Ohio – dwkcommentaries

Another Update on States’ Consents to Refugees Resettlement

President Trump on September 24, 2019, issued Executive Order 13888, entitled “Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement” that required state and local governments to submit to the Department of State written consents for resettlement of refugees as a precondition for such resettlements.[1]

The deadline for providing those consents, however, has been confusing in the primary and secondary sources. But it now appears that the key date is January 21, 2020, which is the deadline for local refugee resettlement agencies to submit applications for funding of those efforts by the State Department’s Bureau of Population Refugees and Migrations (PRM) and that such funding applicants must submit to PRM such “consent letters from state and local officials on a rolling basis both before and after submission of their proposals.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, there is no explicit deadline for submitting the consents.[2]

List of Consenting State & Local Governments

PRM now is publishing on its website a list of state and local governments that have submitted letters of consent, copies of most of which are hyperlinked to the list.[3] However, there is no “as of” date for the PRM’s list which will be updated from time to time. In any event, here is the latest PRM list consolidated with lists from other sources identifying 34 states (15 Republican governors and 19 Democrat Governors) that have consented.[4]

State	PRM	Other Sources	Local Entities	PRM	Other Sources
Arizona (Rep. Gov.)	X	X	Phoenix (City), Tucson (City) Maricopa (County), Pima (County)		X
Arkansas (Rep. Gov.)		X
Colorado (Dem. Gov.)	X
Connecticut (Dem. Gov.)	X	X	New Haven (City)	X
Delaware (Dem. Gov.)	X	X
Illinois (Dem. Gov.)	X	X	DuPage County, Chicago (City)	X	X
Indiana (Rep. Gov.)		X
Iowa (Rep. Gov.)	X
Kansas (Dem. Gov.)	X	X
Louisiana (Dem. Gov.)		X
Maine (Dem. Gov.)	X
Massachusetts (Rep. Gov.)	X	X	Easthampton (City)	X
			Holyoke (City)	X
			Northampton (City)	X
			Salem (City)	X
			West Springfield (City)	X
Michigan (Dem. Gov.)	X	X
Minnesota (Dem. Gov.)	X	X	Minneapolis (City)		X
Montana (Dem. Gov.)	X	X
Nebraska (Rep. Gov.)		X
New Hampshire (Rep. Gov.)	X
New Jersey (Dem. Gov.)	X	X
New Mexico (Dem. Gov.)	X	X
North Carolina (Dem. Gov.)	X	X	Durham County	X
North Dakota (Rep. Gov.)	X	X	Burleigh County		X
Ohio (Rep. Gov.)		X
Oklahoma (Rep. Gov.)
Oregon (Dem. Giov.)	X	X
Pennsylvania (Dem. Gov.)	X	X
Rhode Island (Dem. Gov.)	X
South Dakota (Rep. Gov.)		X
Tennessee (Rep. Gov.)		X
Texas (Rep. Gov.)	X[i]		Bexar County	X
Utah (Rep. Gov.)	X	X
Vermont (Rep. Gov.)		X
Virginia (Dem. Gov.)	X	X	Alexandria (City)	X
			Richmond (City)	X
			Roanoke (City)	X
Washington (Dem. Gov.)	X	X
West Virginia (Rep. Gov.)		X
Wisconsin (Dem. Gov.)		X

Finally no state so far has affirmatively rejected such resettlements although there is no requirement to do so. Rejection is implicit if there is no affirmative consent.

Conclusion

Many of the current letters of consent contain inspiring words about welcoming refugees that will be discussed in a subsequent post while another post will cover religious justifications for welcoming refugees.

Now we wait to learn what the other 16 states (11 Republican (Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming) and 5 Democrat (California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada and New York ) will do.

It should be noted, however, that the official website of New York’s Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo on September 17, issued a statement criticizing the Trump Administration’s new lower cap on refugee admissions and saying, “We believe that our diversity is our greatest strength, and we are proud to be home to refugees across the state who are breathing new life into their communities as members of the family of New York. While President Trump undermines the values that built this state and this nation, New York will always welcome immigrants and refugees with open arms.”[6]

==================================

[1] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: U.S. Sets 18,000 Quota for New Refugee Admissions to U.S. for Fiscal 2020 (Nov. 4, 2019; U.S. Senators Oppose U.S.Reduction in Refugee Admissions for Fiscal 2020 (Nov. 11, 2019);Latest U.S. Struggle Over Refugees (Dec. 11, 2019); Minnesota and Minneapolis Say “Yes” to Refugees (Dec. 14, 2019); Updates on States’ Consents to Refugee Resettlement (Dec. 16, 2019); https://dwkcommentaries.com/2019/12/16/update-on-states-consents-to-refugee-resettlement/ Tennessee Consents to Refugees Resettlement (Dec. 20, 2019).

[2] State Dep’t, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), FY 2020 Notice of Funding Opportunity for Reception and Placement Program, Funding Opportunity Number: SFOP0006252 (Nov. 6, 2019) FY2020 R&P FINAL NOFO.

[3] State Dep’t, State and Local Consents Under Executive Order 13888.

[4] See prior posts listed in footnote 1. See also Assoc. Press, Oklahoma governor give consent for refugee resettlement, koco.com (Dec. 22, 2019); Assoc. Press, GOP Governors Grapple With Whether to Accept Refugees or Not, N.Y. Times (Dec. 23, 2019); Assoc. Press, 15 GOP Govs Request Refugee Resettlement in Their States, NEWSMAX (Dec. 26, 2019); CBSChicago, Mayor Lightfoot Issues Letter To U.S. State Department Authorizing Refugee Resettlement in Chicago (Dec. 24, 2019); Assoc. Press, John Bel Edwards to Trump: Louisiana will keep taking refugees, Advocate (Dec. 23, 2019); Carson, Evers says Wisconsin is open to refugee resettlement in response to presidential order requiring states, counties to consent, Milwaukee Sentinel (Dec. 18, 2019); Stoddard, Gov. Pete Ricketts says he’ll consent to refugees continuing to resettle in Nebraska, Omaha-World Herald (Dec. 19, 2019).

[5] It appears that Texas is on the PRM list only because Bexar County has submitted a consent. On December 26, 2019, a Texas newspaper reported that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has not submitted such a consent letter and that his spokesman “did not return multiple calls, texts, and emails seeking comment.” On the other hand, “Mayors and county leaders of all Texas’ biggest cities —including Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and Austin — sent letters opting in,” but those consents are effective only if the state consents. (Kriel, Trump give states power to admit refugees. As other GOP governors sign on, Abbott is silent, Houston Chronicle (Dec. 26, 2019).)

[6] Statement from Governor Andrew M. Cuomo on the Trump Administration’s New Refugee Cap (Sept. 17, 2019).

Update on States’ Consents to Refugee Resettlement

President Trump on September 28 issued an executive order requiring state and local governments to provide written consents to refugee resettlements for Fiscal 2020. Thereafter, as previously noted in this blog, at least three states—Utah, North Dakota and Minnesota– provided such consents with at least three North Dakota counties, one Minnesota county and the City of Minneapolis doing the same.[1]

Here are some updates on this subject while we await until the January 31, 2020, deadline for consenting to see what other states and localities do in response to this challenge.

Evangelical Support for Refugee Resettlement[2]

In the meantime, we have learned that two evangelical nonprofit supporters of U.S. immigration—World Relief and the Evangelical Immigration Table—have been urging U.S. States to consent to resettlement of refugees in Fiscal 2020 (October 1, 2019—September 30, 2020). This effort is directed at the governors of the following 15 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.

The World Relief president, Scott Arbeiter, said, “After being forced to leave their countries to escape war, persecution or natural disaster and being legally allowed entry to the U.S., the last thing refugees should have to experience is being denied access to communities in which they wish to dwell. Halting the resettlement of refugees to states will disrupt families and could lead to the end of vital ministries by local churches.”

Consents by Arizona State and Local Governments[3]

On December 6, the Republican Governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, sent a letter of consent to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. The letter stated, in part, “Throughout our nation’s history, the United States has been a refuge for individuals fleeing religious and political persecution in their homeland, and Arizona has historically been one of the most welcoming states in terms of the number of refugees resettled here.”

This action was applauded by Arizona’s State House Speaker Rusty Bowers: “Our state is one that offers opportunity for all. We welcome people from all backgrounds, religions, and cultures to come here and share in that special spirit. I applaud Governor Ducey for affirming that Arizona will continue to welcome religious and politically-persecuted refugees who have been vetted through the State Department’s Reception and Placement Program.” Similar messages came from Stanford Prescott, Arizona’s community engagement coordinator of the International Rescue Committee, and from Arizona’s Surge Network of evangelical churches.

On December 11, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego added her city’s consent, telling Secretary Pompeo, “”The refugee resettlement program has a long and important history” in Phoenix; “these individuals have made invaluable contributions to our community and economy, opening businesses, creating community, and bringing greater diversity to the nation’s fifth largest city.” The same day this city’s county (Maricopa) did likewise. Previously other local Arizona authorities had provided their consents–Pima County and Tucson.

Other States Providing Consents[4]

The consent column also has been joined by the states of Kansas, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington with Democratic governors and New Hampshire with a Republican governor.

Texas’ Republican Governor Greg Abbott has not yet offered his decision on this issue, despite pleas from Texas evangelicals and the mayor of Fort Worth to continue accepting refugees.

Conclusion

Now there are at least nine states that have provided written consents to the resettlement of refugees for Fiscal 2020, while so far no state has declined to consent. This blog approves of these actions.

Rather surprisingly there is no readily identifiable website with an ongoing national tally of those categories. (If any reader knows of such a website, please identify it in a comment to this post.) There also is some confusion from the various articles about the deadline for submission of such consents to the Department of State and the period of time to be covered by such consents. (Comments with clarification on these issues are also welcome.)

All of this activity and confusion about the U.S. new lower quota for refugee admissions and the new requirement for state and local governments’ consenting to such resettlements are causing great uncertainties and challenges for the refugee resettlement agencies throughout the U.S.

One of those in Minnesota (International Institute of Minnesota) this year is celebrating its centennial of helping refugees and other immigrants with English classes, job training and other supports. One of its celebratory events last week was hosting a ceremony for the naturalization of new U.S. citizens. Welcoming them was U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel, who said, “Becoming an American does not mean renouncing your love for the land where you were born or forgetting your native language and the songs and dances you learned as a child. As a U.S. citizen, you are free to follow your own path wherever it takes you.”[5]

All of this is happening while the U.N. is calling for all nations to increase their acceptance of the escalating numbers of forcibly displaced people, now over 70.8 million, 25.9 million of whom are refugees.[6]

=================================

[1] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: U.S. Sets 18,000 Quota for New Refugee Admissions to U.S. for Fiscal 2020 (Nov. 4, 2019; U.S. Senators Oppose U.S.Reduction in Refugee Admissions for Fiscal 2020 (Nov. 11, 2019);Latest U.S. Struggle Over Refugees (Dec. 11, 2019); Minnesota and Minneapolis Say “Yes” to Refugees (Dec. 14, 2019).

[2] Smith & Jordan, Trump Said Local Officials Could Block Refugees. So Far, they Haven’t, N.Y. Times (Dec. 9, 2019); World Relief, Press Release: World Relief and the Evangelical Immigration Table Urge Governors in 15 States To Accept Refugees (Dec. 11, 2019).

[3] See n.2 supra; Gonzalez, Arizona will continue to resettle refugees, Gov. Doug Ducey tells Trump administration, azcentral (Dec. 6, 2019); Gonzalez, Phoenix, Maricopa County tell Trump administration they will keep accepting refugees, azcentral (Dec. 11, 2019); Resnik, Arizona leaders tell Trump they will welcome refugees. That doesn’t mean we’ll see more of them, 12News (Dec. 15, 2019).

[4] Macchi, More US States Welcome Refugees Under New Trump Rule, Voice of America (Dec. 6, 2019).

[5] Rao, Refugee Center’s Future in Flux at 100, StarTribune (Dec. 16, 2019).

[6] UNHCR, International community must do ‘far more’ to shoulder responsibility for refugees, says UN chief (Dec. 17, 2019); UNHCR, Global Refugee Forum (Dec. 17-18, 2019); Assoc. Press, UN Urges ‘Reboot of Refugee Response as Millions Uprooted, N,Y. Times (Dec. 17, 2019).

The Antiquated Constitutional Structure of the U.S. Senate

This year’s U.S. election re-emphasizes, for this blogger, the antiquated nature of the U.S. Constitution, especially the U.S. Senate.

Alec MacGillis, a government and politics reporter for ProPublica and the author of “The Cynic: The Political Education of Mitch McConnell,” points out that Democratic voters are increasingly concentrated in certain cities and urban areas while the Constitution allocates two Senate seats to each state regardless of population. The juxtaposition of these phenomena “helps explain why the Democrats are perpetually struggling to hold a majority. The Democrats have long been at a disadvantage in the Senate, where the populous, urbanized states where Democrats prevail get the same two seats as the rural states where Republicans are stronger. The 20 states where Republicans hold both Senate seats have, on average, 5.2 million people each; the 16 states where the Democrats hold both seats average 7.9 million people. Put another way, winning Senate elections in states with a total of 126 million people has netted the Democrats eight fewer seats than the Republicans get from winning states with 104 million people.”[1]

Nevertheless, Democrats are seeing signs that they may gain control of the Senate this election.

However, Chris Cillizza, a Washington Post columnist, points out that this control may last only two years. The reason? In the next election in 2018, 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for election are currently held by Democrats, and five of these Democratic seats are in states that then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney carried in 2012 (and even Trump is likely to carry on this year’s election): Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. Three other Democratic seats are far from “safe” seats: Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida) Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin). The Republican seats up for election in 2018, on the other hand, look like difficult challenges for the Democrats.[2]

These consequences of the current constitutional structure of the U.S. Senate suggest, as argued in a prior post, “that the U.S. Senate in particular needs radical reform if we are to retain a bicameral national legislature. To require 60% of the Senators to agree in order to do almost anything [due to the filibuster rule,] for me, is outrageous. It should only be 51% for most issues. This deficiency is exacerbated by the fact that each state has two and only two Senators regardless of the state’s population. Yes, this was part of the original grand and anti-democratic compromise in the late 18th century when there were 13 states. But the expansion of the union to 50 states has made the Senate even more anti-democratic.” [3]

Since “I believe that it would not be wise to increase the size of the Senate to reflect the population of the states (like the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives) and that each state should continue to have two Senators in a bicameral upper house, I suggest for discussion that there be weighted voting in the Senate. Each Senator from Wyoming (the least populous state in 2010 with 564,000) would have 1 vote, for example, but each Senator from California (the most populous state in 2010 with 37,254,000) would have 66 votes (37254/564 = 66.05). This approach would produce a total Senate vote of 1,094 (total U.S. population in 2010 of 308,746,000 divided by 564,000 (population of Wyoming) = 547 x 2 = 1094). The weightings would be changed every 10 years with the new census population figures.”

Such changes would aid the U.S. government in addressing the many problems facing the nation, instead of the continuation of the gridlock that has helped to prevent progress on these many problems.

==========================================

[1] MacGillis, Go Midwest, Young Hipster, N.Y. Times (Oct. 22, 2016).

[2] Cillizza, Even if Democrats Win the Senate in 2016, their majority is unlikely to endure, Wash. Post (Oct. 23, 2016).

[3] The Antiquated U.S. Constitution, dwkcommentaries.com (Mar. 28, 2012).

Excesses of People Falsely Alleging Voter Fraud

The prior post discussed the need to fight efforts to restrict voting in the U.S., including those purportedly aimed at squashing voter fraud.

A new article by Justin Levitt, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, discusses the problems created in Montana in the 2008 election by people who made false accusations of voter fraud.

For the 2012 election, Levitt reports, there have been “challenges based on ostensible felony status in Florida, ostensible deaths in North Carolina and ostensible address problems in Ohio, among others. Some of these challenges appear to be the work of isolated individuals, others are coordinated by local groups ’empowered by’ national entities like True the Vote. The common thread is that the challenges are based not on personal information about particular voters, but computerized scans of data records.”

There are at least three major problems with such challenges, according to Levitt.

First, the underlying databases for the challenges are inaccurate.

Second, some challenges are aimed at situations that may be unusual, but legitimate: (a) “voters registered at business addresses, ignoring the fact that small business owners or managers may live where they work;” (b) “immigrants, ignoring the fact that noncitizens may have become naturalized [U.S. citizens];” and (c) “students and others in group housing.”

The third major problem created by such challenges is the burdens they place on “overworked and underpaid officials desperately trying to make sure that the elections run smoothly” and on “eligible citizens [who are pulled] away from jobs and families into unnecessary legal hearings.” It is even worse for such challenges to absentee ballots from legitimate voters who have little practical chance to defend themselves.

Many of these challenges, according to Levitt, have been resisted by most election officials.

On election day itself, such officials should be skeptical of anyone “walking around with long lists of ostensibly illegal voters” that are most likely full of mistakes. The officials should “swiftly reject challenges that are not founded on credible personalized knowledge about individual voters, and they must remove volunteers who become overzealous. There must be room for civic participation, but there can be no room for unfounded disruption to the right to vote.”