AP says Montana is an example of anti-refugee sentiment spilling forth in wake of Trump victory

Update December 29, 2016: Michael Leahy at Breitbart has a good piece on Montana here also.
This is an Associated Press story that ran on Christmas day so not sure how many of you saw it.
For background, Montana had a small refugee program many years ago, but up until this year it was alone with Wyoming in not having one at all.  That changed in 2016 as Missoula ‘welcomed’ its first African and Middle Eastern refugees. I traveled to the state this summer and can attest to the sentiment outlined in this story.

sk_rossi
S.K. Rossi, advocacy and policy director for the ACLU of Montana: “It’s pretty widely known that this is going to be a hard year…” Photo: https://www.aclumontana.org/en/about/staff

For new readers you might like to see our Montana archive, here.
From AP at The Seattle Times:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — The push to restrict refugee resettlements and immigration in the U.S. that figured so prominently in Donald Trump’s election is now headed to states that are preparing to convene their legislative sessions early next year, immigration advocates said.

In Montana, which took in just nine refugee families from January to early December, about a dozen bill requests related to refugees, immigration and terrorism have been filed ahead of next month’s session. The measures include requiring resettlement agencies to carry insurance that would defray the cost of prosecuting refugees who commit violent crimes and allowing towns and cities to request a moratorium on resettlements in their communities.

Refugee rights advocates say those measures are a sign of what is to come as the anti-refugee rhetoric that featured prominently in the presidential election spills over to statehouses and local governments.

“It’s pretty widely known that this is going to be a hard year for those of us who are seeking to protect the rights of refugees and immigrants,” said S.K. Rossi, advocacy and policy director for the ACLU of Montana.

The president-elect campaigned on building a border wall with Mexico to stop illegal immigration, deporting immigrants who are in the nation illegally and halting the resettlement of refugees to strengthen the federal program that vets them.

[….]

“It absolutely does not end with the presidential election,” McKenzie [Michele McKenzie, deputy director of the Minneapolis organization The Advocates for Human Rights] said. “It’s a national strategy by a small but organized group of anti-immigration advocates and anti-refugee advocates.”

[….]

“We need to get serious,” said Nancy Ballance, a Republican state representative from Ravalli County.

Ballance said refugees are a “gigantic issue” in her southwestern Montana county, just south of the liberal college city of Missoula. “People expect to see some legislation brought,” she said.

It is pretty clear that legally state legislators can’t do much to change the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), but here we have the ACLU lobbyist making the crucial point about efforts in the Montana (yours too!) legislature.

“Filing this and making it a public conversation automatically undermines the refugee process,” Rossi said.

“They can’t legally undermine the process, but they can socially undermine the process.”

Continue reading here.

Trickle up!

You have a right to ask questions and demand that your elected officials at all levels of government be transparent, and consider your economic worries and your safety concerns when the federal government targets your communities.
Efforts like these in the Montana legislature are important to help create controversy because the ultimate goal is for the controversy to ‘trickle up’ to Congress and to the new Trump Administration. There is no doubt that the USRAP must be trashed or reformed, but that pressure must come from the states (and local governments) to Washington.  Politicians hate noise and so it is your job as grassroots activists to make political noise!
To that end, since Montana’s lone House member is likely going to the Trump Interior Department, it is critical that you, in Montana, make the selection of his replacement a referendum on the refugee program. See The Hill (scroll down to Rep. Zinke).
Endnote: I am off to jury duty, be back later!

Fun to watch the Left eat its own: ACLU sues Catholic Charities

Why? Because Catholic Charities, which you all know collects millions of taxpayer dollars to resettle refugees and ‘take care of’ the Unaccompanied Alien Children flooding our borders, won’t offer abortion services to the kids.
If I understand this news correctly, the ACLU has claimed they have “standing” because they represent taxpayers! And, this judge has agreed!

Magistrate Judge, Laurel Beeler, Northern District of California Photo by Jason Doiy 5/20/2013 061-2013
Magistrate Judge, Laurel Beeler, Northern District of California: Taxpayers represented by the ACLU have standing.

The Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities have been between this rock and a hard place before, but so far their connection to the federal teat has not been severed.
Catholics could face choice: federal bucks or religious principles, hmmmmm!
From Life News:

A California judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit this week that challenges federal funding of Catholic Charities because they refuse to provide young refugees and immigrants with abortions or birth control.

Courthouse News reports the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) this summer to stop them from giving federal funding to Catholic organizations that do not promote abortions or birth control.

The federal government filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that the ACLU did not have standing to sue, but U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied the government’s motion on Tuesday and allowed the lawsuit to continue, according to the report.

“Congress mandated that the agency provide care to unaccompanied minors, and it authorized disbursements to provide that care,” Beeler wrote. “Because [HHS, through the Office of Refugee Resettlement] makes grants under that statutory mandate, the ACLU – through its taxpayer members – has standing.”

[….]

The ACLU argues that the government should not give money to the Catholic aid programs because the programs do not refer or provide abortions or birth control to young, unaccompanied minor refugees and immigrants like Rosa, the New York Times reports. In the lawsuit, it argues that the agencies are legally required to provide access to contraception and abortion because they receive government funding.

I wonder does the ACLU fully understand how far left the Catholic Church is in America on the issue of immigration and open borders?
Or, does the ACLU figure they can have it all—banking on the Catholic agencies caving in on their religious principles and choosing the federal money as a first priority?
One more thing! Whose money is Catholic Charities using to defend itself?

ACLU files motion to immediately allow admittance of all refugees 17-21 to Lancaster high school

To taxpayers and parents in ‘welcoming’ communities nationwide, are your ready for expensive legal wrangling in your school system as your town’s refugee population grows? You better be!

Lancaster, PA has been a “welcoming” community for refugees from all over the world for years, and now they are receiving them at a rate of 700 a year.  In that group are teenage refugees who do not speak English and may have not had any, or very little, formal schooling.  Those teenagers/adults 17-21 had been placed in an alternative school until recently.

molly-tack-hooper
ACLU staff attorney Molly Tack-Hooper says refugees have rights to a quality education (even if it diminishes the rights of American kids). She didn’t say that last part but this is more of the same—refugees first! not Americans!

I told you about the earlier trial here which ended in a judge ordering those who brought the case admitted to McCaskey High School.
However, now here comes the ACLU demanding that the School District of Lancaster admit 90 students to the traditional high school immediately.
From Pennlive.com:

The ACLU of Pennsylvania has filed an emergency motion against the School District of Lancaster (SDOL) that seeks to force the district to enroll all refugee students ages 17 to 21 in traditional high school rather than an alternative school.

If the ACLU’s motion is granted, the School District of Lancaster would have to admit more than 90 refugees into the district from privately-run Phoenix Academy. In a news release, the ACLU pointed to the Aug. 26 ruling ordering the school to admit the original six students who filed suit against the district into McCaskey High School, adding that the ruling from District Judge Edward Smith encouraged the district to apply the court’s ruling to all refugee students of similar circumstances.

Noting email exchanges involving a local refugee resettlement agency*** [on the side of the ACLU–ed] and district officials illustrating a lack of desire for widespread change, the ACLU also said the district’s actions show it has no intention of honoring the court’s legal reasoning. Without intervention from the law, the the students continue to suffer irreparable harm from the enrollment delays and exclusion from the high school, the ACLU contends.

The emergency motion comes two days after the SDOL filed its own motion for a stay on the August ruling as well as a motion to expedite the appeal it formally filed Sept 2. The district enrolled the six students who sued and won but have not admitted any other refugee students, citing overcrowding and logistical issues, according to reports and its motions.

Where is the ‘pocket of resistance’ in Lancaster, or is it too late for Lancaster?
We have written a lot about Lancaster, click here, for our archive.
***The primary federal resettlement contractor in Lancaster is Church World Service. Does CWS operate in your town, see here.

No tears for US Bishops on news of another ACLU lawsuit against them

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops receives millions of dollars each year to place thousands of refugees (including many Muslims in your towns) and we have long argued that your tax dollars should not be paid to federal contractors masquerading as religious charities.
 

Catholic-Bishops-e1445073388915
One day they will have to decide between cold hard federal cash and their moral principles!

 
So no sympathy here as the ACLU files suit against the Bishops for accepting taxpayer dollars and then restricting abortions and contraceptive availability to the ‘unaccompanied alien children’ in their care.  When they take Caesar’s money, they must follow Caesar’s rules!  They can’t have it both ways!
From Life News.com:

For decades, U.S. Catholic agencies have been on the front lines helping to provide young immigrants and refugees with the physical and emotional support they need after they arrive in America.

But a new lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union could put the much-needed aid programs in jeopardy.

The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), arguing that the government should not give money to the Catholic aid programs because they do not refer or provide abortions or birth control to young, unaccompanied minor refugees and immigrants, the New York Times reports. The ACLU argues in the lawsuit that the agencies are legally required to provide access to contraception and abortion because they receive government funding.

[….]

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,which oversees the agencies, received almost $10 million in government funding to help unaccompanied minor immigrants and refugees in 2014, according to the report.

[….]

ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Brigitte Amiri said, “We are shocked and deeply concerned to see history repeating itself with millions of taxpayer dollars funneled into the hands of a religious group that has a long history of refusing critical health care services to the most vulnerable people in their care.”

This “critical health care” is talking about abortion, which, by not supporting, lets the group “impose their religious beliefs on others,” according to the ACLU.

More here.

ACLU of New Jersey asks Christie to NOT withdraw from federal refugee program

They are talking big about not being bothered by the news from Kansas and New Jersey, but believe me they are getting nervous!
Who is “they?”  That would be the open-borders cabal that includes the American Civil Liberties Union (as we are learning here), and Human Rights First (see our previous post).  It surely includes the nine major federal contractors responsible for placing refugees in your towns as well.

chris christie 2
Sue Christie sue!

If they are so confident that refugee resettlement can continue without slowdown if a governor takes the state out of the program, then why is the ACLU bothering to badger Christie?

For new readers, it all began recently with the move by the Tennessee legislature to vote to sue the feds on States’ Rights grounds.
Once a state opts-out of the program (TN opted-out nearly ten years ago), the federal government claims they can simply assign a non-profit group to run things for the federal government in that state.  But, it’s looking like they haven’t a legal leg to stand on and so if a governor withdraws his/her state and follows up with step #2—suing the federal government when they assign a non-profit group to determine how state and local tax dollars are expended—this program could be ground to a halt.  
Here is what we just learned from North Jersey.com:

TRENTON — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is calling on Republican Gov. Chris Christie to reconsider withdrawing from a federal refugee resettlement program.

The group sent Christie a letter Tuesday arguing that the state has a long history of welcoming refugees from across the world.

Christie’s office did not immediately reply to a message seeking comment.

The group says the letter comes in response to the Christie administration’s decision last month to notify the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program that it intended to pull out.

For new readers, in addition to New Jersey and Kansas, these (below) are the so-called Wilson-Fish states where the federal program is being run by mostly unaccountable-to-the-taxpayers non-profit groups.

Folks in NJ and Kansas need to thank your governors and urge them to take step #2!  

And, if you live in one of these states tell your governor to look at the Thomas More Law Center case.
Wilson-Fish states (one city) and which NGO is running the program there:

Alabama: USCCB – Catholic Social Services

Alaska: USCCB – Catholic Social Services

Colorado: Colorado Department of Human Services

Idaho: Janus Inc. (formerly Mountain States Group), Idaho Office for Refugees

Kentucky: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Louisville, Kentucky Office for Refugees

Louisiana: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana Office for Refugees

Massachusetts: Office for Refugees and Immigrants

Nevada: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada

North Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota

San Diego County, CA: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of San Diego

South Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota

Tennessee: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Tennessee Office for Refugees

Vermont: USCRI – Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program

And, one last thing, for the life of me I have never been able to understand how the ACLU can look the other way on the separation of church and state when these ‘religious’ groups are paid by the taxpayer to resettle refugees.  I guess it’s simply the fact that these ‘religious’ groups are on the political Left as is the ACLU!