Thread: Can Republican Governors Block Syrian Refugees From Settling in Their States?

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

The issues is far from simple or settled. There are many arguments on all sides.

Immigration and the US Constitution

MARCH 18, 2013 ILYA SOMIN 30 COMMENTS


This is a guest post by Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University and blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy (posts by Somin only). Somin has argued for substantially freer immigration, particularly in the context of immigration to the United States, on both moral and practical grounds. A list of some of his writings relevant to open borders can be found at the Open Borders page about Somin.

The US Constitution does not in itself tell us what kind of immigration policy is right and just. But it is relevant to debates over immigration in at least three important ways.

First, some opponents of increased immigration mistakenly argue that the Preamble and other parts of the Constitution commit the US government to ignoring the potential benefits of immigration to would-be migrants themselves.
Second, there is a strong case that the original meaning of the Constitution restricts Congress’ power to limit migration, though it does give Congress broad power to deny citizenship to migrants.
Finally, some structural aspects of the Constitution help limit the potential “political externalities” of open immigration, thereby weakening claims that the only way to prevent immigrants from having negative effects on public policy is to keep them out of the country entirely.

I. The Constitution does not Justify Ignoring the Benefits of Immigration for Immigrants.

The Preamble to the Constitution states that the document’s purpose is to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Some opponents of immigration claim that the inclusion of the phrase “ourselves and our posterity” suggests that the Constitution was only meant to benefit present US citizens and their descendants, thereby justifying the US government in ignoring the rights and welfare of potential migrants in making decisions on immigration policy. However, the term “posterity,” as used in the Preamble, is probably metaphorical rather than literal – denoting future residents of the United States in general rather than merely just those who were citizens in 1787 and their descendants. In the 18th century, as today, the word “posterity” was often used to denote “future generations” in general rather than merely the biological descendants of a particular group of people. In 1787, and for almost a century thereafter, the US had a virtual open borders policy, and the Framers of the Constitution had no intention of changing that. They knew that millions of immigrants would be among the “posterity” referred to in the Preamble.

Even if we assume that the “posterity” referred to in the Preamble really does refer only to those who were citizens in 1787 and their descendants, it does not follow that that the Constitution justifies ignoring the effects of immigration restrictions on would-be immigrants. As the Founding Fathers well knew, there are moral limits on what governments are allowed to do in pursuit of the interests of their citizens. For example, the United States has no right to invade Mexico and enslave its people – even if doing so would enhance “the general welfare” of Americans. Similarly, there are moral constraints on the extent to which the US government is justified in forcibly consigning would-be immigrants to lives of poverty and oppression in Third World countries. Neither the Preamble nor any other part of the Constitution states that the US government is entitled to ignore moral constraints on the means it uses to achieve the goals of the Constitution.

A closely related restrictionist argument is the claim that aliens are not entitled to the various constitutional rights enumerated in the Constitution. In reality, most of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are extended to all persons who enter areas governed by the United States, whether citizens or not. As James Madison put it at the Virginia ratifying convention for the Constitution, “[I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection.” In the few cases where the Constitution really does protect only citizens, the term “citizens” is explicitly used, as in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2.

Such explicit references to citizens would be unnecessary if there was an implicit understanding that all constitutional rights are limited to citizens alone.

II. Congress’ Power to Restrict Immigration.The detailed enumeration of congressional powers in Article I of the Constitution does not include any power to restrict migration as such, even though it does include the power to make laws concerning the “naturalization” of foreigners and “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”

The Naturalization Clause does not create a power to prevent foreigners from entering the country. It merely allows Congress to set conditions for the grant of citizenship.

The scope of the power to regulate “commerce” has long been a source of controversy. But at the time of the Founding and for many decades thereafter, the dominant interpretation was that it merely gave Congress the power to restrict trade and other commercial transactions, not to forbid movement as such. The Commerce Clause also gives Congress the power to regulate interstate as well as international commerce. Yet few if any eighteenth and nineteenth century jurists would have argued that Congress therefore had the power to forbid Americans from moving from one state to another.

In recent years, some leading legal scholars have argued that the original meaning of the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate all “social interaction” that affects multiple states or foreign nations. But this interpretation would give Congress nearly unlimited power, and is inconsistent with the dominant original understanding that congressional power was intended to be strictly limited in order to limit infringements on the power of the states. For a more detailed critique of the interaction theory, see this article by Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett.

Congress can restrict the entry of some foreigners by using its other enumerated powers. For example, the power to declare war and to spend money for the “common defence” includes a power to forcibly restrict entry by enemy spies, terrorists, and soldiers. The power to “define and punish” offenses against “the law of nations” presumably allows Congress to restrict the movement of pirates and other violators of international law.

But there is no general enumerated power giving Congress the authority to ban the entry of people simply because they are foreign nationals.

Not until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 did Congress adopt a significant law banning migration as such, as opposed to restricting eligibility for citizenship or excluding individuals who posed a specific threat that Congress could address under one of its other enumerated powers. And, even then, there was considerable controversy over the law’s constitutionality, despite the fact that the Act was popular due to widespread anti-Chinese prejudice.

Modern Supreme Court decisions such as Gonzales v. Raich hold that Congress has the authority to regulate virtually any “economic activity” (defined broadly enough to cover most migration) and that it has “plenary” power to restrict immigration. It is unlikely that these doctrines will be reversed any time soon.

Adherents of “living constitution” theories of constitutional interpretation can, consistent with their commitments, support this overriding of the text and original meaning. But professed originalists – who include many anti-immigration conservatives – are in a more difficult bind. This is especially true in light of the fact that conservative originalists have been in the forefront of those arguing for a narrow interpretation of Congress’ powers under interstate Commerce Clause. If the term “commerce” has a narrow definition when it comes to interstate commerce, the same applies to foreign commerce, since the Constitution literally uses the same word to cover both, giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.”

A possible way out of this bind for originalists is the claim that the federal government has an “inherent” power to restrict international migration, regardless of whether it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. That was in fact the basis on which the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of Chinese in 1889. But if the Constitution presumes such an inherent power to restrict migration, surely there is an equally inherent power to control naturalization. Yet Article I includes an explicit grant of the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.”Finally, even if Congress does have the power to exclude migrants for any reason it wants, nothing in the Constitution requires it to do so.

The Constitution allows federal and state governments to do many things that are ill-conceived or unjust, and large-scale restrictions on immigration could be among them.

III. The Constitution and Potential Political Externalities of Immigration.

Sophisticated critics of immigration – particularly conservative and libertarian ones – often emphasize the problem of “political externalities:” the danger that immigrants will use the power of the vote to cause harmful changes in government policy.

Several parts of the Constitution help restrict such dangers.

First, as noted above, the Naturalization Clause gives Congress the power to restrict migrants’ eligibility for citizenship. Under current law, most legal immigrants are eligible for citizenship only after five years, and only if they speak a modicum of

English and can pass a citizenship test that many native-born Americans would fail. This ensures that immigrants will be at least partially assimilated before getting citizenship rights, and makes it less likely they would support laws that undermine core American values. If necessary, Congress could lengthen the waiting period for citizenship, make the test harder, or both.

Living for many years in a nation that denies them citizenship rights may be unfair to immigrants. But most would prefer living as a non-citizen in a relatively free and prosperous society to life as a full citizen in poor and often oppressive

Third World nations.
Second, the Constitution’s requirement that each state has two senators leads to overrepresentation of states with small populations. Most such states are relatively rural states far from the East and West coasts, and they tend to have few immigrants. The resulting overrepresentation of native-born citizens diminishes the relative power of immigrant voters, and thereby helps alleviate any political externalities they might cause. The Constitution also restricts most powerful elected offices to citizens, and allows Congress to restrict non-citizen eligibility for federal welfare programs.

The political effects of the Naturalization Clause and the Senate are double-edged swords. In some cases, immigrant voters might use their influence to improve American public policy rather than make it worse. When that happens, restrictions on eligibility for citizenship and overrepresentation of native-born citizens in the Senate turn out to be harmful rather than beneficial. But those who worry about the political externalities of immigration are likely to be pessimists rather than optimists in their assessment of the influence of of immigrant voters.

Such pessimists should welcome the fact that the Constitution has many mechanisms for controlling such externalities without resorting the more draconian approach of banning migrants from entering in the first place, and thereby consigning many to a lifetime of misery in the Third World.

UPDATE: At the Originalism Blog, University of San Diego Law Professor Michael Ramsey raises an objection that has also been advanced by some commenters on this site:

Professor Somin argues, among other things, that the Constitution’s original meaning does not give Congress general power to restrict immigration…
I think his argument may well be correct. But if it is, I think it quite plainly leads to a result Professor Somin does not mention, and which the folks at Open Borders do not want hear: it would leave to the states the power to restrict immigration.

I agree that the states had the power to restrict immigration under the original 1787 Constitution. But matters are far less clear after the Fourteenth Amendment, which, among other things, restricts state government discrimination against aliens.

As the Supreme Court pointed out in Plyler v. Doe (admittedly in an opinion written by non-originalist Justice William Brennan), several of the framers of the Amendment specifically stated that one of its purposes was to curb such discrimination.
But if it turns out that the price of limiting congressional power to restrict immigration is increasing state power to do so, that’s a tradeoff I’m more than happy to accept. Some states might choose to severely limit immigration, but – thanks to interjurisdictional competition – others will embrace it. And life in any American state is a far better deal for immigrants than being consigned to the Third World, which is the effect of federal laws banning migration.

UPDATE #2: Michael Ramsey’s colleague and co-blogger Mike Rappaport comments on this post here. Mike agrees with me that “the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate immigration as such.” But he also argues that Congress does have the power to regulate some other types of international movement, such as crossing international boundaries for commercial purposes. I largely agree. But such restrictions are a far cry from being able to ban mere migration across international lines.

Mike also raises the issue of state authority to impose migration, barriers, but concludes (as I do above) that state migration laws are unlikely to impede immigration as much as federal ones do, given interstate variation and competition. He does not address my point about the ways in which the Fourteenth Amendment might restrict state governments’ power to regulate migration.

Finally, Mike suggests that if the Supreme Court had struck down the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880s, Congress might have been given the power to ban immigration by constitutional amendment. That is certainly possible. But the Constitution is extremely hard to amend, and it is far from clear that the supporters of the Exclusion Act had the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, plus winning the support of three quarters of state legislatures.

http://openborders.info/blog/immigra...-constitution/

What an idiot. But then what can one expect from a Russian immigrant on the issue of immigration? Huh?

Can't you find a real live 2 or 3 generation American to quote? What is your goal, JohnDoe2, quoting Yanan Wang and Ilya Somin? To prove the federal government has the power to flood this country with illegal aliens, immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and terrorists in violation of States Rights, the US Constitution, and the will of the American People?!

How about we take your job and give it to one of them? Huh? Would you like that?

Why do you want to post globalist pro-immigration rhetoric on our forum as if it were true, when it's not? It's completely false propaganda for the opposition. Why do that?!!

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

The issues is far from simple or settled. There are many arguments on all sides.

Immigration and the US Constitution
_________ cut long winded content from post __________

Why do you refuse to engage in a discussion and continue to post long winded articles? Is this your admission you cannot defend the fact that our federal government has never been granted power over a State's immigration policies?


JWK




To support Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or John Kasich is tosupport a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includesgiving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded ourborders!

Under current laws Governors can't even deport known illegal aliens because no city, county or state law enforcement officer or agency can deport anyone. They can't remove them from the state, they can't remove them from the country. Under current laws only the federal government can deport people.

City, county and state law enforcement agencies call I.C.E. when they have someone they want deported and I.C.E. decides if they will go and get them and what they will do with them.

If many laws were changed cities, counties and states could cut out the middleman and do their own deportations.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Under current laws Governors can't even deport known illegal aliens because no city, county or state law enforcement officer or agency can deport anyone. They can't remove them from the state, they can't remove them from the country. Under current laws only the federal government can deport people.

City, county and state law enforcement agencies call I.C.E. when they have someone they want deported and I.C.E. decides if they will go and get them and what they will do with them.

If many laws were changed cities, counties and states could cut out the middleman and do their own deportations.

Actually Governors CAN do that. State and local law enforcement has the full Constitutionality authority to deport illegal aliens. Laws passed by Congress do not preempt or supercede the US Constitution. It makes it complicated for state authorities, and does that by design. That is how a federal government exceeds its authority and abuses its power by intimidating States and Local Authorities. But that doesn't change the US Constitution and it doesn't alter STATES RIGHTS to deport illegal aliens from their state and yes even the country. Yes of course it would be better if Congress repealed all of its unconstitutional laws. That would be wonderful. But few of US will go to the bank on that one because our Congress is corrupt and unreliable to the point of being treasonous. So for now, what is required is action, not laws, the laws will follow the actions. We the people and our state and local governments must lead by taking action backed by the clear language of the US Constitution.

And here it is:

Article 1, Section 9. US Constitution

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

After 1808, the federal government had the right to prevent or "prohibit" the migration or importation of persons the states thought proper to admit, but that is all it can do under the US Constitution with respect to immigration. It has no power or authority beyond that. It can not admit it can only prohibit.

Now, there is not one immigrant you can quote that will admit to this because most of them were wrongfully admitted by the federal government so if they acknowledge this section of the US Constitution it would by all legal tests invalidate their presence here. So while their view is wrong it's certainly clear why they choose to lie about the US Constitution and Immigration.

GOVERNORS CAN’T STOP OBAMA ON REFUGEES, BUT CONGRESS CAN

12/4/15

U.S. files motion against Texas plan to bar Syrian refugees

Congress needs to immediately DEFUND all federal tax dollars paid to 501 C 3 "charities" except Medicare and Medicaid. Just stop all this money-making "charity". It's bull. It's evil really, to call yourself a religious charity organization raking in millions by bloating our country with immigrants we can't sustain. It's crazy, it's insanity. Pull the plug on all federal dollars to 501 C 3 "charities", except hospitals.

Pass the FairTax, this solves this problem and many others with 1 vote in each chamber of Congress and a signature by a President who cares about our nation and people.

The FairTax Act of 2015: HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

Rights and Available Benefits After a Grant of Asylum

After you receive your final approval of asylum, you can apply for certain immigration-related and other government benefits and services. These will help you and your family adjust to living in the Unites States. Be sure to act quickly, because some benefits are available only for a limited time after you are granted asylum.

Note that you are not yet eligible for asylee benefits if your asylum case is on appeal or if you received conditional or recommended approval.

Here, you will find guidance on what benefits might be available to you after you obtain asylum, and how to apply for them.

Making Sure Your Spouse and Unmarried Children Receive(d) Asylum

Once you have been granted asylum, your immediate family members (spouse and children) -- whether they are in the U.S. or outside -- are entitled to a “derivative” grant of asylum. If your spouse and children were included in your asylum application and are physically present in the U.S., they will have automatically received asylum at the same time as you.

If they are overseas, or were not included in your application, you can file USCIS Form I-730, “Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition” to obtain asylum for them. Use a separate form for each family member. For further information, see Nolo's article, "Filling Out Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition."

For your spouse to be eligible for asylum, the two of you must have been legally married (that is, with a government-issued certificate) before you were granted asylum. For your children to be eligible, they must be unmarried and younger than 21.

Obtaining Benefits Visa a Local Refugee Resettlement Agency

As soon as possible after obtaining asylum, you should contact a Refugee Resettlement Agency (RRA). The RRA should be able to help you adjust to living in the United States. RRAs may help you even if you are already working. Depending on the local agency, and on your individual circumstances (including your family size, income, and savings), RRAs might help you in some of the following ways:

• provide cash, housing, and/or living-expenses assistance
• help you apply for government benefits and services (such as an SS card, travel document, health care, and food stamps)
• enroll you in English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) classes
• offer job-training classes, counseling, and job placement services, and
• provide you with psychological counseling.

Be aware that some services have application deadlines. That is, you must apply for some programs offered to asylees within a certain time period (as few as 30 days after you were granted asylum) in order to be eligible. To find the closest RRA, visit http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr.

Also, some of the services you may be eligible for have expiration dates. Some benefits for which RRAs may help you apply are available only during the first seven years after you are granted asylum. These include: Supplemental Security Income (if you are disabled); food stamps; Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); and Medicaid (health care benefits). Once you get your green card or become a U.S. citizen, you might be able to extend your eligibility for certain public benefits.

Applying for a Social Security Card

Asylees are automatically eligible to work in the United States. You do not need an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to do so. However, you should apply for a Social Security card, which employers will ask for, and which will enable you to apply for various public benefits. As an asylee, you are eligible for an “unrestricted” social security card, which does not place any limitations on your employment.

To obtain your SS card, go to your local SS Administration office. To find an office near you, call 1-800-772-1213. Bring original proof of your asylum grant, and proof of identity (such as a passport or state-issued ID card). Make sure to keep a receipt from the SS Administration that you had applied for a SS number to show other agencies when you apply for public benefits before you get your SS card.

You will receive your SS card in the mail within a few weeks.

Double check that it does not have any restrictions written on it. If you do not receive it or if it has restrictions, return to the same SS office to inquire.

If you currently have a restricted SS number, you should go to the SS office and apply for an unrestricted SS card. Again, make sure to bring documentation proving that you were granted asylum.

Getting a Driver’s License or a State Identification Card

As an asylee, you may obtain an official identification (ID) card from the state where you live. Some states allow you to get a state ID card; others require that you obtain a driver’s license (which typically requires you to take a written, and a driving test).

Most states require that you have a Social Security (SS) number before issuing your ID card. If you already have a SS# assigned, bring proof of that to your local motor vehicles office.

One Year After Your Grant of Asylum: Applying for Your Green Card

After you have lived in the U.S. for one year since your grant of asylum, you can apply for a green card. In technical terms, this is called “adjusting” your status to “lawful permanent resident.”

For guidance on why it is important to apply for permanent residence as soon as possible, and what you need for a successful application, see “How to Apply for Permanent Residence as an Asylee.”

Traveling Abroad and Reentering the U.S.

In order to reenter the U.S. after temporary travel abroad, you will need a refugee travel document. You can obtain it by filing USCIS Form I-131, “Application for Travel Document.” It might take several months for you to receive it. Travel documents expire. So keep track, to make sure that your travel document will still be valid when you try to reenter the United States.

You should NOT go back to the country from which you are claiming persecution. If you do, the U.S. government may decide that you do not fear persecution there anymore, and take away your asylum status. Similarly, do not travel using a passport issued by the country from which you had claimed persecution.

Four Years After Obtaining Your Green Card: Applying for U.S. Citizenship

You may apply for U.S. citizenship (to "naturalize") four years after obtaining your green card. The procedure for this is to file Form N-400, “Application for Naturalization.”

Technically, you are eligible to apply for citizenship five years after you officially become a permanent resident. However, one year of your time as an asylee counts as if you already had a green card. This is known as “rollback.” Hence, your green card will specify your starting permanent residence date as one year before your residence application was actually approved.

For further guidance on naturalization, see "How to Become a U.S. Citizen."

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...nt-asylum.html

Other short titles	Refugee Act of 1980
Long title	An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise the procedures for the admission of refugees, to amend the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 to establish a more uniform basis for the provision of assistance to refugees, and for other purposes.
Nicknames	Refugee Act of 1979
Enacted by	the 96th United States Congress
Effective	March 17, 1980
Citations
Public law	96-212
Statutes at Large	94 Stat. 102
Codification
Acts amended	Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 Migration and Refugee Assistance Act
Titles amended	8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality
U.S.C. sections amended	8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. I § 1101 et seq. 8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. II §§ 1157-1159 8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. IV § 1521 et seq.
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S. 643 by Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) on March 13, 1979 Committee consideration by Senate Judiciary, House Judiciary Passed the Senate on September 6, 1979 (85-0) Passed the House on December 20, 1979 (328-47, in lieu of H.R. 2816) Reported by the joint conference committee on February 22, 1980; agreed to by the Senate on February 26, 1980 (agreed) and by the House on March 4, 1980 (211-195) Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980

The United States Refugee Act of 1980
(Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.^[1] The act was completed on March 3, 1980, was signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980 and became effective on April 1, 1980. This was the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy.^[2] The main objectives of the act were to create a new definition of refugee based on the one created at the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, raise the limitation from 17,400 to 50,000 refugees admitted each fiscal year, provide emergency procedures for when that number exceeds 50,000, and to establish the Office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Most importantly, it established explicit procedures on how to deal with refugees in the U.S. by creating a uniform and effective resettlement and absorption policy.^[3]

Contents

• 1Purpose
  
  • 1.1Admission of refugees
  
  
• 2U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and Assistance for Effective Resettlement of Refugees in the U.S.
• 3History
• 4External links
• 5Notes
• 6References

Purpose[edit]

The Act recognizes that it has been the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands and to provide assistance, asylum, and resettlement opportunities to admitted refugees. The goal of the Refugee Act was to create a uniform procedure with which to provide these opportunities to refugees.^[4]

Admission of refugees[edit]

The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by defining a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and 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.^[5]

The annual admission of refugees is set to a 50,000 cap per fiscal year unless in an emergency situation, during which the president may change this number for a period of twelve months. The Attorney General is also granted power to admit additional refugees and grant asylum to current aliens, but all admissions must be reported to congress and are limited to 5,000 people.^[6]

U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and Assistance for Effective Resettlement of Refugees in the U.S.[edit]

The Act created the position of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs who was now responsible to the president for the development of overall U.S. refugee admission and resettlement policy.

Title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended here when the Act created the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for funding and administering federal programs for domestic resettlement and assistance to refugees. The office must make available resources for employment training and placement for refugees to be economically self-sufficient, provide opportunities for English language training, ensure cash assistance, and guarantee gender equality in all training and instruction. The Office must also create grants for these projects, consult with state and local governments about sponsorship and distribution of refugees, and develop a system to monitor the use of government funds using evaluations, auditing and data collection. In order to receive assistance for programs, the States must first explain how they plan to accomplish the goals of these programs, meet the director's standards, and submit a report at the end of each fiscal year.^[7]

The Secretary of State was authorized to take on this role from 1980-1981 while the new director worked with them to develop and implement programs for existing refugees and eventually took up the position from 1982 onward.

The director must submit a congressional report at the end of each fiscal year to committees on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. The reports should contain information on the geographic location, employment status, and problems of the refugees while also containing suggestions for alternative resettlement strategies. The Office was authorized $200,000,000 during 1980 and 1981 and that number is now decided at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the results received at the end of each year.^[8]

History[edit]

It wasn't until after World War II that the United States began to differentiate the term "refugee" from "immigrant" and began creating policy that dealt specifically with refugees while working outside of immigration policy.^[9] Early action came in the form of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, and the Refugee-Escapee Act of 1957.^[10] The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was later amended in 1965 to include policy for refugees on a case by case basis, was the first Act that the consolidated U.S. immigration policy into one body of text.

The creation of the Refugee Act began with hearings by the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security from 1965–1968, which recommended that congress create a uniform system for refugees, but received little support. Edward Kennedy began writing to propose a bill to reform refugee policy in 1978 and first introduced the idea to the United States Senate in 1979. With his proposal, he hoped to address the need for a reformed, non need-based policy that was not specifically designed for people from communist regimes in Eastern Europe or repressive governments in the Middle East, as it was in the past. At the time, there was an average of 200,000 refugees coming to the United States, most of which were Indochinese and Soviet Jews.^[11] The cost of resettlement was close to $4,000, but most refugees eventually paid this amount in federal income taxes.

Many Americans feared a floodgate scenario with a large and sudden increase of the refugee population, but the 50,000 cap would only account for 10% of immigration flow to the U.S. and would allow one refugee for every 4,000 Americans,^[12] small numbers compared to those of countries like Canada, France and Australia. The bill was adopted by the Senate by a unanimous vote on September 6, 1979, and remained essentially intact until it was signed in 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act

Purpose[edit]

The Act recognizes that it has been the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands and to provide assistance, asylum, and resettlement opportunities to admitted refugees. The goal of the Refugee Act was to create a uniform procedure with which to provide these opportunities to refugees.[4]

What a crock and a total lie! This is the United States that kept slaves for hundreds of years and it took a Civil War to end that abomination. This is the United States that killed millions and millions of native Americans, who rounded them up and pushed them out of states like Georgia and the Carolinas on the Trail of Tears. This is the United States that passed the Chinese Exclusion Act to keep Chinese from migrating here. This is the United States that refused the entry of Jews on a ship who needed a place of refuge from the Nazis and we turned them away because we didn't want to mess with Germany and make Hitler mad at US. This is the United States where Dwight Eisenhower rounded up illegal aliens and deported them all.

This is rubbish written by people who are not from the United States. This is an act written by foreigners who had Congresscritters on their payroll.