Refugee Resettlement Watch

ACLU of New Jersey asks Christie to NOT withdraw from federal refugee program

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 4, 2016

They are talking big about not being bothered by the news from Kansas and New Jersey, but believe me they are getting nervous!

Who is “they?”  That would be the open-borders cabal that includes the American Civil Liberties Union (as we are learning here), and Human Rights First (see our previous post).  It surely includes the nine major federal contractors responsible for placing refugees in your towns as well.

chris christie 2

Sue Christie sue!

If they are so confident that refugee resettlement can continue without slowdown if a governor takes the state out of the program, then why is the ACLU bothering to badger Christie?

For new readers, it all began recently with the move by the Tennessee legislature to vote to sue the feds on States’ Rights grounds.

Once a state opts-out of the program (TN opted-out nearly ten years ago), the federal government claims they can simply assign a non-profit group to run things for the federal government in that state.  But, it’s looking like they haven’t a legal leg to stand on and so if a governor withdraws his/her state and follows up with step #2—suing the federal government when they assign a non-profit group to determine how state and local tax dollars are expended—this program could be ground to a halt.  

Here is what we just learned from North Jersey.com:

TRENTON — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is calling on Republican Gov. Chris Christie to reconsider withdrawing from a federal refugee resettlement program.

The group sent Christie a letter Tuesday arguing that the state has a long history of welcoming refugees from across the world.

Christie’s office did not immediately reply to a message seeking comment.

The group says the letter comes in response to the Christie administration’s decision last month to notify the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program that it intended to pull out.

For new readers, in addition to New Jersey and Kansas, these (below) are the so-called Wilson-Fish states where the federal program is being run by mostly unaccountable-to-the-taxpayers non-profit groups.

Folks in NJ and Kansas need to thank your governors and urge them to take step #2!  

And, if you live in one of these states tell your governor to look at the Thomas More Law Center case.

Wilson-Fish states (one city) and which NGO is running the program there:

Alabama: USCCB – Catholic Social Services

Alaska: USCCB – Catholic Social Services

Colorado: Colorado Department of Human Services

Idaho: Janus Inc. (formerly Mountain States Group), Idaho Office for Refugees

Kentucky: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Louisville, Kentucky Office for Refugees

Louisiana: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana Office for Refugees

Massachusetts: Office for Refugees and Immigrants

Nevada: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada

North Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota

San Diego County, CA: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of San Diego

South Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota

Tennessee: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Tennessee Office for Refugees

Vermont: USCRI – Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program

And, one last thing, for the life of me I have never been able to understand how the ACLU can look the other way on the separation of church and state when these ‘religious’ groups are paid by the taxpayer to resettle refugees.  I guess it’s simply the fact that these ‘religious’ groups are on the political Left as is the ACLU!

11 Responses to “ACLU of New Jersey asks Christie to NOT withdraw from federal refugee program”

  1. Ann, can you tell us all why non Wilson Fish States do not have the same rights to sue the Federal Govco…what about equal States rights?

    Like

    • Ann Corcoran said

      The non-Wilson-Fish states actually agreed at some point after the Refugee Act of 1980 became law to go along with the program. They have state coordinator offices that work with the US State Dept. and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS) and the contractors to facilitate the movement of refugees to the state and to help make sure they get their ‘services’ aka welfare. I’m not a lawyer, but I assume their agreement (contract!) with the feds would make a claim of a states’ rights violation not viable.

      If the state formally withdraws from the program then the so-called Wilson-Fish amendment to the original Act says the federal government can turn the program over to a non-profit group (which then ultimately makes decisions that involve expenses by state and local taxpayers without any elected representation by the people). And, that is where the violation, we believe, of states’ rights happens. Remember, the Supreme Court is there to decide if a law passed by Congress is Constitutional or not, and many unconstitutional ones will continue forever if not challenged.

      I have no idea if our side will prevail, but short of the good-for-nothing Congress doing anything to reform the program, this avenue to throw some legal roadblocks in their way is all we have until LOL! Trump becomes Prez. At that point we might get a serious re-evaluation of the program. If Hillary becomes Prez, we are done and so am I (off to find a nice beach somewhere).

      It’s important to remember that just withdrawing as the governors of Kansas and NJ have done will not cut-it! They must follow up with Step #2 — a States’ rights case!

      Liked by 1 person

      • 7delta said

        If non-W-F states withdraw, why can’t they legislate withdrawal with a provision that states the law shall not be construed to mean that withdrawal relinquishes the State’s sovereign authority over participation in the refugee resettlement program, nor shall it be construed as consent or submission to the W-F Amendment’s bypassing of the State to continue resettlement, since the W-F Amendment does not authorize the federal government to do so without State consent anyway, which would also be unconstitutional, if it did, without requiring State consent?

        The feds have no Constitutional authority to operate this program from the public treasury nor necessarily in the manner it’s being conducted anyway, which is in direct contradiction of the feds foremost reason for existing in the first place…to protect Americans and America through the beneficial use of all its granted authority.

        Neither is it mandated that Congress must provide a refugee program at all. The only Constitutional authority Congress is granted is “to establish uniform rules of naturalization.” That’s it. All other powers are reserved to the People and to the States. I can see plenary powers allowing sanctuary to persecuted individuals, but once it crosses over into the abuse we see today in all forms of immigration, they are way outside their Constitutional mandate and way outside the spirit of their granted authority.

        States have the Constitution and its divisions of powers on its side to just say no.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ann Corcoran said

          I can’t answer your questions, I only wish a bunch of legal minds would get into a room and go over this monstrosity and find the holes. Then of course someone with standing must be found to bring a case, or more than one case and get moving on it. However, I believe that the lawsuit angle is vitally important and must be pursued vigorously, but it can’t be relied upon to save us and must proceed along with all the other avenues of citizen engagement—that is especially so this year as it is probably the most important election of our lifetimes and putting this issue in front of the public should be a huge part of the election year discussion.

          Liked by 1 person

          • 7delta said

            If States legislated withdrawal, with refusal to allow the feds to bypass the State with W-F to continue resettlement anyway, as well as refusing resettling within State boundaries from a neighboring State volag, and include sanctions on volags in fines, a ban on operating within the State borders (as long as it receives federal funding, directly or indirectly) and maybe even authorization to sue the feds for violating State sovereignty, I figure one of two things will happen: 1) The feds will sue the State; 2) The feds won’t sue, because they know they’re overstepping authority and will quietly move on.

            Just brainstorming. I’d also like to hear from some legal eagles. Maybe some State legislators too. State laws differ, but the Constitution doesn’t. It isn’t as elastic as some people want us to believe. Federal law does not trump State law when the feds are coloring outside their lines.

            Like

  2. Reblogged this on Kerberos616.

    Like

  3. […] Source: ACLU of New Jersey asks Christie to NOT withdraw from federal refugee program […]

    Like

  4. 7delta said

    for the life of me I have never been able to understand how the ACLU can look the other way on the separation of church and state when these ‘religious’ groups are paid by the taxpayer to resettle refugees.

    And that they are advocating to bring hundreds of thousands of people here who not only don’t believe in a separation of church and state, but believe it’s their duty to force their political-religious ideology into the governance of the country and onto its people, which includes the ACLU also being forced to choose loosing their head or submitting to this totalitarian political-religious ideology that does not allow dissent or advocacy for anything other than itself. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face…

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Reblogged this on Rifleman III Journal.

    Like

  6. M Starry said

    Reblogged this on Minnesotans For Freedom and commented:
    Every state needs to do this NOW!

    Liked by 1 person

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: