States fight for the right to refuse refugees

The term “refusenik” was coined 40 years ago to describe persons, mostly Jews, refused exit visas from the Soviet Union. Today, the term could be applied to politicians who want to refuse persons, mostly Muslim, entrance to the United States. A majority of governors have announced their disapproval of refugee resettlement in the United States and several, including Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, have directed state agencies responsible for providing benefits to refugees to suspend their participation in Syrian and Iraqi refugee resettlement.

Govenor Pence even tried to persuade Archbishop Joseph Tobin to divert a Syrian family scheduled for resettlement through Catholic Charities of Indianapolis. The archbishop declined, the family was resettled, and the governor agreed to provide services to qualified refugees. Nevertheless, Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc., another non-profit refugee resettlement organization, is suing Indiana because the state’s new anti-refugee policy disrupted its plans to resettle other Syrians.

Advertisement

Gov. Greg Abbot of Texas did not wait to be sued. He went on the offensive and sued the federal government and the non-profit International Rescue Committee for what amounts to veto power over individual refugee resettlements. The lawsuit also challenges the Obama administration’s decision to admit refugees who would otherwise be excluded for providing material support to terrorists if the refugees pass all other security checks and the support provided was unknowing and insignificant. Both lawsuits are ongoing, but a federal district court in Texas denied a temporary restraining order that would have prevented a Syrian family’s resettlement.

These cases and others that may follow will be decided based on federal rather than state law. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the absolute power of the federal government to regulate immigration. Various federal statutes and regulations, including the Refugee Act of 1980, provide for the resettlement of refugees throughout the United States. These laws authorize federal funding to states that voluntarily provide services to newly resettled refugees and require federal authorities to “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…before their placement in those States and localities.”

States may opt out of their participation after giving adequate notice, but they are not empowered to prevent the relocation of refugees within their borders. The Refugee Act’s prior consultation language is a planning tool that assures adequate services are in place when refugees arrive; it does not grant states refusal powers.

When it passed the Refugee Act, Congress declared, “it is the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands…” Congress may decide to change that policy as the House voted to do when it passed a bill that would effectively block all refugees from Syria and Iraq, but that is the prerogative of the federal rather than state government.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
William Rydberg
2 years 6 months ago
The Federal Government has almost unlimited power in the United States of America now. In Canada, the Provincial Governments are most influential and it is devolving to the Provinces. What I find interesting is that both USA & Canada saw Governance differently at their formation. Canada had its Queen and Privy Council largely centralized under the British Monarchy. USA was big on States Rights, the Federal Government had limited powers at the start of the Republic. Not sure where the Catholic concept of subsidiarity resides?
Ellen Boegel
2 years 6 months ago
You pose an interesting question I cannot answer.
Henry George
2 years 6 months ago
William, You have put your finger on a Constitutional Problem that may tear this country apart.

Advertisement

The latest from america

So what does it matter what a celibate woman thinks about contraception?
Helena BurnsJuly 20, 2018
Former US President Barack Obama gestures to the crowd, during an event in Kogelo, Kisumu, Kenya, Monday, July 16, 2018. (AP Photo Brian Inganga)
In Johannesburg, Obama gave what some commentators consider his most important speech since he vacated the Oval Office.
Anthony EganJuly 20, 2018
With his "Mass," Leonard Bernstein uses liturgy to give voice to political unease.
Kevin McCabeJuly 20, 2018
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, arrives for the Jan. 6 installation Mass of Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)
Women often “bring up the voice of those who are the most vulnerable in our society,” says Hans Zollner, S.J., who heads the Centre for Child Protection in Rome.