Three Republicans have said they will work to stop or at least curtail further resettlement to the state if elected.

From Twin Cities Pioneer Press:

Some Republican candidates want to suspend refugee resettlement in Minnesota. Can they do that?

 

Minnesota has welcomed thousands of refugees since the federal resettlement process was set in 1980. So why does a trio of key Republicans up for election want to stop the program now?

Well, it depends on whom you ask.

Jeff Johnson, Jim Newberger and Jim Hagedorn have each said they will ask the federal government to pause refugee resettlement in Minnesota if elected Tuesday. And they’ve each made it a key issue in their campaigns.

Johnson, who is running for governor, said he is concerned about how much it costs taxpayers, as well as high unemployment rates among Somali men.

Hagedorn, who is running for U.S. House in the 1st Congressional District, claims refugees are poorly vetted and pose a threat to national security.

Newberger, a candidate for U.S. Senate, alleges that some refugees don’t want to follow American law.

The Democrats running against them support the state’s openness to refugees, arguing that they strengthen local communities. Immigration experts and advocates say that Republicans’ opposition to the program is purely political and misses the benefits the newcomers provide.

The story goes on to tell us that all the Democrats running in the state have spoken out in favor of more refugees for the state claiming that the refugees have benefited the state by bringing cultural diversity and that the refugees fill cheap labor needs (of course that last is my phrase).

More here.

As for the question: Can they stop resettlement if elected?

I’m not going to wander in to the legal weeds on that. There is still a lawsuit pending in Tennessee on the issue of State’s Rights that holds some hope for relief.

Suffice it to say, if Minnesotans elect these outspoken Republicans, and they forcefully take their concern to the President and his US State Department, the flow could be diverted away from Minnesota for now (as long as Trump is in the White House).

Of course the open borders Leftists (and the federal resettlement agencies) will say that its the ‘unwelcoming’ attitude in the state that requires the slowdown in placement there.  (Code for calling you racists!).

I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no easy legal avenue that would allow Minnesotans to take a break from the contentiousness there now.

However, I know for sure if enough Minnesotans make enough political noise and elect candidates willing to speak as strongly as these three, you have a fighting chance of saving taxpayer dollars, staying safe, and maintaining some control of who is placed*** in your state by Washington and federal resettlement contractors.

In other words—there is no rest for the weary!

*** Of course, as Minnesota knows all too well, secondary migrants are moving in from other states to be with their own ethnic ‘community’ there and there is no way to stop that migration.