LOL! Don’t miss “notable rulings” by Clinton-appointed Judge Peter Jo Messitte at wikipedia. He banned use of words “Redskins” from his court in 2014. I think you can see how the POLITICAL winds are blowing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Jo_Messitte
Of course I wasn’t there and you can never completely believe the media spin by major news outlets like the Associated Press, but past experience informs us that, yes, the federal judge hearing the refugee contractors’ case is sympathetic to the three federal refugee contractors and not the Trump Administration.
In fact, he asked the contractors’ attorney if this was a political move by the President.
Did he ask the complainers if they were operating with political motives? I bet not!
Why isn’t he simply looking at the LAW?
(By the way, be sure to see Michelle Malkin’s excellent pieceon the President vs. the contractors yesterday to see the long list of the Open Borders activists expected to be in attendance for the political press conference the contractors held after the hearing.)
Judge weighs bid to stop Trump’s refugee resettlement limit
But of course this isn’t political for the contractors (ha!) as they held a press conference outside the court house after the hearing. Looks like they had a small crowd.
GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge on Wednesday pressed a government lawyer to explain why President Donald Trump signed an executive order allowing state and local governments to reject refugees, questioning whether the change was politically motivated.
U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Maryland didn’t immediately rule on a request by three national refugee resettlement agencies for a preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from enforcing the order.
During a hearing on the request, the judge said the president’s order essentially changed a federal law governing the resettlement of refugees.
“On what authority is the president acting?” Messitte asked Justice Department attorney Bradley Humphreys.
Humphreys said the 1980 Refugee Act gives the president “ample authority” to make such a change.
“Why change it now?” Messitte asked. “Is it purely a political thing?”
Humphreys said the executive order is designed to enhance the involvement of state and local officials in the process of resettling refugees. But he insisted it doesn’t give them a “veto” over resettlement decisions.
The Trump administration announced in November that resettlement agencies must get written consent from state and local officials in any jurisdiction where they want to help resettle refugees beyond June 2020.
Church World Service, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and HIAS — a Jewish nonprofit — filed the lawsuit in Greenbelt, Maryland, on Nov. 21. They are three of the nine national organizations*** agencies that have agreements with the federal government to provide housing and other services for refugees. [Notice AP won’t say that there is federal money involved for the contractors.—ed]
They have been providing these resettlement services for decades,” plaintiffs’ attorney Justin Cox said. [Makes it sound like it’s all being done with their private ‘religious’ charity.—ed]
At least 41 states have publicly agreed to accept refugees, but a governor’s decision doesn’t preclude local officials from refusing to give their consent.
For instance, the Democratic mayor of Springfield, Massachusetts, has refused to give written consent for refugees to be resettled in the city. [This especially grates on Hetfield because the subcontractor being shut out in Springfield is one of HIAS’s subcontractors.—ed]
HIAS President Mark Hetfield called it “unacceptable and un-American” that refugees could be banned from living in cities or even entire states.He said the executive order doesn’t explain how the secretary of state could override a governor or county official’s refusal to give consent.
“It’s even worse than a veto,” Hetfield said. “It’s very clear that we can’t even submit for a place unless we think that they’re going to consent.”
LOL! He says they can’t “submit for a place!”
That is code for ‘we can’t put our applications into the US State Department for our MONEY’—the money that flowed to them by the millions for decades from your (taxpayer) wallets to their salaries, overhead, travel and so forth.
***For new readers these (below) are the nine federally-funded refugee contractors that operate as a huge conveyor belt monopolizing all refugee placement in America.
A ‘religious’ message from CWS one of three federally funded contractors suing to stop the President’s effort to reform the UN-driven Refugee Admissions Program.
And, they do not limit their advocacy toward only legal immigration programs, but are heavily involved in supporting the lawlessness at our borders.
The question isn’t as much about refugees per se, but about who is running federal immigration policy now and into the future?
(I plan to say this once a day from now on!)
I continue to argue that these nine contractors are the heart of America’s Open Borders movement and thus there can never be long-lasting reform of US immigration policy when these nine un-elected phony non-profits are paid by the taxpayers to work as community organizers pushing an open borders agenda.
7 thoughts on “Federal Judge Gives Warm Reception to Refugee Contractors and their Bid to Stop Trump Refugee Reform”
Does the judge’s decision need to be made prior to the January 21 deadline for the contractors to request their funding? If the judge rules against President Trump are we back to “square one” with the counties, cities, states being completely left out of the refugee resettlement process? Doesn’t the Refugee Act of 1980 “require” the contractors to consult and report to the states and also Congress?
Yes, probably back to square one. Yes, there are requirements for consultation but they have been generally ignored. I think I’ll start a series tomorrow on how citizens can find more information. I’ve been through it a bunch over the years, but realize I must go back to the basics from time to time now that there is a resurgence of interest in the program.
Humphreys said the 1980 Refugee Act gives the president “ample authority” to make such a change.
“Why change it now?” Messitte asked. “Is it purely a political thing?”
So if I went into Judge Messitte’s courtroom as a lawyer defending a client and the Judge made a ruling against my client and I asked him; Why did you find my defendant guilty? What’s going on inside that head of yours? I question your authority to make this finding. What happened did you make your ruling based on politics?”
If I pulled a stunt like that in this Judges courtroom I would have been found in contempt of court at the least and at the worst held in jail for a period to be determined by the Judge.
The moment Judge Messitte uttered the words; “Why change it now? Is it purely a political thing?” Humphreys should have taken his papers and walked out of the court an immediately filed a charge under 28 U.S. Code § 144. Bias or prejudice of a judge, and have him removed from the case.
That’s the problem, a large majority of lawyers are weak kneed. They don’t want to risk losing what they have by standing up to a judge especially a government lawyer with a pension to lose.
In any case involving issues that have a bearing on the life or death of our Republic any lawyer that decides to stand up to defend our Western values must have the mindset that they are like a mouse that has been cornered by a wolf. The mouse summons up the primal drive to survive or die trying and with teeth bared, charges at the wolf unconcerned that he may lose everything doing so.
If our opponents win and have their way our Republic will be gone, and along with it cushy government lawyer jobs and judges jobs along with pensions will pass away too.
We all must continue to charge forward. Thank you Ann for all your hard work and sacrifice, it does not go unappreciated.
“If quick, I survive.
If not quick, I am lost.
This is “death.”― Sun Tzu
Does the judge’s decision need to be made prior to the January 21 deadline for the contractors to request their funding? If the judge rules against President Trump are we back to “square one” with the counties, cities, states being completely left out of the refugee resettlement process? Doesn’t the Refugee Act of 1980 “require” the contractors to consult and report to the states and also Congress?
Yes, probably back to square one. Yes, there are requirements for consultation but they have been generally ignored. I think I’ll start a series tomorrow on how citizens can find more information. I’ve been through it a bunch over the years, but realize I must go back to the basics from time to time now that there is a resurgence of interest in the program.
Humphreys said the 1980 Refugee Act gives the president “ample authority” to make such a change.
“Why change it now?” Messitte asked. “Is it purely a political thing?”
So if I went into Judge Messitte’s courtroom as a lawyer defending a client and the Judge made a ruling against my client and I asked him; Why did you find my defendant guilty? What’s going on inside that head of yours? I question your authority to make this finding. What happened did you make your ruling based on politics?”
If I pulled a stunt like that in this Judges courtroom I would have been found in contempt of court at the least and at the worst held in jail for a period to be determined by the Judge.
The moment Judge Messitte uttered the words; “Why change it now? Is it purely a political thing?” Humphreys should have taken his papers and walked out of the court an immediately filed a charge under 28 U.S. Code § 144. Bias or prejudice of a judge, and have him removed from the case.
That’s the problem, a large majority of lawyers are weak kneed. They don’t want to risk losing what they have by standing up to a judge especially a government lawyer with a pension to lose.
In any case involving issues that have a bearing on the life or death of our Republic any lawyer that decides to stand up to defend our Western values must have the mindset that they are like a mouse that has been cornered by a wolf. The mouse summons up the primal drive to survive or die trying and with teeth bared, charges at the wolf unconcerned that he may lose everything doing so.
If our opponents win and have their way our Republic will be gone, and along with it cushy government lawyer jobs and judges jobs along with pensions will pass away too.
We all must continue to charge forward. Thank you Ann for all your hard work and sacrifice, it does not go unappreciated.
“If quick, I survive.
If not quick, I am lost.
This is “death.”― Sun Tzu
Thanks for that excellent analysis (and your kind words). I would love to post this as a ‘comment worth noting’…. May I?
I trust that if you believe my comment may assist the cause in some small way, then by all means do so. Thank you very much Ann.