Reader Marcus says I never answer his e-mails and tweets. He does have a point and it is something I feel awful about—it is just me here and if I answered every e-mail I receive every day, I would have no time to research and write stories and I would have no life at all.
So for that I continue to apologize and to be honest it is the fact that I can’t answer all of your e-mails that every day makes me want to hang it up after nearly 13 years of continuous posting either here or at‘Frauds and Crooks.’
Here is Marcus (he says I won’t post his comment!). By the way, I screen comments and I am awfully slow at getting to that job too. This is from yesterday.
We need a National Mandate on forced deportations for refugees and illegal aliens.
PS.. to the lady who runs this site, thanks for never answering my tweets and email.
You’re exactly like a politician, you care nothing about the people that support you. [Support? How?—ed]
I know you’ll delete this comment too, liberals like you don’t like criticism.
He is right about twitter. I’ve slacked off on twitter lately. It is all just a competition for who can post the most titillating tidbits aimed at a small segment of America.
As a volunteer writer I could hang around twitter or facebook for a big chunk of the day, tweeting, retweeting, commenting and so forth, or I could research and write posts.
Now, I’ll see what I think would be something that readers might like to hear about (would find useful) and at the same time is something I want to write about (whether I have readers like Marcus or not!).
Editor: Thanks to David James for another excellent analysis of the vital question about the resettlement of refugees in the US—do states have any right to say no to the placement of UN/US State Department selected refugees within their borders?
James says yes, and explains that a Migration Policy Institute paper by a legal expert confirmed that in 2011.
Indeed the original Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980 foresaw an opt-in and in practice that opt-in has been ignored for nearly 4 decades, Trump is attempting to fix that as I have been explainingin recent days.
The primary reason you should be involved now is that you should have a say in how your state and local taxes are spent (not some federally funded NGO operating out of New York City, Washington or Baltimore).
Soros Funded Immigration Think Tank Said States Can Reject Refugees
The self-described non-partisan Soros-fundedMigration Policy Institute (MPI), was light years ahead of President Trump about the limited authority of the federal government to force refugee resettlement in states which say no thanks.
In 2011, the MPI issued apaper titled, The Faltering U.S. Refugee Protection System: Legal and Policy Responses to Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Others in Need of Protection, written by lawyer Donald Kerwin, Exec. Dir. of Center for Migration Studies and former ED of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, a subsidiary of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The USCCB is also one of the busiest federal resettlement contractors whose last available financial statement in 2017 showed $50 million dollars in federal grants comprising 94% of the USCCB budget for migration and refugee services.
States have rights!
Kerwin wrote that states need to say yes to refugees before the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees & Migration (PRM) resettles refugees in any state:
Resettlement agencies (many affiliated with VOLAGs] meet with state and local officials on a quarterly basis regarding the opportunities and services available to refugees in local communities and the ability of these communities to accommodate new arrivals. They also consult with the state refugee coordinator on placement plans for each local site. PRM provides ORR and states with proposed VOLAG placement plans. If a state opposes the plan, PRM will not approve it.
During a 2010 U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, testimony from Fort Wayne, Indiana and Clarkson, Georgia city officials stated that they had never been consulted or given notice by resettlement agencies or PRM about upcoming resettlement plans.
There’s plenty of evidence that even if these consultations actually take place, they only happen between like-minded bureaucrats and not with say, state legislators on the finance committees.
Remember too, that in states which have withdrawn from the resettlement program, the state refugee coordinator is typically an NGO which has its own refugee resettlement program heavily dependent on keeping the federal cash flowing to its bank account.
Another dirty little secret about refugee placements is that decisions about “capacity” at the local level for resettlement is left up to the federal contractors whose financial well-being is directly tied to how many refugees they can bring in during the fiscal year.
The US General Accounting Office found that “capacity” can pretty much mean anything the contractor wants it to mean including its own “long-term funding needs.”
It’s not clear what Kerwin’s basis was for his concession to a state’s authority to reject a proposed refugee resettlement plan. But Tennessee’s lawsuit offers a legally viable and coherent explanation – the federal government’s admission to shifting the costs of its refugee program to state governments in violation of the Tenth Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Not only that, but the refugee resettlement program was designed originally as an opt-in. The 1980 Act has no language authorizing a replacement after state withdrawal but is structured as an opt-in program for states just like other federal spending programs. It wasn’t until 1994, that the state withdrawal/ORR replacement provisions were added to the regulations.
When a state chooses to withdraw from the federal program ORR, gave itself, by regulation, what the enabling legislation didn’t – the authority to appoint a replacement state designee. Importantly, appointing a replacement state designee, is permissive, not mandatory. In each state that has chosen to withdraw, however, ORR has appointed an NGO resettlement agency as the state’s replacement designee. This has resulted in forced state participation and forced state expenditures for the federal program.
President Trump’s Executive Order reads as if a state can override consent by local governments to bring in refugees. However, the operating details won’t be known until HHS and the State Department issue their guidance on the consent.
Of course, the activist judge who will be deciding the lawsuitbrought by the VOLAGs challenging Trump’s order will have to choose between following the law or legislating from the bench.
Local activists would do well to explain the real fiscal implications to their state legislators and governor of the state being forced to pay the federal freight that Congress has chosen to shift to the state, taking state funding priorities away from the state’s most vulnerable citizens.
Editor: This is a guest post by David James who recently explainedhow the Trump Executive Order will not do what we had all hoped.
Knoxville City Council has voted unanimously to beg Republican Governor Bill Lee for cheap refugee labor and directed their open borders mayor Madeline Rogero, “to send a letter to the U.S. secretary of state to share the city’s plans to participate “’in this very worthy program.”’
BTW, Rogero is a BIG supporter of the anti-American TN Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC).
Governor Lee would be well advised to not go down the “compassionate conservative” route, remember who put him in office, and carefully study the issues raised in the Tennessee lawsuit.
He should pay particular attention to the long-arm reach the federal government has made into his state budget to pay for the federal resettlement program.
Federal reports have admitted to shifting costs associated with the refugee resettlement program to state and local governments.
Of course these urban lefties see no irony in the fact that the director of the federal contractor who heads up Bridge Refugee Services, was a refugee herself and now gets paid by taxpayers to bring refugees to Knoxville and Chattanooga.
Bridge Refugee Service*** contracts with national VOLAGs Church World Service and Episcopal Migration Ministries and like all contractors involved in the resettlement industry, relies on federal cash flow to keep their pipeline flush. [Church World Service recentlyjoined forces with CAIRto demand that the White House admit more refugees to the US.—ed]
Bridge’s financial reporting has been spotty, but what is available shows what they are really worried about – contractors are paid for each individual refugee they drop into your community – so the fewer the number, the lower the federal payouts. The combined federal and state grants in 2017 and 2018 likely reflect a much lower federal contribution resulting from Trump’s annual lowered refugee arrivals.
The state grants likely refer to money funneled from USHHS to NGO Catholic Charities of TN (CCTN), which USORR designated to replace the state of TN after TN withdrew from the refugee program. Best guess is that CCTN has decided to help keep Bridge afloat knowing that both Knoxville and Chattanooga are true blue cities where open borders groups rule and local governments agree.
2008 – $682,158
2009 – $641,801
2010 – $902,445
2016 – $1,329,939 – 155 new refugees for Chattanooga and 267 for Knoxville
2017 – $839,583 (combined federal & state grants*) – 48 new refugees for Chattanooga and 65 for Knoxville
2018 – $945,165 (combined federal & state grants) -150 new refugees for Chattanooga and Knoxville combined
The reports also show that on average, 50% of the new arrivals are under age 18 – meaning all state taxpayers are paying for their English learner services in school.
You’ll also be heartened to know that Bridge works to make sure that their clients don’t become like backward, hateful, prejudiced conservative Republicans in Tennessee.
Bridge collaborates with an Adventist Muslim Friendship Association which helps arriving Muslim refugees (like Whahab and Jinanprofiled in the 2018 report), “overcome differences in language, faith, and culture as well as the prejudice in the community. ‘“We learned you don’t have to change yourself to be like Americans or change Americans to be like you,” says Jinan.”
Wahab has already joined Bridge’s board and no doubt it won’t take long for him to connect with the TN American Muslim Advisory Council which is doing its level best to force its desired change on Tennessee communities.
CCTN well understands that refugee resettlement MONEY is the lifeblood of not only Bridge, but its own organization as well. Take a look at their latest available financials – almost 50% of its operating budget for the entire organization is based on money flow from refugee resettlement program. At the same time, they have drastically reduced services to needy American citizens.
That’s the pattern with the open borders, moralizing lefties – needy and worthy American citizens – people with intellectual disabilities, the homeless, and veterans, step aside.
***Editor endnote: Interesting thatBridge first came to the attention of RRW in 2007 when we first learned that it refused to give information to the FBI about two Iraqi refugees it had resettled. In 2003, Bridge joined the ACLU and Muslim groups to sue the federal government to block the use of the post 911 Patriot Act.
Editor’s note: Concerned about growing assumptions that the recent Trump Executive Order will solve the problem of no local or state say about refugee admissions, a long-time observer of the program with legal expertise, David James, has explained for us that the EO does not do what it purports to do.
Although grateful that the President has signaled his concern for a major flaw in the program, we must set the record straight.
For new readers, VOLAGs (short for Voluntary Agencies), is the refugee industry title by which the federal refugee contractors refer to themselves.
(Emphasis below is mine)
Decisions made by federal agencies and the VOLAGs (voluntary agencies) they pay, about where to place arriving refugees, along with secondary migration, have created Minneapolis’ “Little Mogadishu”, Nashville’s “Little Kurdistan” and Ft. Wayne’s “Little Burma” to name just a few of the refugee ethnocentric enclaves.
While the EO suggests that the federal government will not resettle refugees in communities unless both the state and local governments consent, that may not be what happens at the end of the day.
Putting secondary migration aside, Section 2(b) of the EO specifically preserves the authority of the three agencies which administer the refugee resettlement program (State, HHS and DHS), to override any non-consent to refugee placement by either the state and/or local government.
With the exception of the lowered cap of 18,000, the EO is more a restatement of consultation requirements with state and local governments which are already in statute and regulation. Not only is the concept of “consultation” nowhere defined, but the outcomes of any consultation are not binding on federal agency decisions on refugee placement. And the EO doesn’t make any non-consent binding either.
The U.S. Code sections referenced in the EO mean that non-consent for resettlement won’t stop family reunification or the participation by the VOLAG federal contractors in deciding where refugees are placed.
VOLAGs whose operations are almost wholly dependent on the flow of federal dollars, are paid for each refugee they resettle. As noted in a 2012 GAO report, local VOLAG “affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.”
Last fiscal year when the refugee admission cap was lowered to 30,000, the State Department managed to fund all nine national resettlement contractors. Admittedly, the lowered ceiling of 18,000 for FY20 may prove challenging for some in the resettlement contractor industry to remain viable.
However, as Ann Corcoran reminds us, the refugee cap has not included other categories of entrants such as the Special Immigrant Visa holders from Iraq and Afghanistan who receive the same access to public benefits, such as state Medicaid programs, as refugees. The same goes for any successful asylum petition.
And once on the ground, refugees can and do go anywhere they want, nullifying any state and local non-consent per the EO.
Governors in Oregon and Pennsylvania have already issued consent to receive refugees and New Jersey’s governor has announced the state’s intention to get back into the resettlement program.
While some refugee arrivals may stay put at their initial resettlement site, for others, consenting states will be nothing more than ports of entry for movement to non-consenting states and local communities.
The EO does not directly address the status of states which previously withdrew from the resettlement program for purposes of non-consent. It’s possible that this question will be answered by the “process” to be developed by the State Department and HHS as required by the EO.
States like Tennessee which withdrew from the refugee program over 10 years ago, have since had their state refugee program administered by an ORR (U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement) selected NGO which just happens to have its own federally contracted refugee resettlement program.
When the Refugee Act was passed in 1980, Congress authorized reimbursing states 100% for three full years of the state cost of providing Medicaid for each refugee brought to a state by a federal contractor.Sen. Ted Kennedy, the chief sponsor of the Refugee Act was pushing for four years of refugee support as opposed to the House proposed two years of support:
“[i]n my judgment, it is essential that we continue to receive the full support of State governments for our refugee programs; I believe that we would jeopardize that support and cooperation if we were to transfer the resettlement burden to the States after the refugees have been in this country for only 2 short years.”
The House and Senate subsequently agreed to three years of reimbursement to states.
Feds shift cost to the states
Five years into the program, due to cuts in federal spending for refugee assistance, ORR began to reduce the three years of authorized reimbursement to states and by 1991, eliminated it altogether. Three years later in 1994, the federal regulation permitting a state to withdraw from the program and be replaced by an ORR state replacement designee, was added.
Beginning in 1990, various federal reports have admitted to shifting costs associated with the refugee program to state and local governments. State governments continue to incur these costs, even after withdrawing from the federal refugee program because federal contractors are enabled by ORR to continue initial resettlement in these states.
It remains to be seen whether these ORR designated state replacements which operate independently of the state government, will also have authority to consent for the state per the consent process required by the EO.
Tennessee has sued the federal government because of its Constitutionally impermissible taking of state funds for the federal refugee program by virtue of the cost shifting. The admissions to shifting federal program costs to states stand in stark contrast to the claims of the federally funded and financially dependent contractors that the program is “100% paid for by the federal government.”
President Trump’s EO fails to address the multiple layers of dysfunction in the resettlement program and Constitutionally suspect policies. Nor is there any reason to think that Congress will find its way to straightening out the mess they helped to create and continue to foster.
Endnote: It is vitally important that you send this detailed analysis to everyone you know. We can support this President while at the same time pointing out where he might be going wrong on an issue that many of us believe is paramount to putting America First!
Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studiesaddressed many of our concerns about the EO in his piece at National Review yesterday, see it here.
Editors note:The other day when I reminded readers about my rules on comments, I invited those of you who had more than a few words to say to send me a guest post for my consideration. I have an entire category that has gone unused lately entitled ‘Comments worth noting/guest posts’ here.
As things happen, this piece from ‘bottomlesscoffeeoo7’ is a timely one.
You know I watch CNN the first thing every morning so I know what the Left/Dems are being told about what to think by the brilliant ones at CNN. Today the show was all about how the President lies all the time (according to fact checkers attheWashington Post).
LOL! When you have a few minutes, search ‘CNN Trump lies’ and see what you get!
The Constant Demand for Conformity is What Breeds Malice
To demand that others follow, without their own individual consent is how malice is born and continues to breed. Plato said and I quote “Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder”. This simple phrase is how beauty is determined, by the individual. Not from law or social ideology. The constant push and pull from the time of Adam and Eve is how rape and murder became prevalent.
To demand that others give into your desires, whether through threats or subjecting them to isolation, is what is needed to form an underground coup d’état. Malice is born and breeds in the hatred that is the direct result of mass conformity.If you want an enemy, constantly tell them the “truth”. Demand that they conform and accept the results, regardless of their own thought, opinions or feelings on the matter.
“Truth” seems to be ever more present, yet it was this “truth” that enabled the ideology of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. If these are the lengths people are willing to go for their sudden epiphany of discovering the “truth”, then they must be ready for the backlash that is building just out of sight.
“Truth” be told, this is one of the many reasons President Donald Trump won. For too long, we were told to simply “shut up, sit down and listen”. We are not “scientists”, we are not “academics”, yet we live in the world of cause and effect. We live in the world of layoffs, tax brackets and rising medical costs. We live in the world of debt and ultimately we live in the world, where we are done as we are told, never the other way around.
We have been subjected to mass hysteria and the wagging fingers of the “truth tellers”. From halloween costumes, to revised history, approved speech and laws and regulations that do not and have never applied to the mega donors or the law makers.
Our medical history is used against us. The makers and enforcers of law (which includes insurance law), demand higher and higher premiums, all while disparaging the same industry that we now must pay, BY LAW!
“Climate Change”, “Immigration”, “Hate Speech”, “Diversity”, “Inclusion”, all of these subjects and many more, that we are forbidden from speaking our opinions on in public, breed malice. The mass hysteria over boycotts and who can do what is how President Trump will win in 2020.
Continue to wag your finger and look at me with disgust. Continue to demand that “mental health” is an epidemic, continue to shove me out of my seat, so you can be given a seat at the table that I had to earn.
The “truth” that you speak of is the very reason why I will no longer listen. The “truth” that you speak of, you have weaponized to win. You do not care of the cost. You could not be bothered with the millions you will impugn by demanding that law be catered to this “truth” that you parlay as if any refutation is an assault.
Let the individual choose for themselves. Allow the individual to be the master of their command. Present the evidence and simply step aside, there is no need to win. Time will tell if this “truth” is true, if you cannot be patient, why should we listen?
No one likes an automobile salesperson to hound them, why can’t others grasp this?
I must believe something for myself in my head and my heart before I will ever acknowledge it as “truth”.
For years, I nagged readers to write their own blogs. It is not hard and you will find it very satisfying to send your views out in to the world for others to consider or to gather and share facts as real investigative reporters did at one time in our history.
And, as I argued many times, the more of you who become reporters and commenters, the harder it will be for the Leftists to control speech in the tumultuous years ahead.