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

12/03/2019 ~ 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.

Tennessee: Knoxville’s City Council and Open Borders Mayor Begging Governor to Bring Them Refugees

11/06/2019 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ 3 Comments

Editor: This is a guest post by David James who recently explained how 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.”’

Will Governor Lee go-along-to-get-along with local city officials such as Mayor Rogero and join a small number of governors (only three!) who have told the White House that they want **more** refugees for their state?

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 recently joined forces with CAIR to 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 Jinan profiled 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 that Bridge 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.

Trump’s Executive Order on Refugee Resettlement Won’t Stop Refugee Arrivals to Your State or Community

10/24/2019 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ 5 Comments

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.

No executive order, including the President’s recent Executive Order on Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement (EO) can stop refugee migration, either initial or secondary, from changing the demographics of your town and/or state.

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.

Seeing one more opportunity (the announcement of the EO) to take a whack at the President, PA Gov. Tom Wolf (D) says Pennsylvania welcomes refugees. Was there any consultation? Did concerned citizens of PA get to weigh-in before the Governor shot off a letter? NO! PA borders West Virginia (a state that gets few refugees). Anything to stop refugees from arriving in PA and immediately moving to WV? NO! https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/466091-pennsylvania-governor-tells-trump-his-state-will-keep-welcoming-refugees

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 Studies addressed many of our concerns about the EO in his piece at National Review yesterday, see it here.

Tennessee Lawsuit is On Again as Thomas More Law Center Files New Motion

09/11/2019 ~ Ann Corcoran

“This case has enormous jurisprudential consequences, not only on the issue of the federal refugee resettlement program, but on the ability of Congress to force states to pay for future bizarre, fantastical, unwanted programs as proposed by current Democrat candidates without any recourse to the courts.”

(Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center)

Here is the news from the Thomas More Law Center:

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Is Petitioned to Rehear the Federal Refugee Resettlement Opinion ‘Painfully’ at Odds with Supreme Court Precedent

ANN ARBOR, MI— The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) and Bursch Law PLLC have filed a petition for rehearing by the entire Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals bench of a two-judge panel opinion of that court dismissing Tennessee’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program for lack of standing.

The basis for the rehearing petition, which was filed last Friday, Sept. 6, is that the two-judge opinion is “painfully at odds” with Supreme Court precedent.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, agreed to represent the State of Tennessee, its General Assembly and two state legislators at no charge, after the state’s attorney general refused to bring the requested lawsuit. John Bursch of Caledonia, Michigan, represented the plaintiffs on behalf of TMLC at the oral arguments in the Sixth Circuit.

If your state government was serious about concerns with the US Refugee Admissions Program, your governor or legislature could follow Tennessee’s lead on this critical issue! Why don’t they?

TMLC filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in March 2017, alleging that the Refugee Act of 1980, currently imposed on it by the federal government, amounts to an unconstitutional power grab – commandeering millions in state taxpayer dollars for a purely federal program.

A federal district court granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case. On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, a two-judge panel affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the sole grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It never reached the merits of the case.

Consequently, the petition for rehearing asks the Sixth Circuit’s full bench to consider the question: Does the Tennessee General Assembly have standing to challenge a regulatory regimen that allows the federal government to siphon dollars from the state treasury “at times and in amounts of the federal government’s choosing,” effectively diluting the legislature’s exclusive power of appropriation?

The controversy over refugee resettlement in Tennessee dates back to 2008. That’s when the state pulled out of the federal refugee program in accordance with its agreement with the federal government. But the flow of refugees continued, as the federal government simply transferred management of the program to a private agency, Catholic Charities of Tennessee, an arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, “This case has enormous jurisprudential consequences, not only on the issue of the federal refugee resettlement program, but on the ability of Congress to force states to pay for future bizarre, fantastical, unwanted programs as proposed by current Democrat candidates without any recourse to the courts.”

Crucial to the argument for rehearing is the 2015 case of Arizona v. Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that state legislatures have standing to bring lawsuits when their legislative powers are threatened.

The petition for rehearing states, “In sum, the federal government is siphoning state funds to pay for a program from which Tennessee has withdrawn, and it can do so on any date and for any amount it wants. As the federal government admitted in its brief, Tennessee’s decision to end participation in the Refugee Resettlement Program had ‘no implications whatsoever’ on Tennessee’s obligation to fund the program. The federal government mandates Plaintiffs provide Medicaid to otherwise eligible refugees, or face termination of federal benefits.”

Accordingly, the federal government forces Tennessee to continue funding the refugee program by threatening to pull $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which represents 20 percent of the state’s total budget.

The rehearing petition warned, “As the federal bureaucracy continues to grow, federal officials will increasingly look to state budgets as the solution to federal funding deficits. When federal bureaucrats do so in violation of the Constitution, e.g. by coercing states to continue funding under pain of losing 20% of the state budget, state legislators must have the ability to bring suit.”

Besides Medicaid funding, the federal government also commandeers state funds for other welfare programs and for public education of the refugees.

TMLC’s complaint alleges that “the federal government has violated the United States Constitution’s Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment” by enacting legislation and rules which purport to give the federal government authority to commandeer state funds to finance the refugee resettlement program.

There is more, continue reading here.

You can find many previous posts on Tennessee’s Tenth Amendment case here.

Tennessee appeals earlier dismissal of States' Rights Refugee case

05/11/2018 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

The only state in the nation to attempt to get some control back for the state when the federal government sends them refugees is appealing an earlier decision by a judge to dismiss the case.
This is the latest from the Tennessean:

Tennessee is appealing a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit against the federal government over refugee resettlement.

The Thomas More Law Center, which is representing the state in the case, filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Thursday.

The case comes after state lawmakers approved a resolution in 2016 ordering the lawsuit.

Stephanie Teatro, co-executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, said the state’s appeal will “continue dragging our state’s reputation through the mud.”

In the case, Tennessee alleged the federal government violated the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government only possesses the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution and that all other powers are reserved for the states.

When the lawsuit was filed in March 2017, Tennessee became the first state in the nation to sue the federal government on the matter using such grounds.

Tennessee argued that the federal government was not complying with the Refugee Act of 1980, which was designed to create a permanent procedure for the admission of refugees into the United States.

Lawmakers have previously said the lawsuit is necessary to halt all refugee resettlement to the state until all associated costs are paid by the federal government.

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition have frequently slammed the lawsuit, saying it will negatively affect the state’s refugee community and perpetuate a culture of fear.

More here.
See the statement from the Thomas More Law Center by clicking here.
See all of my posts on Tennessee/Tenth Amendment.
And, learn more about the problems with refugees in Tennessee at my huge Tennessee archive here. You will find a lot of meatpacker stories among those posts.