<sarcasm>Illegal Immigrants (no, no, we can't say that); Undocumented Immigrants (nope, that's still not working), let's go with Refugees (don't mention that real refugees could find safety in Mexico, but the USA is where all the good free stuff is at...)</sarcasm>
BALTIMORE (December 13, 2019) – Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh today joined a coalition of 12 attorneys general in an amicus brief seeking to block President Trump’s unlawful executive order on refugee resettlement and the U.S. Department of State’s recent attempt to implement that order’s consent requirement.
The executive order seeks to upend the existing refugee resettlement process by requiring resettlement agencies to obtain written consent from state and county authorities before being able to place refugees in their jurisdictions. In the brief filed in HIAS, INC. v. Donald Trump, the coalition argues that the executive order violates the Refugee Act of 1980, interferes with state sovereignty, undermines family reunification efforts, and disrupts the states’ abilities to deliver essential resources that help refugees contribute to the communities that welcome them.
“Maryland’s refugee and asylum populations contribute culturally, socially, and economically to the fabric of our diverse state. We welcome them and help them adjust to living in the United States,” said Attorney General Frosh. “We earn returns above and beyond what we can offer them. President Trump’s executive order threatens to take away our state’s autonomy and ability to provide assistance, and it will tear Maryland families apart.”
Each year, thousands of refugees are admitted into the United States and welcomed into communities across the country where they can connect with services, resources, and members of their family or cultural community that help them not just adjust but thrive. President Trump’s executive order threatens to erode the decades-old refugee relocation system established by the U.S. Congress, which provides for the effective resettlement of refugees and assists them in achieving economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible.
The Refugee Act does not grant the President the authority to give states or their local governments the ability to veto the initial placement of refugees within their jurisdictions. In fact, the federal requirement to seek additional consent from county authorities undermines state sovereignty and runs contrary to one of the purposes of the Refugee Act: to give states a greater voice in making recommendations about refugee placement. Moreover, the consent requirement places an undue administrative burden on resettlement agencies, which would hinder the states’ abilities to deliver services.
Over the last five federal fiscal years, Maryland has welcomed and resettled 5,461 refugees. Maryland, like all the coalition states, has established a statewide system for facilitating funding for refugee placement in the state, as well as long-term services and programs to support refugees through the Maryland Office for Refugees and Asylees.
The executive order also undermines the Refugee Act’s family reunification provisions. Contrary to the act, the executive order would prevent family reunification, unless local governments consent, for certain refugees who have non-refugee family members already living in the United States. As a result, under the executive order, a refugee could be prevented from resettling in a community where they already have a child or sibling. Failing to adequately consider existing familial ties is contrary to congressional intent and directly harms efforts to make the most of cultural support that help refugees and their communities succeed. In 2015, refugees’ businesses generated $4.6 billion in income nationally. A 2017 draft report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that refugees contributed $63 billion more in tax revenue than they received in public benefits over the preceding decade.
The brief was led by Maryland, California, and Illinois and was joined by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.
BALTIMORE (December 13, 2019) – Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh today joined a coalition of 12 attorneys general in an amicus brief seeking to block President Trump’s unlawful executive order on refugee resettlement and the U.S. Department of State’s recent attempt to implement that order’s consent requirement.
The executive order seeks to upend the existing refugee resettlement process by requiring resettlement agencies to obtain written consent from state and county authorities before being able to place refugees in their jurisdictions. In the brief filed in HIAS, INC. v. Donald Trump, the coalition argues that the executive order violates the Refugee Act of 1980, interferes with state sovereignty, undermines family reunification efforts, and disrupts the states’ abilities to deliver essential resources that help refugees contribute to the communities that welcome them.
“Maryland’s refugee and asylum populations contribute culturally, socially, and economically to the fabric of our diverse state. We welcome them and help them adjust to living in the United States,” said Attorney General Frosh. “We earn returns above and beyond what we can offer them. President Trump’s executive order threatens to take away our state’s autonomy and ability to provide assistance, and it will tear Maryland families apart.”
Each year, thousands of refugees are admitted into the United States and welcomed into communities across the country where they can connect with services, resources, and members of their family or cultural community that help them not just adjust but thrive. President Trump’s executive order threatens to erode the decades-old refugee relocation system established by the U.S. Congress, which provides for the effective resettlement of refugees and assists them in achieving economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible.
The Refugee Act does not grant the President the authority to give states or their local governments the ability to veto the initial placement of refugees within their jurisdictions. In fact, the federal requirement to seek additional consent from county authorities undermines state sovereignty and runs contrary to one of the purposes of the Refugee Act: to give states a greater voice in making recommendations about refugee placement. Moreover, the consent requirement places an undue administrative burden on resettlement agencies, which would hinder the states’ abilities to deliver services.
Over the last five federal fiscal years, Maryland has welcomed and resettled 5,461 refugees. Maryland, like all the coalition states, has established a statewide system for facilitating funding for refugee placement in the state, as well as long-term services and programs to support refugees through the Maryland Office for Refugees and Asylees.
The executive order also undermines the Refugee Act’s family reunification provisions. Contrary to the act, the executive order would prevent family reunification, unless local governments consent, for certain refugees who have non-refugee family members already living in the United States. As a result, under the executive order, a refugee could be prevented from resettling in a community where they already have a child or sibling. Failing to adequately consider existing familial ties is contrary to congressional intent and directly harms efforts to make the most of cultural support that help refugees and their communities succeed. In 2015, refugees’ businesses generated $4.6 billion in income nationally. A 2017 draft report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that refugees contributed $63 billion more in tax revenue than they received in public benefits over the preceding decade.
The brief was led by Maryland, California, and Illinois and was joined by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.
Last edited:
