that both groups of people require access to housing, services and public funds, the link between the two might – perhaps – come more clearly into focus for you. It might become even clearer if you consider that Georgia has received many thousands of illegal Latino immigrants in recent decades and is a poorer state. I understand that refugees usually receive money from federal sources to help re-settle them, but that does not change the fact that existing public resources like hospitals, schools and roads – for people who cannot afford a private option – are likely to become strained in such areas.

                    I do not think that Deal’s actions are right or justified and I think he ought to be censured for them.

                    • jroberts548

                      Yes, they are different as a legal problem. As a policy problem, I don’t care because state governors don’t have any legal authority at all to set their own immigration policy.

                      Public resources in Georgia are strained by people moving there. But the governor doesn’t have any more legal authority to keep out Yankee immigrants than he does refugees. States don’t have immigration policies. It’s one of the powers they gave up by ratifying the constitution. If Georgia wanted the power to set its own immigration policy, it should have thought about that before joining the union, or, alternatively, done a better job in its efforts to leave.

                      The Atlanta area has more than doubled in size in twenty years. Atlanta could take in all ten thousand Syrians that the US plans on taking in and it wouldn’t even make traffic worse.

                    • LFM

                      “f Georgia wanted the power to set its own immigration policy, it should have thought about that before joining the union, or, alternatively, done a better job in its efforts to leave.”

                      Better not make statements like that. They might provoke what they deny. One of the rights fought for – and won – by the province of Quebec in Canada was the right to set its own immigration policy. If you don’t want anything like that to happen in the US (a far less centralized state than Canada), don’t go giving people ideas.

                      I expect you’re right about Atlanta.

                  • Marthe Lépine

                    I think what LFM is trying to demonstrate is that, if it is feasible to break the constitution to push through what one side of the population – those on the so-called left – seems to want, such as was done for “Roe vs”, it sets a precedent for the other side – the so-called right – to try to try to do the same thing to pursue what they want. But my understanding might be wrong.

                    • LFM

                      Indeed, that’s part of what I was trying to say, and I expect that’s how those opposed to the settling of the refugees in their state may see it. I don’t think that that’s the whole of it, though. But see my comment below discussing attitudes to illegal immigration and to refugees, and why there is a link between the two in fact, even if there is none in the law.

                    • jroberts548

                      It’s still a stupid argument. If disregarding the constitution is wrong when done by the left, it’s still wrong when done by the right.

                    • LFM

                      I never denied it.

                      Have you never heard of the “thin end of the wedge”? Once you’ve opened a small crack in a door with a thin wedge, it’s easier to force it to open wide.

                      That is ALL I’m saying. No approval or disapproval. A little sympathy, perhaps, for hapless provincials who find themselves surrounded by strangers whose ways they don’t understand.

                  • Hezekiah Garrett

                    She didn’t say one was wrong and the other right. She said your complaint is stupid and toothless considering how much its been done to death.

                    Your Constitution ceased to matter decades ago, and you haven’t even noticed.

  • LFM

    For another side to such stories;

    And yes, I know respectable people are not supposed to pay any attention to the Daily Mail (or Fox News, or Canada’s now-defunct Sun News), but what other paper even looks at this side of the story in any kind of detail, except to dismiss the people involved as racists?

    • jroberts548

      What does that have to do with Georgia?

      • LFM

        People from the US look at the forcible imposition of immigrants on communities that are already feeling the pinch of “austerity” and wonder if the same thing could happen to them. You really are a painfully literal-minded man, Sir.

        • jroberts548

          Good thing the state department is doing the exact opposite and trying to settle refugees in large metro areas, like Atlanta, that are better equipped to absorb the impact.

          • LFM

            Yes of course. But there’s no guarantee that more refugees won’t keep coming, and that after a time they will not begin to move around.

  • BHG

    “The local churhes and organizations should not have to step in because of Governor Deal’s refusal..” In my mind you have it backward.

    • Alma Peregrina

      I see you didn’t quote the full sentence:

      “… to implement federal law as required under the statutes of our great nation.”

      It makes all the difference.

    • Kathryn Coe

      you make a good point. This is an opportunity for churches to step up and be the visible Christ to the world. If charity comes from the government, then what need is there to be grateful to God?

  • Gallibus

    Have him arrested!