Washington Post Endorses Court Injunction Against Trump’s Consent Requirements for Refugee Resettlement

On January 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction banning enforcement of President Trump’s executive order requiring state and local governments to consent to refugee resettlement. Later that same day the President through his Press Secretary released a bombastic criticism of that decision that was rebutted by the court’s opinion, which he obviously had not read. [1]

Now the Washington Post with an editorial joins the chorus of support for the court’s decision.[2]

According to the editorial, “there are excellent reasons” for not requiring such consents.

”First among them is that his executive order— in effect an invitation for Americans to turn away prospective neighbors who might look, sound or think different — reinforces and encourages the most exclusionary, divisive, intolerant faults in America’s social fabric. By doing so, it diminishes the country, not least in the eyes of a world that has long looked to the United States as a leader of humanitarian causes such as resettling the planet’s most desperate people.”

Second, the court’s opinion “offered a lucid explanation of why it is unlikely to pass legal or constitutional muster. [The judge] cited a raft of precedents, including by the Supreme Court, reserving for the federal government — not states, let alone localities — the exclusive power to admit or deny immigrants. He also demonstrated that the president’s stance flies in the face of Congress’s intent when it established the current refugee system, in 1980, and subsequently.”

“That law provides what it calls ‘comprehensive and uniform provisions’ to resettle and provide for refugees admitted after rigorous screening by U.S. agencies, a process that takes about two years. It establishes a system of consultation between federal and local officials designed to ensure a smoothly functioning system. Nowhere does it grant states and localities a veto; in fact, in amending the law to provide for more consultation, in 1986, the House Judiciary Committee noted in a report that it did not intend to grant states and localities any veto.”

“Mindful of the legislation, Justice Department lawyers, tasked with defending the president’s order, tried to pretend it did not amount to a veto for states and localities; rather, they said, it was meant only to ‘enhance the consultation.’ The judge rightly labeled that ‘Orwellian Newspeak.’”

“Mr. Trump’s move was an appeal to the nation’s worst instincts. Most Americans didn’t bite. Ahead of a deadline on Tuesday, at least 42 governors and scores of localities, including many with large Republican majorities, have announced they would accept refugees. Only Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) so far has declined; the judge’s decision denies him that power.”

“That won’t stop Mr. Trump from eviscerating the refu­gee program; he’s already slashed the annual limit on resettlements to 18,000, down from the 110,000 President Barack Obama announced in his last year in office. The open arms of most states and localities do send a convincing message, though — that Americans are not as fearful, hostile and small-minded as Mr. Trump evidently believes.”

Conclusion

Now is the time for other newspapers and citizens to join the chorus of objections to this president’s scurrilous attacks on refugees and to promulgate and honor the moral and religious obligation to welcome, protect, promote and integrate refugees and other immigrants. [3]

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

[1] Court: Trump’s Illegal Consent Procedure for Refugee Resettlement, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 16, 2020); President Trump’s Unjust Criticism of Court’s Enjoining the Consent Procedure for Refugee Resettlement, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 18, 2020).

[2] Editorial, Trump invited states and localities to bar refugees. Judge says he can’t do that, Wash. Post (Jan. 19, 2020).

[3] Pope Francis Reminds Us To Welcome, Protect, Promote and Integrate Refugees and Immigrants, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 1, 2020).

 

President Trump’s Unjust Criticism of Court’s Enjoining the Consent Procedure for Refugee Resettlement

As discussed in a prior post, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on January 15 issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the President’s executive order requiring state and local governments to consent to refugee resettlements.

 President Trump’s Criticism of Court’s Decision

Later that same day, President Trump issued a statement criticizing that court’s decision.[1] Here is what it said:

  • “Another lawless district court has asserted its own preferred immigration policy in place of the laws of the United States – and, in so doing, robbed millions of American citizens of their voice and their say in a vital issue directly affecting their communities.  President Trump rightly and justly recognized that your communities are unique, and while some cities have the resources to adequately support refugees and help them be successful, not all communities can sustain the substantial and costly burden.  Knowing that, the Trump Administration fulfilled a key promise by giving States and localities a seat at the table in deciding whether or not refugees will be placed in your communities.  In addition, under the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress explicitly afforded the President authority over the refugee resettlement process, including by taking local consultation into account.  This is a preposterous ruling, one more example of nationwide district court injunctions run amok, and we are expeditiously reviewing all options to protect our communities and preserve the integrity of the refugee resettlement process.”

Court: State and Local Governments’ Involvement in Process

This truculent presidential statement totally ignores the court’s reasoned discussion (with appropriate legal citations) of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (RAP), which existed before this executive order. RAP “is jointly administered by a division within the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). . . Once DHS conditionally approves an applicant for resettlement, the prospective refugee receives ‘sponsorship assurance’ from one of the nine Resettlement Agencies that has entered into a cooperative agreement with the State Department to assist in the resettlement of refugees.”[2]

“The Resettlement Agency then assumes responsibility for placing the prospective refugee with one of its [local] affiliates. . . . Heretofore, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. sec. 1552(a) . . ., the Federal resettlement authorities and the Resettlement Agencies have been directed to meet and consult with State and Local governments in order to establish policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of the refugees, in the course of which, acting in concert, they are directed to take into account several factors, including the availability of employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources in the destination (e.g. educational, healthcare, and mental health resources).” (Emphasis added by blogger.)[3]

As support for this conclusion, the court quoted the following provisions of the federal statute (8 U.S.C. sec. 1522) setting forth the “’conditions and considerations’ for authorizing for programs for the initial resettlement of  and assistance to refugees:”[4]

  • “‘The Director and the Federal agency administering [the program of initial resettlement] shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and Local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.’” (Emphasis provided by court and re-emphasized by this blogger.)
  • “’The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugess within the United States.’” (Emphasis provided by court and re-emphasized by this blogger.)
  • A “’refugee is not initially placed or resettled in an area highly impacted(as determined . . . after consultation with such agencies and governments.’” (Emphasis provided by court and re-emphasized by this blogger.)
  • There shall be “’a mechanism whereby representatives of local affiliates of voluntary agencies regularly (not less often than quarterly) meet with representatives of State and local governments to plan and coordinate in advance of their arrival.’” (Emphasis provided by court and re-emphasized by this blogger.)
  • “’with respect to the location of placement of refugees within a State, the federal agency admistering [the program] shall, consistent with such policies and strategies and to the maximum extent possible, take into account recommendations of the State.’” (Emphasis provided by court and re-empasized by this blogger.)

Conclusion

 The court’s opinion rationally with appropriate legal citations demonstrates that RAP in various ways requires collaboration with State and local governments over refugee resettlement. The President’s response through the Press Secretary does not meet this high standard and should be criticized and then ignored.

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

[1] White House, Statement by the Press Secretary on the Injunction Prohibiting Responsible Refugee Resettlement (Jan. 15, 2020).

[2] Memorandum Opinion at 7-8, Hias, Inc. v. Trump, Civil No. PJM 19-3346 (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2020). It should be mentioned that three of the nine Resettlement Agencies are the plaintiffs in the case in which the court enjoined the consent procedure. (Id. at 1.)

[3] Id. at 7-10.

[4] Id. at 17-18.

 President Trump Proclaims His “Success” on Cuba  

On December 31 President Trump released a lengthy recital of his administration’s alleged successes over its first three years and as an obvious prelude to his re-election campaign.[1]

In that recital President Trump said the following about Cuba:

“President Trump has promoted democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere and imposed heavy sanctions on the regimes in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.”

“The President reversed the previous Administration’s disastrous Cuba policy.”

“President Trump has enacted a new policy aimed at stopping any revenues from reaching the Cuban military or intelligence services, imposed stricter travel restrictions, and reaffirmed the focus ensuring the Cuban regime does not profit from U.S. dollars.”

“Earlier this year, the Trump Administration put a cap on remittances to Cuba.”

“President Trump is enabling Americans to file lawsuits against persons and entities that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban regime, the first time that these kind of claims have been available for Americans under the Helms-Burton Act.”

Conclusion

These statements are correct if one ignores the self-congratulatory evaluation of the administration’s actions. For those like this blogger, they are deplorable actions.[2]

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

[1] White House, President Donald J. Trump Has Delivered Record Breaking Results For The American People In His First Three Years in Office (Dec. 31, 2019).

[2] See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Cuba.

 

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).

 

 

 

 

Tennessee Consents to Refugees Resettlement

On December 18, Tennessee Republican Governor Bill Lee gave his state’s consent to refugees resettlement. His very short letter thanked  Secretary of State Michael Pompeo “for consulting with the states to ensure this process [of resettlement] is successful. We feel strongly that this consultation is appropriate and that the federal government would be overstepping by requiring states to participate in this program.”[1]

Tennessee Controversy Over the Decision

Conscious of the state’s existing political controversy over refugees, the Governor simultaneously sent a lengthy letter to the state’s Republican Lieutenant Governor Randy McNally and Republican Speaker of its House of Representatives, Cameron Sexton.[2]

This letter emphasized the Governor’s belief that “President Trump has strengthened our national security while enhancing our state’s ability to cooperate and consult with his Administration in the process of resettling refugees who are fleeing persecution, including religious persecution. Public safety is of the utmost importance and the Trump Administration has strengthened the vetting process of those entering the U.S. through heightened screenings around terrorism, violent crime, fraud, and public health concerns. Border security, reducing illegal immigration, and upholding the rule of law are critical, and so it is important to note that each and every refugee that might potentially be resettled in Tennessee under the President’s Executive Order will have been individually approved by the Trump Administration for legal immigrant status.” This letter continued with the following comments:

  • “Resettlement will be facilitated by the Trump Administration and non-profit organizations with extensive experience in this area. The refugee population in Tennessee is small, and I believe our consent to cooperate and consult with the Trump Administration to provide a safe harbor for those who are fleeing religious persecution and violent conflict is the right decision. The United States and Tennessee have always been, since the very founding of our nation, a shining beacon of freedom and opportunity for the persecuted and oppressed, and particularly those suffering religious persecution. My commitment to these ideals is based on my faith, personally visiting refugee camps on multiple continents, and my years of experience ministering to refugees here in Tennessee.”
  • “I am aware that litigation is pending asserting that the federal government is required by statute to consult with states regarding refugee resettlement, and I support this effort. President Trump’s Executive Order is certainly a step in the right direction while that litigation is pending, but I would note that Executive Orders are not necessarily binding on future presidents. So, while I am willing to trust and work with President Trump on the refugee issue, I have consulted with appropriate legal authority, and I am confident that our current work with this President will not undermine the litigation seeking a more permanent statutory interpretation that would actually bind and require the federal government to consult with the states.”
  • “Our consent comes with a shared responsibility to both the character and livelihood of our state as a lawful and thriving place for all our citizens. My consent is valid initially for one year, and we will work closely with President Trump, you, and your colleagues to ensure this process is effective as we work together with the Trump Administration to facilitate and carefully monitor continued refugee resettlement for the next year.”

The state’s Lieutenant Governor and House Speaker immediately issued a joint statement saying their “personal preference would have been to exercise the option to hit the pause button on accepting additional refugees in our state.”

Later that same day the Governor in a meeting with reporters said, “I certainly know there’s disagreement on this subject but there’s disagreement around most subjects. You agree to disagree and move forward. But I think it’s the right decision and we’re moving forward on it.”

The Governor’s decision did find support from others in the state. “Holly Johnson, who coordinates the Tennessee Office for Refugees within the Catholic Charities, said employers are ‘chasing down resettlement agencies because they know refugees work hard, they show up, they’ll work overtime, they call when they’re out,’ particularly during Tennessee’s time of low unemployment.” In addition, four large local governments said they wanted to keep accepting refugees: Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga and Shelby County, which includes Memphis.”

Conclusion

Tennessee now joins other states that have consented to refugees resettlement with positive comments on the previous contributions of refugees who had resettled in their states: Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Arizona, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Moreover, to date no state has been reported to have not consented to such resettlements,[3]

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

[1]  Office of Tenn. Governor, Gov. Lee Announces Decision on Refugee Resettlement (Dec. 18, 2019); Letter, Governor Lee to Secretary Pompeo (Dec. 18, 2019); Letter, Governor Lee to McNally and Sexton (Dec. 18, 2019); Assoc. Press, Tennessee Governor Says State Will Keep Resettling Refugees, N.Y. Times (Dec. 18, 2019); Jacobson, Gov. Lee decides Tennessee will continue accepting refugees, News Channel3 (Dec. 19, 2019); Mattise (AP), Daughter hoping to see father again praises gov’s decision, Wash. Post (Dec. 19, 2019).

[2]  Letter, Governor Lee to McNally and Sexton (Dec. 18, 2019).

[3]  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).

 

 

 

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).

 

Minnesota and Minneapolis Say “Yes” to Refugees   

As noted in a prior post, President Trump on September 28 issued an executive order requiring state and local governments to provide written consents to refugee resettlements for Fiscal 2020 and the States of Utah and North Dakota thereafter provided such  consents with three of the latter’s counties doing the same. We now await until the January 31, 2020 deadline to see what other states and localities do in response to this challenge.

Now the State of Minnesota and its City of Minneapolis have joined the affirmative choir.[1]

State of Minnesota

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s December 13 letter to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo stated, “Minnesota has a strong moral tradition of welcoming those who seek refuge. Our state has always stepped forward to help those who are fleeing desperate situations and need a safe place to call home. In keeping with this proud history, I offer my consent to continue refugee resettlement in the State of Minnesota.”

“Refugees strengthen our communities. Bringing new cultures and fresh perspectives, they contribute to the social fabric of our state. Opening businesses and supporting existing ones, they are critical to the success of our economy. Refugees are doctors and bus drivers. They are entrepreneurs and police officers. They are students and teachers. They are our neighbors.” (Emphasis in original.)

The letter concluded, “I reject the intent of the President’s Executive Order on Enhancing State and Local Involvement in Refugee Resettlement, and we reserve our right to challenge the Executive Order’s requirements. As the Holiday Season approaches, we are reminded of the importance of welcoming all who seek shelter. The inn is not full in Minnesota.” (Emphasis added,)

The concluding sentence—“the Inn is not full in Minneapolis”—invoked the Biblical story of Mary and Joseph’s discovering that the inns in Bethlehem were full and having to stay in a manger. The sentence also is seen as a retort to Prsdient Trump’s declaration on the U.S.-Mexico border last April that the U.S. immigration system is overburdened and that “our country is full” and to Trump’s October campaign rally in Minneapolis when he criticized Minnesota’s acceptance of Somali refugees.

City of Minneapolis

Also on December 13, the Minneapolis City Council unanimously adopted a resolution noting that “the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis are home to some of the largest and most diverse populations of refugees and immigrants in the United States, adding to the economic strength and cultural richness of our community.” This document then resolved that “the Mayor and City Council do hereby reaffirm the City’s status as a Welcoming City, and a city that strongly supports resettling refugees without regard to race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, or country of origin.” In addition, the “City of Minneapolis hereby pledges to continue to work diligently with resettlement organizations to accept refugees into the City and to improve refugee integration.” The final paragraph of the resolution directed “the City Clerk to send certified copies of this resolution to the President of the United States and the members of the federal delegation representing the State of Minnesota to the United States Congress to express the City’s strong support for the ongoing resettlement of refugees.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is expected to approve this resolution.

Other Minnesota Commentary

The State’s largest counties—Hennepin (Minneapolis) and Ramsey (St. Paul)—are expected to issue similar consents.

Also on December 13, the State’s Attorney General—Keith Ellison– joined a 12-state court amicus brief backing three refugee resettlement organizations that have sued the Trump administration over the president’s executive order requiring state and local consent to such resettlements. The states argue that the order violates federal law, interferes with state sovereignty, “undermines family reunification efforts, and disrupts the states’ abilities to deliver essential resources that help refugees contribute to the communities that welcome them.” According to Ellison, “Minnesotans want everyone to live with the same dignity and respect that they want for themselves. This includes the many refugees we have resettled here, who have given back many times over to the state, communities, and neighbors that have welcomed them. I’m challenging the President’s order on behalf of the people of Minnesota because it is illegal and immoral.”

A newspaper from western Minnesota— Alexandria Echo Press,  added, “The Minnesota Department of Human Services reports that 775 refugees have been placed in Minnesota in 2019, down significantly compared to previous years. And of those placed, the bulk of the refugees came from Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo” plus 69 from Ukraine and 67 from Somalia.

A longer-term perspective was provided by the Pioneer Press from St. Paul. It said, “Minnesota has the country’s largest Somali and Karen populations, the second-largest Hmong population and one of the largest Liberian populations — all made up of people who fled their war-torn homelands as well as their descendants. According to State Department data, Minnesota ranks sixth in the country for refugee arrivals since 2001, accepting over 43,000 individuals.”

Conclusion

Congratulations to the State of Minnesota and the City of Minneapolis for standing up for resettlement of refugees, each of whom already has established overseas to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees that he or she, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”[2]

On December 17, this Minnesota action was endorsed in an editorial in the state’s leading newspaper, the StarTribune. It applauded “Gov. Tim Walz . . . for his forceful declaration of Minnesota values in his letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.”  The editorial also noted, “Minnesota has a proud tradition of welcoming immigrants — particularly refugees,” who “have proved, overall, a bountiful investment.”[3]

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

[1] Office of MN Governor, Governor Walz to Trump Administration: ‘The Inn is Not Full in Minnesota,’ (Dec. 13, 2019); Assoc. Press, Governor on Refugees: ‘The Inn Is Not Full in Minnesota,’ N.Y. Times (Dec. 13, 2019); Montemayor, Gov. Tim Walz to Trump on refugees: ‘The inn is not full in Minnesota,’ StarTribune (Dec. 13, 2019);

Minneapolis City Council, Resolution Supporting the resettlement of refugees in the City of Minneapolis (Dec. 13, 2019); Minnesota Attorney General, Attorney General Ellison defends refugees against President Trump’s unlawful executive order (Dec. 13, 2019); Ferguson, ‘The inn is not full’: Walz approves additional refugee placements in Minnesota, Alexandria Echo Press (Dec. 13, 2019); Magan, ‘The inn is not full’—Walz pledges support for refugees as MN joins lawsuit, Pioneer Press (Dec. 13, 2019).

[2] UNHCR, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (entered into force April 22, 1954  (Art. 1(A)(2).

[3] Editorial, Minnesota’s doors, hearts remain open to refugees, StarTribune (Dec. 17, 2019)