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.
As I have said innumerable times over a dozen years, the Refugee Council USAis the lobbying arm of the refugee industry. The nine federal refugee contractors*** are at the heart of it, and all funding for it flows through Church World Service. (See CWS and CAIR,here)
Don’t forget! The refugee contractors, like Church World Service here are not just refugee placement contractors, but are political advocates for the entire Open Borders movement. They shouldn’t be receiving any of your tax dollars!
Needless to say they are mobilizing their networks of Open Borders Activists to defeat Trump’s refugee slowdown andSeptember Executive Orderby getting your governors and local government officials to go on record saying they welcome more refugees.
If you are just learning the news that the President is attempting to make a fundamental change in how the US Refugee Admissions Program has operated for nearly 4 decades by giving some say to local and state governments about whether they want more refugees (that will be costing state and local taxpayers millions of dollars to take care of) here are some recent posts you should see.
Now that you are up-to-speed, see that the Refugee Council USA whose members have a huge financial stake in continued large scale refugee migration to America are working to generate action by their grassroots (and media lackeys) to follow the recent funding guidance from the US State Department.
(Although they claim the EO is illegal and are suing, they tell their followers to do this anyway!)
RCUSA’s Handy Tool Kit should be handy for you too!
Toolkit for Engaging Elected Officials on the “State & Local Resettlement Ban” Executive Order
Background: On September 26, the White House issued an Executive Order(EO 13888)that may drastically reduce, if not entirely stop, the resettlement of refugees in your community. The EO is already creating chaos and confusion about where refugees can be resettled, will lead to family separation for refugee families, and will leave refugees, former refugees and United States citizens without supportive services. To make matters worse, the administration proposed a refugee admissions goal of 18,000 refugees for the next year, a shamefully abysmal number for the world’s most powerful nation that stands in stark contrast to the historic average goal of 95,000 refugees.
Together, these actions are likely to destroy the bipartisanrefugee resettlement program for years to come. It’s critical that we work together to demonstrate nationwide, bi-partisan support for refugees and ensure our state and local officials publicly declare welcome for refugees. We need you to make your voice heard at the local level and reach out to your governors, mayors, and county officials and ask them to support refugee resettlement.
Why is the EO harmful? The EO fundamentally alters the structure of the U.S. resettlement program by transferring decisions about who can resettle and where from the federal government to state and locally elected officials. Not only will this ultimately lead to a patchwork of conflicting policies running contrary to the purpose of a national resettlement program, but it will also leave thousands of refugees, former refugees, and U.S. citizens without consistent and routine access to integration services and other supports. The EO subjects families and our community members to the whims of politics and exacerbates uncertainty for refugee families and communities alike by requiring local officials to provide written consent before refugees can be resettled. This is an unprecedented and harmful procedure, particularly given that resettlement agencies already consult regularly with state and local stakeholders regarding community needs. In addition, U.S. citizens, immigrants, refugees, and visitors alike are constitutionally allowed to move freely between cities and states. We do not need explicit permission from cities to travel – or relocate.
What We Know: Governors and local officials must provide written consent to opt into resettling refugees in their states and localities. Resettlement agencies are responsible to obtain written governor and local consent – the administration will not be communicating directly to governors or local officials. Consent letters will be publicly available on the State Department’s website. Consent is needed from the governor of a state in order to continue refugee resettlement anywhere in that state. If a governor gives consent but a locality does not, refugees may be resettled in a different locality where consent is provided. Some family reunification cases that use the “follow to join” Visa 93 process may be exempted from parts of this EO. The EO does not directly apply to Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders.
In terms of local consent, the administration has referred to the county or county-equivalent. In some cases, there are no counties, and in others, counties do not have the authority. Ultimately, the administration will defer to local community’s determination of who has authority. If you have already reached out to a mayor’s office, please continue to get that consent letter. Our understanding is that in many places, that will suffice. When at all possible, please also obtain consent from a county official as well. The administration is requiring that a list of cities/towns that fall under the jurisdiction of the local body be included within or attached to the letter of consent. This can be prepared by the resettlement office or the official providing the letter, but it must be certified by the consenting official.
Your State & Local Officials Need to Hear From You
When you engage your local officials, we encourage you to educate them about the existence and content of the EO and ask whether they will provide written consent to resettle refugees. Here are the top two ways to take action:
Tell Your Governor to Declare Welcome for Refugees: Click here to contact your governor and tell them to declare that they welcome refugees in your state. Ask them to provide the necessary written consent to the federal government stating that refugees are welcome. A template letter that can be adapted to your state is available here.
Letters should be addressed to: Secretary Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of State; and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Carol T. O’Connell, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State.
The following language should be included in order to provide consent: “As [Governor/Mayor] of [state/city], I consent to initial refugee resettlement in [state/city] as per the terms of the Executive Order. This consent is valid unless or until withdrawn.”
An important note / disclaimer: Since we do not want our communications to imply that we endorse or agree with the EO, it would be helpful to include the following disclaimer in correspondences: “Communication about, or participation in, the implementation of Executive Order (EO) 13888 is not an endorsement of the legality of the EO.”
Steps to Organize Meetings with State & Local Officials
Template Letter to Officials: Click here for a template letter from community members, click here for a template letter from faith leaders, click here for a template letter from businesses and click here for a template letter from Members of Congress, to governors and state and local officials to invite them to declare welcome for refugees.
Step-by-Step Guide: Click here for guidance on how to prepare and organize meetings with governors, mayors, county executives, and other local officials.
Bring Handouts: Bring copies of this letter that is collecting signatures from state and local officials – governors, mayors, state/local legislators, etc. You can also adapt this template letter for your state and local officials for your meeting.
Provide Feedback: Don’t forget to tell us how it went! Click here to fill out a survey with feedback from your meeting. Contact Elissa Diaz at ediaz@cwsglobal.org if you would like help in preparing for and/or following up with your meetings with officials.
Additional Resources to Help You Talk to State & Local Officials
Talking Points and Messaging Guidance: For talking points on the executive order and the proposed refugee admissions goal of 18,000, please visit our Talking Points primer: http://bit.ly/EOPDTalkingPoints. Additional resources debunking the administration’s harmful “resettlement vs. asylum” narrative is available here: http://bit.ly/PDFactsheet.
EO Factsheet: Click here for a one page backgrounder and here for analysis about the EO and its impact.
Power Map: Who can make the decision you need to influence (your primary target)? Who influences them (your secondary targets)? Who uses influence for/against this decision? A power map is a simple yet powerful tool to map decision makers and focus your energy where it makes the greatest impact. Click here for a basic template to construct your power map, and click here for some tips on how to research and map targets.
Letters from State & Local Officials: A template letter from state and local officials to the administration that can be easily adapted to your state / locality is available here. Feel free to reach out to Elissa Diaz at ediaz@cwsglobal.org for help crafting a tailored letter for your specific officials. In addition, we are still seeking state and local officials – governors, mayors, state/local legislators, etc. – to sign on to this letter. Here are additional statements declaring welcome for refugees by Governor DeWine (R-OH) and Mayor Ben Walsh (I-Syracuse, NY).
Local Resolution Template: Template resolution language for local municipal, county, or other government bodies that authorize, support, or otherwise give a nod in favor of continuing to resettle refugees in response to the refugee EO can be found here.
We’ve been reporting daily (just scroll back and see what I mean!) about the President’s September Executive Orderthat requires that refugees be placed in cities/counties where the elected officials have said in writing that they welcome more refugees, or in the case of new sites where the city or county wants a new site.
It is no wonder the federal resettlement contractors heads are exploding! They are going to have to work really hard to get their federal boodle!
I’ve been wondering how they are going to accomplish this goal by a deadline supposedly later this month.
In fact, I’ve been seeing a reference to a June 1 date that had me scratching my head. What happens then?
This morning, I opened my alerts to yet another sob story about how refugee families are suffering because they were expecting to bring their whole families here soon and now face a longer wait because of that meany in the White House.
The story is this one from Missoula, Montana—which hosts a very new resettlement site operated by the filthy rich International Rescue Committee.***
‘You pray, you pray’: Trump refugee cap places strain on Missoula families
It contains many column inches of stories the Left loves to tell—the stories that count on moving people emotionally. But, it also contained this brief paragraph:
Trump also signed an executive order, set to take effect next summer, that requires resettlement agencies like Missoula’s IRC to obtain state and local government consent before accepting more refugees.
So what is that all about?
There must be guidance published somewhere on how the Executive Order is to be implemented.
Sure enough, here it isand it is evident that the reason for the contractors hitting the panic button is that their FUNDING AFTER JUNE 1 IS TIED TO THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
FY 2020 Notice of Funding Opportunity for Reception and Placement Program
They must jump through a lot of hoops! They have to explain how they involved the public in their decision making about who and how many they want to place in a community; they need to say how much private money they have collected toward the project; and of course must have letters from the governor AND the local elected officials apparently by Christmas.
The funding guidance mentions the 50-100 mile radius around each resettlement site that I referenced in my post yesterday. If you missed it be sure to go back and see if you live near a site.
You are going to have toread the guidance yourself, and I’ll see what I can do to get a lawyer’s opinion on what appears to me to be a massive bureaucratic undertaking for the contractors. Boo hoo! It is about time they are being made accountable!
Just so you know, I don’t think there can ever be real reform of the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program until this entire contracting system that relies on nine Leftwing ‘non-profits’ largely funded by taxpayers (and who hate the President!) to place refugees throughout America.
***Note to Montanans! You must put pressure on your governor because you know the refugee industry there is mobilized! Additionally, if Missoula is lost, see what you can do to put some political pressure on county government.
In the wake of the news I reported yesterday, that Republican Governor Chris Sununu has said NH wants more refugees assuming cities concur, Concord Mayor Jim Bouley says he will support the continued placement of impoverished third worlders in his city.
Concord’s Democrat Mayor Jim Bouley: “I see no reason why we would not sign it” (at December 9th council meeting)
That isn’t surprising, but what did surprise me in this article from the Concord Monitoris that apparently guidance has gone out to those in the refugee industry about a December 20th deadline when both a state governor and someone (?) at the city/county level are in agreement that refugees are welcome, and that welcome must be forwarded in writing to the Secretary of State.
I’ve been searching and have yet to find any such published guidance. However, in this post and a couple more to follow I’ll tell you what I have found that should help you to know what you must do where you live.
So far as we have noted, six governors are on board for more refugees: Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and now New Hampshire. North Dakota’s governor took a wishy-washy position and said he will go along if his cities want more refugees.
After Trump rule, Concord must opt-in to accept more refugees
For years, Concord has been a state leader in the acceptance of refugees, taking in more than any other New Hampshire city since 2010.
But whether that practice continues will require a sign-off from the city, following a new policy from President Donald Trump.
In an executive order issued in September, Trump required that both states and localities actively approve refugee resettlements moving forward. Without explicit written consent from both the state’s governor and the city or town, new outside refugees may not be housed in those cities, the order states – a change prompting outcry from refugee rights groups.
On Wednesday, Gov. Chris Sununu announced he had given that statewide consent, penning a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo granting permission for New Hampshire to accept refugees broadly. But he left it up to individual municipalities on how to proceed.
“With this action, it is now up to each city’s mayor whether they want to opt-in to accepting refugees,” Sununu said in a statement.
So far, I have been unable to find any published guidance referenced in this next line:
Now, the pressure is on. Cities and towns have until Dec. 20 to submit their letters of approval to accept resettlement of refugees, according to new guidance from the federal Health and Human Services department and the U.S. Secretary of State that follows the executive order. Sometime around Christmas, HHS will release a list of the states and municipalities that have done so, according to the order.
In an interview Friday, Concord Mayor Jim Bouley said he supports resettlement and that he’ll bring the question before the City Council at its Dec. 9 meeting.
“I see no reason why we would not sign it,” he said. “I think this only makes sense. So I look forward with the blessing of the council to sign it.”
I’m not the only one confused!
Meanwhile, as states and cities begin responding to the late December deadline, aspects of the new rule are in flux. Some refugee advocacy groups have called the executive order illegal, with the national Catholic Legal Immigration Network arguing it contravenes federal law giving the Office of Refugee Resettlement the authority to place refugees.
Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig is on board for more refugees and is just waiting for guidance about whether her whole council must sign off.
And the rules are silent on whether approval is necessary from select boards or city councils – or whether mayors can signal approval on their own prerogatives.
That uncertainty is creating some delays. Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig is supportive of continuing the acceptance of refugees, her office said Friday, but is seeking clarity on whether that move needs sign-off from the Queen City’s full city council.
Here is what I do know: The refugee industry has filed suit to stop the Executive Order,see here.
But they are also hedging their bets in case they can’t get it stopped in time which is why they have gone all-in for a grassroots campaign (more in my next post) to pressure governors and mayors into saying they want more refugees.
As I noted here, they see their grassroots and media campaign as a win-win. They can make Trump look bad, and at the same time force governors and local elected officials to go on record supporting more refugees. (They are looking ahead to the day when Trump is no longer in the White House and they expect the refugee spigot to open wide!)
And, although we see the Executive Order as flawed, you need to get moving and at least let your local elected officials (and governors) know that you are not in agreement with supporting more poor immigrants especially as there are plenty of vulnerable Americans in need of help.
If you remain silent then your elected officials will assume their position for more refugees will have no political cost to them.
And, if you are waiting for instructions from some immigration control organization, forget it!
Not sure if your town/city is already a resettlement site? See the State Department’s map here.
New Hampshire becomes the sixth state (that I know of) to tell the President that his/her state is all-in for more impoverished refugees. You can bet the Open Borders agitators are joyful about another Republican governor (see Utah) telling the Prez that the state is open for more third worlders.
Most recently I told you about Virginia jumping on the bandwagon bringing the number to five at that point: Pennsyvania, Washington, Oregon and Utah having expressed their desires earlier. North Dakota Gov. Burgum’s response is frankly wishy-washy leaving us uncertain about where he stands.
I’m keeping a list of the governors who want to see refugees numbers increased in their states here at RRWin the right hand sidebar.
Sununu Consents to Refugee Resettlement Following Exec Order
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu has consented to receiving refugees at the state level, in response to an executive order from President Donald Trump that requires consultation with states and municipalities about the settlement of refugees in specific areas.
Is that an America First! sign behind Republican Governor Chris Sununu? Hmmmm!
Trump issued the order in September saying the federal government should resettle refugees only in those jurisdictions in which both the state and local governments have consented to receive refugees.
Sununu, a Republican, said Friday his administration will work closely with area agencies to ensure that those who are resettled in New Hampshire have the chance to become “hardworking members of our local communities.”
New Hampshire municipalities can now opt-in to accept refugees.
Because there are no guidelines available yet (that I know of) on how the President’s September Executive Order is supposed to work, it isn’t clear how your community will opt-in or out!
But, as you saw in my posttwo days ago, 88 mayors are declaring they are in!
Other than to satisfy their Leftwing constituents, these governors don’t need to be making any public declarations until some guidelines come from Washington.
So, it is up to you to let them know that this embrace of more refugees is not a political freebie for them. There is a political cost to their declaration.
