Judge dismisses Tennessee States' Rights case on refugee resettlement

03/22/2018 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

A Tennessee judge this week moved to dismiss a case that would have, we believe, once and for all, settled the issue of whether the federal government can place refugees in a state and expect state taxpayers to pay for many of their needs.

Screenshot (308) — So sad. I had such high hopes for AG Sessions. He of all people should have known how significant this case is.

But, as you read the story, remember that the Judge was dismissing the case because the US Justice Department (Jeff Sessions) asked for the case to be dismissed.
We told you back in May that DOJ lawyers were pushing for dismissal.
I find it stunning that AG Jeff Sessions did not see the significance of this Tenth Amendment case for, not just the refugee resettlement program, but for other programs where the feds dump financial responsibility on states that don’t want it! (And, don’t tell me he might not have known what his lawyers were doing!).
Here is Neil Munro writing at Breitbart on Tuesday:

A March 19 federal court decision requiring taxpayers in Tennessee to fund the federal government’s refugee program ignores a 2012 Supreme Court decision, says Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center.

The judge’s 43-page decision on the refugee program “is filled with appealable issues,” Thompson told a Tuesday event hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies. “Our view is that we should appeal it” at no cost to state taxpayers, said Roberts, who is the lead pro-bono lawyer in the case.

tenth amendment

“We would relish that … this case could very well end up in the Supreme Court,” he said.

A Supreme Court majority ruled in 2012 that the federal government cannot force states to fund federal programs, so “the judge basically backed off because it was too controversial and ruled on the basis of standing,” Thompson added.

The case is important for many states because the federal refugee program forces state taxpayers and governments to fund most of the welfare, aid, and education costs of federal government’s policy of dropping refugees and their children in the states, he said. If states balk at paying the costs, the federal government can threaten to cut their share of federal funding for the Medicare program, he said.

In Tennessee, the federal Medicare program funds one-fifth of the state budget, or $7 billion per year.

[….]

The judge did not hold a hearing on the case but relied on written statements from the plaintiffs and defendants.

The judge’s decision shows the political power of the federal program, said Mark Krikorian, director of the center. “A state can check out of the refugee program, but it can never leave,” he said.

More here.
As I understand it, it is now up to the state of Tennessee to decide to take the Thomas More Law Centers‘ offer to appeal the case, free of charge. (Or, will big industry—meatpackers!—prevail on the pols to drop the whole thing so their steady supply of cheap refugee labor continues to flow into the state.)

Barnett: Trump could take one simple step to give states back the power to withdraw from the refugee program

03/15/2018 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Don Barnett lays it out (what Donald Trump could do virtually overnight) in the Washington Times on Tuesday.
First some of the background:

When the Obama administration raised the refugee admission quota for fiscal 2017 to 110,000, New Jersey, Maine, Kansas and Texas formally withdrew from the resettlement program.

Actually, this is a program states can never leave. A Clinton-era regulation prevents states from meaningfully withdrawing from the federal refugee resettlement program. If history is any guide, those states that left the program are getting more refugees now than they would have had they stayed in the program.

ted and bill — Yucking it up! Ted and Bill—two of the main reasons you have refugees secretly placed in your states against the will of most of the voting public.

The only reason it is not evident is because the national quota for 2018 was lowered by the Trump administration to 45,000; the fiscal year will likely end with a number even smaller than that.

Reform the law while President Trump is in power, or else!

By law the president can zero out the quota altogether and a new president could increase it to 200,000 or higher. Before that happens, it may be wise to look at reforming the program.

First step!

At least one reform would fit in with the president’s goal of putting the federal government back into its proper constitutional role vis a vis the states.

The Refugee Act intended to insulate states from program costs. The bill’s Senate sponsor, Edward Kennedy, noted the program would “assure full and adequate federal support for refugee resettlement programs by authorizing permanent funding for state, local and volunteer agency projects.”

Unlike other legal immigrants, refugees are eligible for all federal welfare programs on the same basis as citizens upon arrival. (This is a lifetime entitlement for refugees who become citizens.)

[….]

Substantial costs have been purposely shifted to state taxpayers over the years.

[….]

Likely in response to rumblings from state governments about exiting the program, the Clinton administration promulgated regulation 45 CFR 400.301 in 1994 allowing resettlement contractors to continue operations in a state regardless of state objections. This arrangement allowed private contractors to operate independently with no input from state government. Regulatory fiat guaranteed that a state could never get out of the program or escape its fiscal impact on state revenues.

Prior to 45 CFR 400.301 the states were participating in and paying for a voluntary program from which they had every right to withdraw at any time with the expectation that no refugees would be resettled in the state.

Repeal it Donald! Repeal it!

Repeal of 45 CFR 400.301 would have the immediate effect of allowing states to withdraw from the U.S. refugee resettlement program.

It is the Tenth Amendment stupid! (Off topic, but don’t you think it’s riot that the state of California is pushing back against the US Justice Department on immigration using the States’ Rights provision of the Constitution!)
Barnett wraps up…..

Regulations can be repealed and they can be reissued. A judicial decision on the Tennessee lawsuit’s principle question on just how far the federal government can impose on a state’s control over its own resources is still needed and extends beyond the refugee resettlement program.

More here.
Come on DOJ, get moving on the Tennessee lawsuit, surely AG Sessions knows how significant this case is!
And, then as I intone on a regular basis—Where is Congress? The original Refugee Act of 1980 must be dumped and rewritten (if the voters want a rewrite). And, the window is open now while Trump is in office!
Forget the ‘humanitarian’ mumbo-jumbo….
I suspect it is the Republican leadership driven by the Chamber of Commerce and giant corporations that keep the law from ever being seriously reviewed by Congress.
Looking for something to do?
Contact the White House and tell the President that federal regulation 45 CFR 400.301 violates the Tenth Amendment and you want him to dump it. Tell him also to get moving with long term reform to the Refugee Act of 1980 that set up the present system of paying (on a per head basis) NGO contractors to place refugees in your towns without notice or discussion.

Only a few states where anyone is willing to stand up to Washington, South Dakota is one

02/21/2018 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

A bill being discussed in the South Dakota legislature today represents a rare case where a legislator is willing to stare down the US State Department with a demand that those who live in the state have a right to say “NO” about who is resettled in the state as their tax dollars are gobbled up in the process.

State Senator Neal Tapio, a candidate for Congress, is sending a message.

Here is the AP story at The Seattle Times. AP obviously assumes the story is big enough to free it from local South Dakota media where it would normally be hidden from national view (so as not to give other states any ideas!).

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota would suspend refugee resettlements from countries on “any federal travel ban list” under a measure awaiting a legislative hearing that critics argue would be struck down by the courts if it ever becomes law.

The bill is set to have its first hearing Wednesday before the Senate State Affairs Committee. Republican Sen. Neal Tapio’s legislation would also direct the state to refuse “chain migration” from citizens of countries on such a list. That system gives advantages to the relatives of legal immigrants.

Tapio, a congressional candidate, said a potential legal challenge would be worth fighting if the bill becomes law. He said the federal government doesn’t have the right to “make your neighborhood less safe.”

“We should fight for our wives and our daughters and our kids and our grandkids,” Tapio said. “This is about the future of our communities and the citizens that live within them.”

[….]

Taneeza Islam, an immigration lawyer and executive director of South Dakota Voices for Justice, said the bill’s sponsors don’t understand the “fundamental rights that we have in our U.S. Constitution” and didn’t think through how the proposal would be implemented.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s chief of staff, Tony Venhuizen, told the Argus Leader that the Republican executive opposes the bill.

More here.
We will be back tomorrow with news about the hearing.
We have written on many previous occasions about South Dakota, a rare pocket of resistance, where business (meatpackers!) and community leaders have often been out front in saying they want the steady supply of (cheap) labor that refugees and other immigrants represent in the state.
Go here for my South Dakota archive, and here for other posts on Taneeza Islam, a former CAIR Minnesota lawyer who has moved (been moved?) to South Dakota to stir up action there.

Guest column: Feds shifting costs to states for refugee resettlement

10/08/2017 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Editor: From time to time we post guest commentary. This is from Joanne Bregman. As we refocus our efforts at the state and local level, because we can’t count on Washington, this is an effective argument for you to make on the state level.

This is about States’ rights!

(emphasis below is mine)

Federal Cost Shifting of the Refugee Resettlement Program

Background

In 1980 the federal government formalized the refugee resettlement program by passing the Refugee Act of 1980. There was no mandate to force states to participate in this program. Federal appropriations to provide for medical and cash assistance for newly resettled refugees, was authorized for 36 months. Refugees were and still are, first required to use state Medicaid programs if they are eligible, before federal medical assistance funds are used.

When the federal law was passed, it provided that for each refugee brought to a state by a federal contractor, states would be reimbursed 100% for three full years, the state incurred cost of providing Medicaid and cash welfare. The law also provided, that for refugees who did not meet eligibility criteria for state Medicaid and cash welfare programs, they could instead, receive a federal subsidy – Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) and Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) for 36 months.

By 1991, even though the number of refugees being resettled was not decreasing, the federal government eliminated reimbursement to states for the state cost of resettling and supporting refugees with Medicaid and cash welfare.

In addition, the federal government reduced the RCA and RMA subsidy from 36 months to 8 months for refugees who do not qualify for state funded programs. States have no other choice but to assume the greater share of the voluntary federal program’s costs.

Screenshot (936)

The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement told Congress early on in the program that the reason states were no longer being reimbursed for the state’s costs was because Congress didn’t appropriate enough money.

The 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy convened by Congress also documented that even the initial 3 years of 100% reimbursement to states, was not sufficient to “minimize the impact of refugees on community services.” The Commission was specifically referring to schools, hospitals and community support services.

In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office documented that the reduction in reimbursement to states for the federal refugee resettlement program, “costs for cash and medical assistance have shifted to state and local governments.” The National Governors Association has also questioned the federal cost shifting, stating that “[t]hese reductions represent a major federal policy change that shifts fiscal responsibility for meeting the basic needs of refugees from the federal government to states and localities.”

As the resettlement industry has grown, so has the cost to both federal and state governments but only the federal government controls its costs by appropriating annually “as available” while each state’s cost is driven by how much of the federal cost Congress chooses not to pay.

Be sure to see my post from earlier this past week about what you need to do on a state and local level, here.

This post is filed in my ‘What you can do’ category and in ‘Comments worth noting.’

Jeff Sessions' Justice Department planning to ask for dismissal of TN refugee case; feds say they lack time to deal with it!

05/10/2017 ~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Gee, I wonder why they are so busy? Of course, you would be living under a rock if you didn’t know that the Dept. of Justice recommended (and the President concurred) firing the Obama-appointed Director of the FBI, James Comey, yesterday.
I joked on twitter that the reason for the firing was because Comey admitted to Congress (without prompting!) that 300 refugees are in the pool of 2,000 cases being investigated by the FBI for reaching out to foreign terrorists. See yesterday’s pre-firing post here.
In my opinion, in the long run, this Tennessee case is more important for the future of this country than anything to do with James Comey’s firing!

So why does the Trump Justice Department not have enough lawyers to handle a couple of big issues at once?

Now here is what The Tennessean is reporting yesterday about the lawsuit we watched being developed for years. New readers might want to check this post when the case was filed in March for some background.

The federal government will ask for a dismissal of Tennessee’s lawsuit over refugee resettlement, according to document filed in federal court on Monday.

While seeking more time to file their request, attorneys for the Department of Justice said Tennessee lacks standing and “their claim is unripe.”

In March, Tennessee became the first state in the nation to sue the federal government over refugee resettlement, citing a violation by federal officials of the 10th Amendment. The amendment says the federal government possesses only the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, with all other powers reserved for the states.

The lawsuit argues the federal government has unduly forced states to pay for refugee resettlement programs.

The federal refugee act was designed to create a permanent procedure for the admission of refugees into the United States.

The lawsuit asks the court to force the federal government to stop resettling refugees in Tennessee until all costs associated with the settlement are incurred by the federal government.

In a brief response to the state’s lawsuit, federal attorneys say the state’s claims “lacks merit.”

Chad Readler, former Jones Day attorney, heads the Civil Rights Division responsible for the case. http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/ChadReadler_050917.aspx

Give me a break! Hire more lawyers if you can’t get the work done!

While explaining that they’d like until June 1 to prepare for their request for dismissal of the lawsuit, DOJ attorneys say they’ve been preoccupied with other matters.

“Defendants’ counsel have worked diligently to prepare their motion to dismiss, but due to the number and complexity of the issues, and the unexpectedly heavy press and urgency of business in other litigation for which undersigned counsel is responsible, Defendants require additional time,” the filing states.

Chad Readler, who has been involved in federal court cases related to President Donald Trump’s executive action on sanctuary cities, is among several attorneys for the federal government handling Tennessee’s lawsuit.

Continue reading here.
Silver lining….
The Thomas More Law Center does excellent work and if Trump’s Justice Department doesn’t keep the case out of court (as they appear to be aiming to do!) then a lack of knowledgeable and skilled federal attorneys defending the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program may be a good thing!
Always a very wild card these days is if the case is heard by a politicized judge!