Friends of Refugees

A U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Watchdog Group

Archive for the ‘Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting’ Category

Parts Of Tennessee’s Refugee Act and State Dept’s Visit To State Stop Making Sense

Posted by Christopher Coen on February 12, 2012

David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration apparently spent some time discussing the new refugee law implemented in Tennessee last year – the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act. State Sen. Jim Tracy, who sponsored the Act, alleges that the State Department thinks the new bill [actually a law now], which allows for local refugee moratoriums and codifies the federal regulation requiring quarterly meetings between resettlement agencies and local officials, is “just fine”. (???) An article in the Shelbyville Times-Gazette gives a view of the meeting from Tracy’s perspective:

A top representative of the U.S. State Department was in Tennessee this week to discuss a law dealing with the state’s refugee resettlement program.

The Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, which originated from the desk of State Sen. Jim Tracy, became law last July. It’s the first bill of its kind.

It requires the state’s refugee program agency, Catholic Charities, to meet four times a year with local governments to plan and coordinate “the appropriate placement of refugees in advance of the refugees’ arrival …”

The law also allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement if those agencies overload local resources, and so far, Tennessee is the only state that has passed this type of legislation…

A number of refugees from a variety of countries, such as Somalia, Burma and Egypt, have moved to Shelbyville in recent years to be closer to jobs at the Tyson Foods facility.

Tyson Foods needs workers who will willingly accept relatively low pay for the repetitive motion, cold environment jobs, and new refugee immigrants need jobs to support their families. (Alternatively, Americans could pay higher meat prices and the government could require companies like Tyson Foods to pay a more livable wage.)

…On Wednesday, David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, met with Tracy and other parties to discuss the law passed last year, the state senator told the T-G.

“That was the whole purpose of the visit, and they thought the bill was fine,” Tracy said, but he added that even though provisions in the new state refugee law passed last year was already codified in federal law, it had not been enforced…

Perhaps the State Department refugee office isn’t bothered by the new law’s quarterly meetings requirement, since it’s already an ORR regulation, but why would they think that the new law is just fine? Are moratoriums compatible with the constitutional provision that allows people freedom of movement? The government may not single out specific groups of people to restrict their freedom of movement (individuals get to decide for themselves where they want to live in this country).

…”If you are going to bring refugees into a community, you need to meet with community leaders, mayor, councilmen, commissioners, school superintendents, hospitals, anyone that an influx of a refugee group would affect,” Tracy said, explaining the reasons for the law being passed last year.

…Tracy said he “thought it was interesting that we had to codify something in state law to get [the State Department's] attention.”…

Yes that is interesting. Also interesting is why other government refugee program-related regulations and contract requirements are also regularly ignored. World Relief feels free to worship on the public’s nickel, even though its prohibited by a federal regulation, and their ORR partner has ignored our complaint about that practice. Also, the quite minimal “minimum requirements” that the resettlement agencies agree to meet in the refugee program are regularly flouted, and the State Department refugee office does not enforce those requirements or penalize the resettlement contractors. In practice this does not seem to have been working well for decades — the resettlement contractors just continue to violate regulations and contract requirements year after year. (What does that say about the public/private partnership philosophy in which contractors are put on pedestals and government oversight agencies don’t exercise much authority?)

…Tracy explained he also had questions for Robinson, talking about the local unemployment rate and about refugees getting on state assisted benefits, while the State Department discussed “sustainability” of the refugees. Supposedly, the refugees have 90 days to become sustainable in this country, Tracy said.

“The question we had for them was ‘what’s the definition of sustainability,’” Tracy said. “We had a good discussion about it.”…

Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if they shared that discussion with the public? After all, this is a publicly run and funded humanitarian program. The State Department refugee office apparently gave advance notice to all so-called “stakeholders”, except for the last minute notice to the public and press.

…”It was a pretty high level meeting,” Tracy said. “They were very concerned who was going to be in the meeting, it was very interesting.”

Tracy said that the State Department wanted to clarify that they had no control over secondary migration, when refugees leave the city they were initially settled in and go elsewhere.

The senator said that’s why the law is “so important, because we’re bringing refugees into Tennessee, the majority of them settle in Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis and Chattanooga,” but they eventually migrate to smaller towns…

So, what the state senator doesn’t seem to understand is that, under the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, Shelbyville and other localities will not be able to request any local moratoriums on refugee resettlement since no one is resettling refugees to those places. Refugees are moving to Shelbyville on their own for meatpacking industry jobs, in what is known as “secondary migration”.

…”It was interesting that they (the State Department) would travel to Tennessee to talk about the legislation that we passed last year and I really take it as a compliment,” Tracy said Friday. “I think they were already supposed to be doing that, and in Tennessee, they have to be doing that now.” Read more here

I guess I’d like to hear the State Department’s version of what was said at thispretty high level meeting”, but since they treat refugee resettlement as a secret program, which seems only to guard against accountability, I won’t hold my breath.

***UPDATE*** — While the public had to sit outside the meeting one of the so-called “stakeholders” invited to the meeting was the lobbyist Jennifer Murphy of the Catholic Public Policy Commission of Tennessee.

Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, capacity, Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Cooperative Agreement, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, legislation, local officials, failure to notify, meatpacking industry, Murfreesboro/Shelbyville, openess and transparency in government, ORR, public/private partnership, secondary migration, refugee, Somali, State Department, Tennessee, World Relief | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Acting Assistant Secretary Robinson Says TN’s New Refugee Law Already Part Of Federal Law

Posted by Christopher Coen on February 10, 2012

Does left hand know what right hand does?

According to an article from Chattanooga, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) David M. Robinson claims that Tennessee’s new law – that mandates refugee resettlement agencies to report quarterly to local governments and allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement – is already part of federal law. He must be referring to the part of the Tennessee that deals with quarterly reporting since there is no federal law about moratoriums. The “federal law” he refers to is actually a ORR regulation, as well as required via the State Department refugee contracts. Robinson claims he believes that the State Department (and/or their contractors?) have always abided by this regulation. Yet, they have not always abided by it, hence Tennessee’s claimed need to codify the requirement via state law. In New Hampshire the state refugee coordinator went so far as to claim that she could not require a refugee resettlement agency to consult with a city about its work, even though the ORR regulation required her, as the state refugee coordinator, to conduct quarterly meetings between the resettlement agencies and state and local governments. So, it seems that there is a disconnect between what the government oversight agencies believe that they do, and what actually happens. An article about Robinson’s visit is found in the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

A top U.S. State Department official, who spent two days in Tennessee discussing the state’s refugee resettlement program, said he wants to give communities a “louder voice in the process.”

“We believe it’s in the best interest of the United States that we pursue this program, but also we need to recognize the community nature of the program,” David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, Migration, said during a news conference Thursday.

Robinson has been in the state for a two-day visit with community members, local government officials and employers to discuss the resettlement process…

…Tennessee is the first and only state to pass a law that mandates resettlement agencies to report quarterly to local governments and allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement if those agencies overload local resources.

The law was approved last year, but the Tennessee Office for Refugees said no one has applied for the moratorium.

Robinson said that it’s already part of federal law but said Tennessee’s law “makes perfect sense.”

He added, “We believe that’s what we’ve always done,” he said… Read more here

All of this brings another question to my mind: If the new bill in New Hampshire for a proposed one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement is probably unconstitutional – as University of New Hampshire Law professor Albert Scheer told a NH state House committee last week – wouldn’t that be an indication that the part of Tennessee’s law which allows local refugee moratoriums also likely be unconstitutional? Sheer says it is likely unconstitutional because it singles out a particular class of legal residents. He cited a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a California law forbidding indigent residents from other states from settling in California.

Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, capacity, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, legislation, legislation, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, openess and transparency in government, ORR, State Department, Tennessee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

PRM’s & ORR’s First Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 12, 2011

I just read through the questions and answers for the PRM’s (State Department) and ORR’s First Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting held on February 7th. 2011. An introduction to the meeting notes that “participants included resettlement agencies, state refugee coordinators, state refugee health coordinators, ORR ethnic community self-help program grantees, and ORR technical assistance grantees”, and that “these quarterly meetings are a mechanism for sharing information with partners on prospective and current refugee populations slated for resettlement, the overseas processing pipeline, funding, capacity, and other related issues affecting placement planning.”

The first question that jumps out at me is question number four: “Would the PRM consider standardizing cultural orientation overseas?” This is interesting as up to now (see FY 2010 State Dept. contract documents 1,2,3,and 4) I have not seen any requirements in the domestic part of the refugee resettlement program for any standardization whatsoever for the cultural and community orientation that the State Department requires the resettlement agency contractors to give to refugees once they arrive here. Yet, one of the partners wants to know about oversees requirements?

I think this is one of the problems with the government oversight agencies (PRM and ORR) only  including “partners” (contractors) and “stakeholders” in these meetings – stakeholders which, by the way, do not include local communities or refugee advocacy groups critical of the the contractors. It seems that participants and partners at these meetings lack any focus whatsoever of their own responsibilities. Instead, the partners, heavily composed of the private refugee resettlement contractors, ask the government oversight agencies to give explanations and answer about governmental responsibilities. I’m all for accountable government but why do we have a process that focuses on governmental accountability to contractors,yet not to the community and citizenry? Wouldn’t these meetings be more balanced if they included some non-insiders — people and groups that have no stakes in any of the money?

Posted in Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, ORR, PRM, State Department, Volags (voluntary agencies) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers