Category: Who is going where

Original Refugee Act: States have a Right to Opt-in or Opt-out of Refugee Admissions Program

~ Ann Corcoran ~ 1 Comment

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 explaining in 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-funded Migration 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 2016 George Soros pledged to give $500 million to promote migration. Forbes reports that one of the beneficiaries is the Migration Policy Institute. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerenblankfeld/2016/09/20/billionaire-george-soros-earmarks-500-million-for-migrants-and-refugees/#7815e75b3888

In 2011, the MPI issued a paper 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.

Of course, there is no accounting for the state taxpayer dollars being forcibly taken to pay for the federal program, even if a state has already withdrawn.

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 lawsuit  brought 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.

 

This post if filed in my Comments worth noting/guest posts category.

Is There a Refugee Resettlement Site Near You?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ 7 Comments

Update! Be sure to see my post here as a followup—we found the instructions that the other side is using to help their people how to get mobilized.  You can use this too!

 

As I have been saying for days and weeks now, thanks to the President you will have an opportunity to have a say in whether refugees will be placed in your communities going forward.

The President heard your concerns and has taken an important step to rein-in the refugee contractors. It isn’t perfect, but it is up to you to speak up where you live. He has your back, do you have his?

I have a lot more details for you about how it will work and how the nine federal contractors are trying to stop the President’s Executive Order, but first you need to know where the major resettlement sites are in the nation.

But, never forget these points!

The contractors have been placing refugees in a 50-100 mile radius of their offices. Don’t think you are off the hook if your city isn’t on the map.

See Virginia for example.  They have less than ten main refugee contractor offices, but have placed refugees over the last ten years across the entire state.

(In my next post you will see why the 50-100 mile radius is important.)

Also, the new requirements allow them to place new arriving family members with their spouse and children, and you can’t control that.

And, most importantly, refugees can move! There is nothing to say they can not simply move to the next town or next state and there is nothing you can do about that either.

At this point you are likely saying, why bring any?  Get Trump re-elected and maybe he will be able to do more!

In the meantime….

Here is the State Department’s 2019 Affiliate Map.

I’ve chopped it up so that I could enlarge the text. In case I have edited the screenshot in the middle of a city, see it whole here.

Are you within 50-100 miles of an office?  If so, you must speak up now.

The refugee industry has pulled out all the stops to mobilize their supporters (they have well-established community organizing networks in each of these locations) to tell city/county elected officials that they want refugees and of course the governor must concur. (More on that in an upcoming post. No wonder the contractors are suing Trump!)

Six governors (so far) want more refugees.  I’ll be tracking them as I see news.  See my right hand side bar for the list so far.

This is the legend for the map.  These are the nine contractors, but they all have many subcontractors working under them.

We know there has never been a resettlement agency operating in Wyoming and that Hawaii only gets a handful in some years. West Virginia did have a resettlement office until recently.

Refugees have been placed in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama in recent years, including in 2019. But, the number is extremely low, so I am assuming they were family reunifications.

However, Oklahoma City does have a resettlement agency, so I’m not sure why it isn’t on the map.

Update!  I should have thought to look at the map for 2017 at the time Trump became the President.  Check out that map and see how many more resettlement sites were in operation at that time!  Yikes!  And, I remember that toward the end of the Obama administration, his State Department was looking at another 40 or so possible sites. Progress is being made!

Please note that this post is filed in my ‘Where to find information’ category.

Concord, NH Likely to Support More Refugees as Questions Remain about Trump Order

~ Ann Corcoran ~ 1 Comment

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 Monitor is 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.

Here is the Concord Monitor:

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.

More here.

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.

 

Republican Governor Sununu Tells Trump: New Hampshire Welcomes More Refugees

~ Ann Corcoran ~ 3 Comments

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 RRW in the right hand sidebar.

From US News:

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 post two 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.

 

 

Pope Gets Japanese Blowback When He Tells Them to Welcome Refugees

~ Ann Corcoran ~ 2 Comments

Editor:  I hope you had a great day giving thanks with loved ones yesterday.

Much to my surprise the post I wrote on the day before Thanksgiving about 88 mayors demanding more refugees went off-the-charts viral, so if you didn’t see it, check it out.  

And, thank you dear readers for continuing to follow RRW and special thanks to the donations from many of you that have made it possible for Refugee Resettlement Watch’s renewed presence on the internet.

 

On a trip to Japan a few days ago Pope Francis learned first hand that Japan steadfastly maintains that it wants to keep its unique language and culture and not become a multiculty polyglot nation as so many European nations have become.

From the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Pope’s message of openness to refugees prompts backlash in Japan

TOKYO – A visit to Japan by Pope Francis and his dream of a nuclear-free world drew largely positive headlines this week in Japan. But when he tried to gently encourage the Japanese to extend a hand of friendship to refugees, the backlash on social media was significant.

Invasion of Europe news: Pope Francis welcomes refugees on the Italian island of Lampedusa in 2013 helping to fuel the political and social crisis Italy has experienced ever since. https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2013/07/09/pope-lectures-on-lampedusa/

Japan has some of the toughest policies toward refugees and asylum seekers among the world’s richest nations, and a reputation for being relatively closed toward outsiders.

The pope’s effort to preach a more accepting message was not universally accepted.

[….]

The story was one of the most read on the TV Asahi website on Tuesday and Wednesday and tweets with the words “accept refugees” were trending.

But the response seemed more negative than positive.

“Do that first in the Vatican,” tweeted @Ryounagasugi7, a tweet liked by 14,600 people and retweeted 4,700 times.

[….]

“I am sorry. We’ve seen how European countries have failed terribly. Even so, do you still say that? First of all, we are not a country where Christians are dominant. Would you please ask other ‘Christian countries’? Such as America, or America, or America,” tweeted @no_problem666.

Response by a bunch of No Borders activists:  Shut down the refugee-phobia on Twitter!

After seeing the flood of negative comments, a group of volunteers who support asylum seekers detained at a facility in Ushiku north of Tokyo called on Twitter to act.

“Tweets that would inflame refugee-phobia, xenophobia are growing, @TwitterJP should deal with it as its own platform has been used to inflame xenophobia,” they wrote on their account @freeushiku.

More here.

I’m thankful to have RRW’s extensive library available again!  See my Japan archive here and my Pope Francis posts here.