ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

23 States Pledge to Violate Federal Law by Barring Muslim Refugees. By Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
According to the latest reports, the number of State governors seeking to exploit Islamophobia in the wake of the ISIS Paris attacks (which so far not one single refugee has been reliably shown to have had the slightest connection with) by threatening to bar Syrian Muslim refugees from their states has risen from 6 on November 16 to 23 as of this writing, including 22 Republicans and 1 Democrat (in New Hampshire).

This total also includes supposedly "moderate" governors, such as Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who did not give details as to exactly how he proposes to bar Muslim refugees from his state. Is he perhaps planning to close the George Washington Bridge?

In terms of numbers, this brings the total close to the 26 state governors, all Republicans, who have joined in the Texas v. US lawsuit that seeks, at least indirectly, to force millions of equally unpopular Latino immigrants and other immigrants of color to "self-deport" by blocking the federal government from granting them affirmative benefits under the DAPA program.

Aside from political questions, including the basic threat to our democracy itself arising from these twin demagogic appeals to the voters' lowest instincts of prejudice against immigrants belonging to unpopular ethnic or religious minorities, which are beyond the scope of this post, there are serious legal issues as to whether the states have the power to interfere with federal government policy concerning either mainly Latino DAPA beneficiaries or mainly Muslim Syrian refugees.

In the case of Texas v. US, as I showed in my November 13 Immigration Daily post, even Republican appointed federal district and circuit court judges with deeply conservative reputations, (and, in the case of District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, an undisputed history of anti-immigrant judicial activism) had serious reservations about the 26 states' claim of having standing to bring the lawsuit on the basis of alleged injury from unauthorized immigration in general.

Instead, the 26 states were able to avoid having their lawsuit thrown out of court only by judicial sleight of hand in using the fact that only one of those states, Texas, was able to show that it would incur a modest amount of extra costs (estimated at a few million dollars, at most) by issuing state-subsidized drivers licenses to DAPA eligible immigrants, as a basis for finding "injury" to them all if DAPA were implemented.

However, in suing for the right to make life more difficult, if not intolerable, for millions of Latino immigrants, the 26 states had at least a valid pretext, a legal fig leaf, for being to seek assistance from the federal courts in carrying out their agenda.

There is no legal basis for asserting any such rights by the 23 state governors who have signed on to anti-Muslim hysteria by promising to defy the federal government's legal authority to settle as many Syrian Muslim refugees as it wants to in any state that it chooses, within the numerical limits allowed by federal law.

The controlling statute regarding refugee resettlement in the United States is the Refugee Act of 1980, which set up the Office of Refugee Resettlement. INA, Section 411 and 412, 8 U.S.C. 1521 and 1522.

Section 412(a)(2)(A) provides:

"The Director and the federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) 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." (Italics added.)

Subsection (a)(2)(B) provides:

"The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and settlement of refugees within the United States.
(Italics added.)

Granted, the intent of the above and other similar provisions in the statute is not to cut the States out of the decision making process with regard to refugee resettlement, but to give them an important consultative role.

Section 412(a)(2)(D) specifically provides:

"With respect to the location of placement of refugees within a given state, the Federal Agency administering subsection (b)(1) shall, consistent with such policies and strategies and to the maximum extent possible, take into account the recommendations of the State."
(Italics added.)

But the states are not given a veto power over resettlement decisions, as the 23 governors are now claiming. Their role is purely consultative and advisory. Nothing in the statute give the states authority to bar refugees from an entire state.

While the federal government has the power to make grants to the states to implement resettlement, and the states are authorized to submit their own resettlement proposals for federal approval, INA Section 412, Subsection (a)(4)(C) also provides:

"The Director may not delegate to s State or subdivision his authority to review or approve grants or contracts under this chapter or the terms under which such grants or contracts are made."

The clear intent of these provisions are that the final decisions with regard to refugee resettlement are in the hands of the federal government, not the states.

Most fundamental of all, Section 412(a)(5) provides:

"Assistance and services funded under this section shall be provided to refugees without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex or political opinion." (Italics added.)

In their calls to bar Muslim refugees from the US and admit only Christian ones, a number of Republican governors and presidential candidates are not only trashing everything that America stands for, but are proposing to substitute prejudice and hate in place of the law of the United States of America.

Whatever hypothetical danger there might be to America in admitting refugees, who are the most thoroughly vetted and investigated of all immigrants who are allowed into the US according to most experts, is vastly eclipsed by the dangers of allowing popular fear and prejudice to undermine our democracy and supplant the rule of law.
_________________________
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 30 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional workers obtain work visas and green cards. Roger believes that immigration law involves not only technical legal rules, important as they are, but also issues of equal justice, fundamental fairness and basic human rights.

His email address is algaselex@gmail.com


Submit "23 States Pledge to Violate Federal Law by Barring Muslim Refugees. By Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "23 States Pledge to Violate Federal Law by Barring Muslim Refugees. By Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "23 States Pledge to Violate Federal Law by Barring Muslim Refugees. By Roger Algase" to Google Submit "23 States Pledge to Violate Federal Law by Barring Muslim Refugees. By Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "23 States Pledge to Violate Federal Law by Barring Muslim Refugees. By Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "23 States Pledge to Violate Federal Law by Barring Muslim Refugees. By Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "23 States Pledge to Violate Federal Law by Barring Muslim Refugees. By Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 11-17-2015 at 11:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Unregistered222's Avatar
    I think Obama's administration should now totally sue these renegade states Can you imagine as the lawsuit dredges through courts, another "refugee" goes on the rampage and murders a bunch of innocent people. This will absolutely guarantee no democratic president in the next elections ))))
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    To the best of my knowledge, in the past 40 years, there has been exactly one Muslim refugee, the Boston Marathon bombing instigator, who has initiated a terrorist attack in the United States. That is admittedly one too many.

    So far, the number of refugees who have been reliably linked to the Paris atrocities is exactly zero. And how many Muslim refugees are there in Europe now? Half a million? 750 thousand? A million? And not a single one of them has been connected with these despicable, inhuman attacks.

    If you genuinely cared about protecting the lives and safety of the American people, you would be talking about how we can get rid of ISIS - and Assad, the two elements who forced all these people to become refugees in the first place and who (especially ISIS) are the real threat to the United States.

    You would also be talking about how we can ban the NRA and enact real gun control, which would save more than 10,000 American lives each year.

    But you only seem to care about spewing your own personal hate against innocent people who present minimal, if any, danger to our country, purely because they belong to an unpopular religious group, just as the Irish did in the 19th Century when the Know-Nothings attacked them and the Jews did in the 1930's when America barred all but a few and left the rest to die in Nazi concentration camps.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-17-2015 at 11:59 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. Unregistered222's Avatar
    You need to do your fact-checking properly Roger, there were two "refugees" who did Boston marathon murder - out of 700 Chechen refugees admitted. So, with all the bureaucratic worthless security "vetting and screening" there is 1 terrorist for 400 refugees admitted. That way if 10000 "refugees" admitted from Syria - that will amount to full-blow terrorist cell, right here in the US

    Another "refugee" story by the way. The guy was admitted as a refugee from Somalia and later he is:

    ?Mohamud talked about doing something big in the United States,? the indictment said. ?He wanted to go to a military base in Texas and kill three or four American soldiers execution style.?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/us/ohio-man-trained-in-syria-is-charged-with-planning-terrorism-in-us.html?_r=2

    I know, since this guys did not plan to kill lawyers, he is perfectly good in your book



    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    To the best of my knowledge, in the past 40 years, there has been exactly one Muslim refugee, the Boston Marathon bombing instigator, who has initiated a terrorist attack in the United States. That is admittedly one too many.

    So far, the number of refugees who have been reliably linked to the Paris atrocities is exactly zero. And how many Muslim refugees are there in Europe now? Half a million? 750 thousand? A million? And not a single one of them has been connected with these despicable, inhuman attacks.

    If you genuinely cared about protecting the lives and safety of the American people, you would be talking about how we can get rid of ISIS - and Assad, the two elements who forced all these people to become refugees in the first place and who (especially ISIS) are the real threat to the United States.

    You would also be talking about how we can ban the NRA and enact real gun control, which would save more than 10,000 American lives each year.

    But you only seem to care about spewing your own personal hate against innocent people who present minimal, if any, danger to our country, purely because they belong to an unpopular religious group, just as the Irish did in the 19th Century when the Know-Nothings attacked them and the Jews did in the 1930's when America barred all but a few and left the rest to die in Nazi concentration camps.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    According to your NY Times story, the Somali man was a naturalized US citizen who was brought here as an infant. I do not see anything about his having come here as a refugee, and certainly not (as a refugee) in order to commit any terrorist acts. The article says that he was not even charged with planning to commit any act of terrorism, but only with giving support o a foreign terrorist organization.

    If you want to find support for your bigoted charge that Muslim refugees are all potential terrorists, you will have to look somewhere else.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-20-2015 at 09:23 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. Unregistered222's Avatar
    And, again, Roger you are completely in the dark and wrong. This guy was brought to US as a refugee. End of the story. And, of course, since this guy had nothing against lawyers (sorry he just wanted to kill US soldiers execution style, no biggie) he is good to go in your book.

    I wonder how many people will agree with you that we need more "refugees" like that brought here with heard-earned taxpayers money. "Refugees", who are "only giving support to a foreign terrorist organization". I pretty much know the answer, and it will be the same answer as Israel already gave to everyone - we do not need refugees like that at all. Period.

    Thank you though. This argument has inspired me to write a whole bunch of letters to local representatives and senators, opening their eyes on this "refugee" disaster and demanding them to do something before innocent people are murdered in the streets Boston-marathon-style.


    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    According to your NY Times story, the Somali man was a naturalized US citizen who was brought here as an infant. I do not see anything about his having come here as a refugee, and certainly not (as a refugee) in order to commit any terrorist acts. The article says that he was not even charged with planning to commit any act of terrorism, but only with giving support o a foreign terrorist organization.

    If you want to find support for your bigoted charge that Muslim refugees are all potential terrorists, you will have to look somewhere else.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If promoting bigotry against up to a million innocent people because of the bad actions of two or three individuals makes any sense to you, go ahead and enjoy yourself. I still can't find where in the article you refer to says that the Somali man who neither attacked anyone or actually planned any attacks was a refugee.

    And so what if he was a refugee, if he didn't actually harm anyone or plan any harm? Are you saying that a million people are dangerous to America because one man with the same religion may have had fantasies about carrying out terror acts that he never acted on? This is beyond irrational.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-20-2015 at 09:24 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Roger, those $$$ you plan on making on those "millions of refugees" are clouding your vision.

    What I am saying is that government does not have in place a system to distinguish between a fake "refugee" who is using an opportunity to live off taxpayers money and not work and violent terrorist who poses like a fake "refugee".

    Under this condition it is an utmost negligence to bring these people in and put lives of innocent taxpayers in a harms way using their own money. The only people who will benefit from these "refugee" influx will be immigration lawyers making lots of $$$.

    So, the governors are doing the right thing. If federal government does not cooperate, they should start revoking business licenses to the businesses involved and start denying drivers licenses to these "refugees"



    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    If promoting bigotry against up to a million innocent people because of the bad actions of two or three individuals makes any sense to you, go ahead and enjoy yourself. I still can't find where in the article you refer to says that the Somali man who neither attacked anyone or actually planned any attacks was a refugee.

    And so what if he was a refugee, if he didn't actually harm anyone or plan any harm? Are you saying that a million people are dangerous to America because one man with the same religion may have had fantasies about carrying out terror acts that he never acted on? This is beyond irrational.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  8. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Another excellent article on your terrorist "refugee" buddies:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

    This is the kind of violent human garbage you want brought into this country at the expense of hard-working taxpayers.
    Updated 11-19-2015 at 06:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    There are an estimated five million Muslims in America. Your Daily Mail article says that of those, a few dozen at most may have been suspected of terrorist sympathies, without any actual firm proof about any of them.

    What about the other five million who are living peaceful lives, with no evidence of any terror sympathies? Do you want to lock them up or deport them?

    What about the more than 10,000 gun murders that are committed every year in the US by non-Muslims?

    So far, not a single one of the Paris attackers has been shown to have any refugee connection whatsoever, as the Syrian passport found near one of them appears to have been fake.

    By promoting hate against millions of innocent people instead of focusing on the handful of violent criminals and fanatics who are really responsible for these despicable, inhuman attacks against innocent civilians (which are totally against Muslim law of war, as developed by Islamic jurists in the Middle Ages) you might actually be helping these ISIS monsters. Nothing could make them happier than having people like you go after the wrong targets.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-20-2015 at 09:24 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: