Bill to allow NH cities to impose a moratorium on refugee resettlement gets a hearing

The New Hampshire legislature heard testimony this week from proponents and opponents of a bill that seeks a short-term moratorium on the resettlement of more refugees to that state.   Long time readers know that especially Manchester, NH has been a hotbed of controversy after the city leaders have repeatedly said the city cannot handle more refugees (here is just one recent post).

Here is the story from the Manchester Union Leader (hat tip to many readers who sent the story!).  A law professor claims it is unconstitutional, but I think there are wording changes that can be made to handle that supposed problem.

CONCORD — A bill allowing communities to impose a one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement is probably unconstitutional, a law professor told a House committee Thursday.

House Bill 1405 had both its supporters and detractors at a public hearing Thursday before the House Municipal and County Government Committee.

Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has called for a moratorium on refugee resettlement until the “city can catch its breath” after about 300 refugees a year have been resettled in the city over the last few years.

Gatsas supported HB 1405 Thursday, saying the city needs time to allow the refugees currently in the community to settle into the system, get jobs and become productive citizens.

Gatsas said communication with the resettlement agencies, the state and the federal government has been poor.

“We need to take a breath, step back and figure out how to do this right,”Gatsas said at the hearing.

Along with allowing a one-year moratorium, HB 1405 would require more communication between the state, resettlement agencies and the communities where refugees are placed.

Proponents of the measure say the bill is similar to the successful bill signed into law in Tennessee last year, posted here.

Of course the federal contractors who get paid to resettle refugees are opposing the measure.

Representatives of Lutheran Social Services of New England and the International Institute of New Hampshire spoke against the bill.

The original Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980 does have a provision to opt-out of the program.  Just a reminder that the state of Wyoming does not resettle refugees (they may move there as secondary migrants, but there is no Wyoming program).  I don’t know why lawyers for opponents are not looking at ways to opt-out completely.

To tell you the truth, as this program comes under greater scrutiny, I think the Open Borders political activists (looking for more multicultural Democratic voters) will just direct their attention to backdoor amnesty for illegals, the asylum program, the diversity visa lottery, the treaty investor programs (immigrants buying convenience stores) and the temporary protected status program to pour more poverty/voters into your cities and towns in order to further destabilize your community.  They are working on a long-term plan to change America, plain and simple.