Refugee Resettlement Watch

Unconstitutionality of refugee program in 12 states explained

Posted by Ann Corcoran on December 9, 2015

Thanks to Breitbart Reporter, Michael Patrick Leahy, thick-headed non-lawyers like me are beginning to grasp the argument about how the federal government is placing an unconstitutional burden on states which has no legal basis in the so-called Wilson-Fish alternative resettlement program operating in these twelve states:

Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Nevada
North Dakota
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont

otter

Governor Otter, how about you?

Here is how the Breitbart story begins, but I urge you to read the whole thing especially if you live in one of those states.

A brave governor is needed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit that is ready to file!  Help find that governor!

Twelve states hold the key to a constitutional challenge to the increasingly controversial U.S. Refugee Resettlement program.

In states where governments have withdrawn from the statutorily questionable “Wilson-Fish alternative program,” the program is now run by private charities contracted by the U.S. Department of State.

Dalrymple

North Dakota! How about you Jack?

As Breitbart News has reported previously, the Thomas More Law Center, a well respected public interest law firm, is looking for one brave governor from among these twelve states (Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont) to step up and act as the plaintiff in the case.

The constitutional argument is that the federal government, without the permission of these 12 Wilson-Fish states, has “commandeered” state funds by placing refugees in their states, thereby obligating states to pay Medicaid expenses for the refugees, in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In effect, the federal government is imposing an unfunded federal mandate by regulatory fiat, rather than statutory authority, on these 12 “Wilson-Fish alternative program” states.

There is much more, continue reading here.

Find that governor!

Go here for our previous discussions of Wilson-Fish.

7 Responses to “Unconstitutionality of refugee program in 12 states explained”

  1. Why is it that we have had so many disasters and people in this country can not find homes. Yet, after two years from the Colorado floods, there is still no affordable housing for those affected by the floods. There is alleged to be nothing to be able to move into, where is Hickenlooper going to move in these Refugees when we have homeless here that can’t get into a shelter? Where and what affordable housing is Hickenlooper going to make available when he does not do that for citizen in Colorado now? This state has open arms for refugees who will probably get homes when there are still flood victims out there needing assistance for housing and not getting it. That is so messed up.

    Like

  2. […] Unconstitutionality of refugee program in 12 states explained […]

    Like

  3. Reblogged this on Kerberos616.

    Like

  4. No such luck finding a governor with a spine in Colorado; governor ‘Snowflake’ Hickenlooper welcomes the Syrian refugees with our open pocketbook.

    Like

  5. […] WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]

    Like

  6. […] https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/unconstitutionality-of-refugee-program-in-… […]

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: