Friends of Refugees

A U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Watchdog Group

Archive for the ‘legislation’ Category

« Previous Entries

Moratorium bill dies a quiet death in New Hampshire senate

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 19, 2012

So ends the strange saga of New Hampshire’s refugee moratorium bill. A state senate committee has recommended sending the bill “off to study”, which in an election year is apparently akin to killing it since it would have to start as a new bill next year. An article in the Nashua Telegraph has the details:

CONCORD – A move to give any city or town the right to seek a one-year ban on accepting any more refugees appears headed to legislative death in the state Senate.

With no debate and little fanfare, the Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee recommended shipping this House-passed measure, HB 1405, which Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has vigorously pursued, off to study.

Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, said the solution lies not in a state law but better communication among community service groups that care for these refugees and the host towns…

…Barnes recommended that the panel study the issue, which in an election year is akin to killing the bill since it would have to start all over as a new bill in 2013… Read more here

Oddly, the Republican chairman of the committee blamed refugee advocates for the lack of promised communication with Manchester’s mayor this past week, even though he had specifically asked the mayor to reach out to the refugee advocates and the mayor had promised he would. Yet, neither side had made an effort. An article at the Concord Monitor explains:

A Senate committee yesterday recommended interim study for a refugee moratorium, but not before its chairman gave refugee advocates a tongue lashing on communication etiquette.

Sen. Jack Barnes, a Kingston Republican, said despite assurances a week ago, Manchester refugee advocates have not tried again in the last seven days to initiate a compromise with Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, who wants the moratorium.

“I don’t appreciate people coming to this committee and saying they are going to do something and then not doing it,” said Barnes of agreements by both sides to work on a compromise. “That, to me, is garbage.”

Reached yesterday after the hearing, the advocates, Manchester immigration lawyer George Bruno and William Gillett of the New England International Institute, offered a slightly different take.

Gillett said the institute’s executive director did call Gatsas, in part to introduce a new Manchester site director. She had not gotten a call back, he said.

And Bruno said he didn’t know there was a deadline to make contact with Gatsas…

…”I might say, I haven’t heard anything from the mayor either,” Bruno said…

…At a hearing on the bill last week, Barnes implored both sides to set aside their differences and renew efforts to establish a working relationship. Both sides agreed.

Knowing his committee was voting on the bill yesterday, Barnes called Gatsas on Monday night to ask whether he had heard from Bruno or Gillett. Gatsas told him he hadn’t, Barnes said yesterday.

Clearly irritated yesterday, Barnes said, “It seems Mr. Bruno and these other groups haven’t given the mayor the courtesy of a phone call.”

Gillett and Bruno said yesterday they remain willing to work with the mayor, and Bruno said he’d reach out to Gatsas when he returns from Italy.

They said they’d take the mayor’s calls, too… Read more here

Posted in International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, moratorium / restriction | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Refugee moratorium bill now before the New Hampshire state senate

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 12, 2012

After passing the New Hampshire state house one-year refugee moratorium bill, spearheaded by Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, went before a state senate hearing this week. A lawyer with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human services, which oversees refugee resettlement, testified that the bill directs the department to do a number of things that it has no authority or ability to do. A report at New Hampshire Public Radio has this:

A bill that would allow communities to ask for a one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement has made it to a Senate Committee, but critics of the bill are piling up.

This moratorium bill has traveled a winding road to get to the senate.

The house committee that first heard recommended – almost unanimously – to kill it.

The full house then voted nearly two to one to pass it.

Now that it’s being heard by the senate, it’s drawing fresh opposition…

…several leaders from the refugee community…spoke out against the moratorium bill.

Several others at the hearing – including UNH law professor Buzz Scherr – argued that the bill runs afoul of the constitution in a basic way: it tells people where they can, or can’t, live.

Scherr: and that’s what this legislation does, it isolates a particular group of legal residents, political and economic refugees, new to this country, and says for this one year period you can’t come here.

Other opponents testified the bill as drafted would be impossible to implement.

Jennifer Jones is a lawyer with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human services, which oversees refugee resettlement.

Jones: it directs the department of health and human services to do a number of things that we have no authority or ability to do… Read more here

Mayor Gatsas testified that the local refugee resettlement agency doesn’t tell his office each time a refugee arrives. The International Institute of New England, however, pointed out that they tell the schools and health department. (I wonder if this means the Institute does not tell the mayor about the total number of refugees resettled each year? I would find that difficult to understand. The group’s national resettlement affiliate, the USCRI, presents a plan each year to the State Department for how many refugees are resettled in each city.) An article at Manchester’s Union Leader newspaper gives both side’s positions – those of the mayor and of William J. Gillett, chairman of the Institute’s board of directors:

…Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has long urged a moratorium on the resettlement program, saying the city and the refugees need an opportunity to catch their breath so that refugees can be successful.

He blamed much of the problems on the resettlement agencies, which provide support for up to nine months, but leave most refugees unprepared to obtain jobs and become productive, he said.

Gatsas has met with state and federal resettlement officials, as well as the agencies, but believes most of his efforts to slow down the process have “fallen on deaf ears.”…

…“As mayor, I never know when someone is coming to the city of Manchester,” he said.

But William J. Gillett, chairman of the board of directors for the International Institute of New England, the resettlement agency for Manchester, said…There has been a considerable slowing of the number of refugees resettled in Manchester…“The system works, but it’s not perfect,’ he said…

…Committee member Sen. Nancy Stiles, R-Hampton, asked how much notice the city is given when refugees are sent to Manchester, and Gillett said the health department and school district are notified.

“We don’t receive much notice ourselves,” he said, and acknowledged the mayor’s office is not notified as refugees arrive all year long.

Barnes said if the agency and the mayor could get together maybe “some good could come of this.”

Gillett said he has made efforts. Earlier Gatsas said he would continue to reach out to the agency.

Lutheran Social Services also resettles refugees in New Hampshire. Refugees are re-settled in 14 communities throughout the state. University of New Hampshire School of Law professor Albert “Buzz” Scheer told the Senate committee, as he did the House committee, that the bill as proposed is unconstitutional, because it would segregate one class of residents, prevent residents moving from one state to another and cannot supersede federal law that governors the program… Read more here

Although the resettlement agency seems to have made many mistakes, which they have not fully acknowledged, Mayor Gatsas has long shown that he has no intention of compromising. Nevertheless, a state senator wants both sides to just “sit down together”, to work all this out. Either the senator is naive or he wants the public to see that the senate gave each side one last try at reaching compromise. An article at the Concord Monitor newspaper explains:

The chairman of a Senate committee yesterday implored Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas and a refugee settlement agency to resolve their differences and eliminate the need for a proposed moratorium on new refugees that has already passed the House.

“It seems there has been lack of communication, and that seems to be a burr under some people’s saddle,” said Sen. Jack Barnes, a Raymond Republican. “I’d like to get the burr out from underneath the saddle.”

Barnes said to Gatsas, “Will you please try to reach out one more time to these groups?”

Gatsas said he would…

The Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee did not vote on the refugee moratorium bill, which passed the House in March, 190-109. Barnes said he wanted to wait a week to see whether Gatsas and the International Institute of New Hampshire could resolve their differences without legislation… Read more here

Posted in International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, legislation, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

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

High Incidence Of Fraud Among “Immigration Consultants” Hired By Refugees

Posted by Christopher Coen on February 8, 2012

In Utah a bill to regulate non-attorney “immigration consultants” to address the high incidence of fraud in the immigrant community advanced to the full Senate Thursday. Predatory practices are well-known among the refugee community. An article in Deseret News has more:

SALT LAKE CITY — A bill to regulate non-attorney “immigration consultants” and prevent predatory practices in the immigrant community advanced to the full Senate Thursday afternoon…

Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake, said she introduced the legislation to address the high incidence of fraud among “immigration consultants” hired by refugees and undocumented residents to assist them with immigration matters such as filling out immigration forms.

SB144, which was heard by the Senate Business and Labor Committee, would require consultants to register with the state Division of Consumer Protection, undergo criminal background checks and post bonds. It also creates a complaint process for people who have been defrauded.

“This is to prevent predatory practices that are, unfortunately, well-known among the refugee and immigrant communities,” Robles said…

One non-attorney consultant was so brazen that she started appearing on behalf of clients in immigration court, Tarin said.

She persisted until the Utah State Bar obtained an injunction to prevent her from practicing law without a license. Criminal charges were also filed, but the woman fled the state.

“Since then, 20 to 25 people have taken her spot,” he said… Read more here

Posted in court, immigration services, legislation, Utah | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Introduced Into NH State Legislature Giving Cities Ability To Declare 1-year Moratorium On New Refugees

Posted by Christopher Coen on January 10, 2012

Representatives in New Hampshire’s state legislature this month introduced a bill to give cities the ability to declare a one-year moratorium on new refugees. An article at Yahoo News explains:

MANCHESTER, N.H.–With Mitt Romney’s strength in the polls in New Hampshire, the mayor of the state’s biggest city hopes that a resolution to what he calls “the refugee resettlement question” will soon be at hand…

…In July, the city’s aldermen took the unusual step of passing a bill requesting a two-year moratorium on new refugee resettlement… After interviewing city leaders and refugees, the State Department reduced the number of new refugees that would be settled in Manchester during this fiscal year–which began in October–from 300 to 200…

…Leaders in the local Bhutanese community are happy that the moratorium failed, but they remain wary of the mayor’s insistence that the city can’t handle more refugees. This month, representatives in the state legislature introduced a bill to give cities the ability to declare a one-year moratorium on new refugees, suggesting that the debate over their place in New Hampshire is far from over…

…”The moratorium that he is talking about has really created a lot of mental disturbances and tension to the communities who are already here,” Narad Adhikari, who moved to Manchester five months ago and is still looking for work, told Yahoo News…

The article also mentions that USCRI’s International Institute lumped all the refugees in one English class, ignoring skill levels (which has long proven counterproductive):

…many Bhutanese families in Manchester do not speak English, according to Acharya. The English classes provided by the International Institute–and paid for by the federal government–lump together refugees who have never had a day’s education with those who have spent years in a classroom, hampering the progress of both groups, he says.

The students Subedi works with sometimes act out in class because they receive less homework and lighter discipline than they did at the United Nations-run schools in the refugee camp.

“It’s easier here, so sometimes they try to take advantage of it,” Subedi said. Read more here

Posted in ESL & ELL, language, legislation, legislation, moratorium / restriction, Nepali Bhutanese, New Hampshire, State Department | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Changes to Maine law prevent lawful permanent residents access to Medicaid

Posted by Christopher Coen on December 30, 2011

**Clarification** – Refugees (they may apply to become Lawful Permanent Residents after one year in the US) are exempt from this new rule, although other Lawful Permanent Residents are not exempted (e.g. refugees’ family members who immigrate via family member status), except for pregnant women and children (those under age 21) . See January 5, 2012 Sun Journal article.

Changes to Maine law governing its Medicaid program (MaineCare), sold to voters by Gov. Paul LePage as a way to save money, are now preventing lawful permanent residents from access to Medicaid during their first 5 years (this does not affect refugees access to Medicaid during their first 8 months in the US). The changes also scapegoats, and singles out for exclusion, people waiting on decisions to their asylum applications. All of these people are poor, and many are elderly, disabled or frail, and have serious health care needs. An Op-ed in the Portland Press Herald details the case:

In October, about 500 legal immigrants, mostly living in Portland and Lewiston, lost their health insurance coverage, which had been provided through MaineCare.

The change in law affects lawful permanent residents who haven’t had that status for at least five years, as well as asylum seekers who have a pending application with the federal government.

Just like refugees, many of these folks have escaped atrocities in their own country or faced persecution based on their race, religion or political beliefs.

Now they are being singled out again…

…While the decision to eliminate health insurance coverage was sold as a way to save money by Gov. Paul LePage, that will not be the end result. 

This insensitive change in the law merely shifts and hides costs, while leaving 500 people in our communities at risk of reduced access to health care.

All of these individuals are poor, and many are elderly, disabled or frail. 

Many have serious health care needs, and in many cases, the community supports that do exist are unable to meet their serious health care needs when they become uninsured. 

The cost will fall back on the state either way…

But perhaps, even more distressing, the policy doesn’t really accomplish its stated goal, which is to reduce costs.

While the money to pay for MaineCare for 500 people is removed from the state budget, the need for medical care doesn’t disappear.

It is shifted onto communities and health care providers such as clinics and hospitals.

Instead of receiving assistance through MaineCare, which has cost controls and a focus on preventative care, they are forced to rely upon emergency rooms, where the cost of care is the highest… Read more here

and

…Many of the new immigrants in Maine fall into a category described as asylum seekers because they are individuals waiting for an asylum decision from the federal government. As a result of new state laws, many of these individuals can no longer get help from the safety net programs administered by the state.

Being a person seeking asylum in a new country is already an uncertain time. It’s a time of limbo and people in this position may need some assistance from others until the immigration process grants the permits necessary to be able to get a paid job. It’s a time that calls for compassion… Read more here

Also see Maine Equal Justice Partners handout, here.

Posted in asylees, health, legislation, Maine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What was the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment of 1989? Should it be renewed?

Posted by Christopher Coen on December 1, 2011

The Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 and the issue of whether Congress should renew it is up before us again (the last temporary extension of the measure expired on May 31, 2011). San Antonio’s Express-News reports that US Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with oversight over immigration policy, is holding up the renewal of the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment:

In 1989, Congress passed legislation authored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., codifying the U.S. interest in assisting [people to] escape persecution...

…Congress has routinely renewed the refugee measure for 22 years. This year, as in the past, Lautenberg attached the legislation as an amendment to the foreign operations budget. But Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with oversight over immigration policy, has stopped the Lautenberg Amendment dead in its tracks.

Smith raises two categories of objections. The first have to do with fairness. Smith contends that the 2,000 or so refugees who enter the United States annually under the Lautenberg Amendment receive preferential treatment in comparison with the other 73,000 refugees the United States takes in.

But that’s precisely the point of the amendment — to recognize special situations of persecution and open a relief valve to help avert a humanitarian catastrophe.

Smith’s second area of concern is that the amendment has never been subjected to oversight. Is the refugee program being run wisely and efficiently? Are people entering the United States under false pretenses?

Oversight hearings are entirely appropriate. We are confident that after hearing the facts about the refugee program, Smith will agree that the Lautenberg Amendment is a judicious and compassionate policy for legal immigration... Read more here

To understand this amendment we must first understand the meaning of the word “refugee” as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act – the basic body of immigration law:

Refugee – any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. here

The Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment then added more language in trying to help people experiencing persecution within their country of nationality, and in circumstances that are not easy to prove. A member of a category group:

“…may establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion…by asserting a credible basis for concern about the possibility of such persecution.”

The category groups were Jews and certain Christians from the former Soviet Union (FSA), as well as certain refugees in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. A 2003 update to the law made the category also available to refugees from Iran – mostly Christians, but also Jews, Bahais, Zoroastrians and other persecuted minorities. Presently the US allows in only about two thousand people annually this category.

 The problem with the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment was that powerful US political groups, e.g. Jews and evangelical Christians, abused it to help people they favored emigrate to the US. It allowed people to enter the US as political refugees from the FSA even after glasnost (openness) and perestroĭka (restructuring) often made moot any claim to persecution. Preferential treatment was indeed given to these people, which left some people with a bad feeling about the amendment. The Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment, however, remains the only option for legitimately persecuted groups who stay trapped inside their countries of nationality in circumstances of persecution not easy to prove. I would agree that Congress needs to inspect the oversight of the refugee program to check the many shortcomings that we explore on this blog, but not in the context of the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment. I also question why the category is only open to persecuted groups from a select handful of countries.

Posted in Bahá'i, Cambodian, evangelical, former Soviet republics, HIAS, Iranian, Jewish, Laos, legislation, Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment, Vietnamese | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Refugees could lose SSI benefits without congressional action

Posted by Christopher Coen on August 27, 2011

Many elderly and disabled refugees could lose Supplemental Security Income benefits without congressional action. Congress extended the deadline for refugees pursuing citizenship once in 2008, so that refugees could receive assistance for up to nine years before becoming citizens, but that extension expires Sept. 30. Many of the refugees who could lose their benefits next month are apparently unable to successfully take and pass citizenship tests in English because of their age or disabilities. It seems as if U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell is sitting on his hands as the deadline approaches. An article in the Lexington Herald Leader explains the situation:

…up to 605 elderly and disabled refugees in [Kentucky] stand to lose their Supplemental Security Income benefits if Congress doesn’t act by Sept. 30, according to local advocates.

“It’s a pretty profound consequence,” said Rich Seckel, director of the Kentucky Equal Justice Center in Lexington.

SSI is a federal benefit program that provides a $674 base monthly income to people who can’t work because of their advanced age or disability or blindness, and because they don’t have other resources.

Though many people who aren’t citizens are not eligible for SSI, the federal government makes an exception for refugees. But to keep SSI, the refugees must seek citizenship within seven years of their arrival in the United States.

Many of the refugees who could lose their benefits next month are unable to successfully take and pass citizenship tests in English because of their disabilities, according to Rev. Patrick Delahanty, Executive Director of the Frankfort-based Catholic Conference of Kentucky.

According to the Social Security Administration, there are as many as 605 refugees in Kentucky who are at risk of losing benefits, said Ellen Sittenfeld Battistelli, a policy analyst for the National Immigration Law Center.

Advocates have asked for help from U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis — Republican members of Kentucky’s federal delegation and key players in any response by Congress to the problem…

…Seckel said people with disabilities can request waivers of the language requirements and civics test from the federal government but the process is complicated.

In Lexington, many people are turning to the Maxwell Street Legal Clinic for help, Seckel said, but Congress should act to fix the problem because “we should not turn every refugee with a disability into a new legal case.”

The advocates are asking Congress for legislation that would ease the citizenship requirement for the severely disabled and elderly or in the short term, allow an extension of the deadline for pursuing citizenship.

Congress extended the deadline once in 2008 so that refugees could receive assistance for up to nine years before becoming citizens. But that extension expires Sept. 30.

U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., have introduced legislation that continues the nine-year policy.

Because McConnell is the Minority Leader of the Senate — the highest ranking Republican in the Senate — “his support can ensure that this population continues to be protected,” Battistelli said... Read more here

Posted in Congress, disabled refugees, elderly refugees, health, Kentucky, legislation, Social Security Administration, SSI | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Refugee bill passes Tennessee state legislature

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 16, 2011

Nashville Public Radio is reporting that Tennessee’s House and Senate have passed the state refugee bill that would mandate that resettlement agencies report quarterly to local governments. It would also allow local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement, with resettlement agencies, if those agencies overload local services.

…Refugee resettlement bill – The full House and Senate have now voted to require any agency that administers the state’s refugee program, which is currently Catholic Charities of Tennessee, to report quarterly to local governments.

SB 1670 from Sen. Jim Tracy of Shelbyville, which has seen a huge growth in Somali refugees, is called the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act.

It’s designed to help local authorities plan for schools and emergency services. But it also requires Catholic Charities to accept an application from a local government for a moratorium on new refugee resettlement if a host community lacks sufficient capacity… Read more here

This bill should be unnecessary as an ORR regulation and the State Department’s Cooperative Agreement contract with resettlement agencies supposedly already require state refugee coordinators (in this case Catholic Charities itself as the state of Tennessee has dropped out of oversight responsibilities) to convene quarterly meetings with local officials. But this is the problem with under-monitored and unenforced requirements, which our national refugee resettlement program is rife with. Government oversight agencies have little authority in their relationships with refugee resettlement contractors who are thought of as “partners”.  Enforcement of requirements and rigorous monitoring wouldn’t be partner-like. Hence we now have a state legislature attempting to codify a federal regulation. Doesn’t this undermine Tennessee residents’ trust of the national resettlement program? Every other lack of enforcement of basic requirements also undermines the public’s trust.

Posted in Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Cooperative Agreement, legislation, moratorium / restriction, ORR, State Department, Tennessee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers