Editor: Sorry I haven’t been posting much here lately, I’ve been busy at RRW (as well as being distracted as I assume many of you are as well by of demands of just living these days!), but this is very important and I’m not sure how many of you read RRW.
Cross-postedthis morning in an effort to find groups that could support the Thomas More Law Center’s legal petition to the Supreme Court.
I know it’s a little hard to believe that there are other things going on in America besides the virus crisis, but here is important news I should have mentioned sooner.
The Thomas Moore Law Center has filed a petition to attempt to get the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Amendment case that has been working its way through the legal system.
The heart of the case is the Tenth Amendment argument that the federal government has no Constitutional power to shift the cost of refugee resettlement onto state governments as it has been doing for decades.
TMLC is looking for other like-minded organizations to file amicus briefs in support of their argument which has far-reaching implications beyond just the refugee program!
Here is their press release from earlier this month.
Thomas More Law Center Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Review Tennessee’s Challenge to Federal Refugee Resettlement Program
ANN ARBOR, MI – In what could have far reaching implications for all states seeking to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) collaborating with attorney John Bursch, filed a certiorari petition Monday, March 16 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Will they, or won’t they consider the Tenth Amendment case about how the feds have been dumping the costs of refugee resettlement on the states?
The petition asks the Court to hold that the Tennessee General Assembly has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s forced state funding of the federal refugee resettlement program.
The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) is a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Both TMLC and Mr. Bursch are representing Tennessee without charge.
John Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general, nationally prominent appellate lawyer and past chair of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, authored the petition for certiorari.
The petition argues that the issues presented in the Tennessee case cut to the core of the Constitution’s protection of states against overreach by the federal government. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to appropriate state funds, contrary to the wishes of the state, to fund a federal program.
According to the petition: “If a state legislature cannot vindicate its rights in court when the federal government picks the state’s pocket and threatens the state if it dare stop providing funds, then federalism is a dead letter.”
The petition seeks to overturn a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which ruled that the General Assembly does not have institutional standing to challenge the constitutionality of the resettlement program. The cert petition does not challenge the federal government’s right to resettle refugees in Tennessee. What it objects to is forcing Tennessee taxpayers to pay the costs of the resettlement.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of TMLC, noted: “From the beginning, opposition to the federal refugee resettlement program has been about protecting Tennessee’s state sovereignty from impermissible federal interference. The federal government cannot simply commandeer state tax dollars to fund a purely federal program to extend benefits to noncitizens.”
Tennessee initially agreed to participate in the federal resettlement program because the federal government promised to reimburse 100 percent of the cost. In fact, Congress crafted the 1980 Refugee Act specifically intending that states not be taxed for programs they did not initiate and for which they were not responsible. As is often the case, however, the federal government began shrinking its financial support to the states and by 1991 eliminated it entirely. Due to the mounting costs the federal government was not covering as promised, Tennessee withdrew from the program effective June 30, 2008. But that didn’t stop the federal financial burden on Tennessee taxpayers. The federal government simply designated Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a non-governmental private organization, to continue the program with state dollars.
Between 2007 and the end of 2019, resettlement agencies pumped more than 15,000 refugees into Tennessee cities and towns. They came from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Burma, Central African Republic, Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan 3 and many other countries. They often arrive from United Nations camps in poor health, with no job skills or English-language abilities.
The resulting cost to state taxpayers amounted to tens of millions of dollars. In 2015 alone, the refugee-related Medicaid costs paid by Tennessee tax dollars topped $30 million.
Instead of resolving the merits of Tennessee’s claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sidestepped the pivotal constitutional issue concerning federalism by ruling that the Tennessee General Assembly lacked standing to bring its lawsuit.
The petition filed on March 16, 2020, argues that this was in error:
“The General Assembly is an institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury; the federal government has co-opted the General Assembly’s appropriation power and impaired its obligation to enact a balanced state budget. That is because the federal government can siphon state funds—to help pay for a federal program from which Tennessee has withdrawn.”
TMLC originally filed the federal lawsuit in March 2017 on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and state legislators Terri Lynn Weaver and John Stevens challenging the commandeering of millions in state taxpayer dollars for a purely federal program.
A U.S. district court judge dismissed the case on the federal government’s motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the sole grounds that the General Assembly lacked standing. It never reached the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court now has a chance to shed light on the proper role of the states relative to the federal government—which is the bedrock constitutional principle of federalism.
The petition states: “The (Tennessee) General Assembly does not object to the federal resettlement program. It does not even object to the federal government resettling 4 refugees in Tennessee. The General Assembly does object to the federal government reaching its hand into Tennessee’s pocket to pay for the cost of such a program, particularly when the enabling legislation was enacted with the promise to reimburse states for all expenses incurred in this program.”
The federal government mandates that states provide Medicaid to otherwise eligible refugees, or face termination of federal benefits.
Accordingly, the federal government forces Tennessee to continue funding the refugee program by threatening to pull $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which represents 20 percent of the state’s total budget.
The argument in favor of the General Assembly’s standing is bolstered by the fact that both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in 2016 in favor of filing a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The State Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 467, by a vote of 27-5 while the House voted 69-25 to pass the same resolution.
And without any waiting period they can automatically apply for all welfare programs provided by the State of Tennessee.
If you know any organization that is in agreement with the broad-reaching tenets of the case, please have them contact the Thomas Moore Law Centerimmediately. Time is short!
Have you ever used the phrase “invasion” when talking about mass migration to America, or how about publishing anything about the “great replacement?” If so, beware of the Dems, if the Open Borders Left regains control of the White House.
It won’t be just Dems out to get us either, but as Michelle Malkin has learned some of our ‘conservative’ friends want to silence speech around the issue of immigration.
If it is happening in France, it could happen here—just a few years down the road.
French Intellectual Sentenced to 2 Months in Prison For Calling Mass Immigration an “Invasion”
French intellectual Renaud Camus has been given a 2 month suspended prison sentence for saying that mass immigration into Europe represents an “invasion.”
Renaud Camus is a gay, former Socialist, who penned his controversial treatise on what he calls “The Great Replacement” in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaud_Camus
Camus will only avoid jail by paying 1800 euros to two “anti-racist” organizations, SOS Racisme and the LICRA (International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism).
The writer, who is the author of Le Grand Remplacement (The Great Replacement), was charged with “public incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion.”
The conviction stems from a November 2017 speech in Colombey-les-deux Eglises to the National Council of European Resistance in which Camus declared, “Immigration has become an invasion.”
“The irreversible colonization is demographic colonization, by the replacement of the population,” said the author, adding, “The ethnic substitution, the great replacement, is the most important event in the history of our nation since it has existed; as with other people, if the story continues, it will not be that of France.”
Camus also called for a “national consensus of resistance” to oppose Islamization in “the struggle for the salvation of our common civilization, Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Greek-Latin, Judeo-Christian.”
The part of Camus’ speech that specifically garnered the attention of judges was when he talked about European people being replaced.
Camus said mass immigration “is the substitution, the tendency to substitute everything with its emulator, normalized, standardized, interchangeable: The original with its copy, the authentic with its imitation, the true with the false, the mothers with surrogate mothers, the culture with free time and entertainment.”
By the way, at Refugee Resettlement Watch I have been labeling my posts on Europe in an archive I call “Invasion of Europe” for ten years!
Don’t let the Leftwing fascists silence you, keep talking and use the words that are most appropriate. Have no fear!
The first question I have is: Is he a refugee since the vast majority of Somalis in the US are refugees, but I am seeing no definitive answer on that, so I figured this news would be best reported at ‘Frauds and Crooks’ rather than at my other blog,‘Refugee Resettlement Watch.’
Although let me say that there are many of my RRW stories that could just as easily be reported here especially those stories involving the nine anti-Trump federal refugee contractors masquerading as ‘religious’ non-profits! See today’s post at RRW!
Islamic religious teacher arrested for alleged sex crimes against children
The Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office has arrested an Islamic religious teacher for alleged sex crimes against children. Mohamed Omar Ali, 59, was charged with one count of sexual assault of a child and three counts of sexual indecency of a child following his Jan. 3 arrest.
At a press conference Monday morning, Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls said that all four victims were children under the age of 14. Ali is a Somalian national who was living in the U.S. illegally, acording to Nehls. The bail for Ali was set at $125,000, but due to his illegal status, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement put a detainer on Ali, and he is being held at the Fort Bend County jail, Nehls said.
Mohamed Omar Ali, 59, is reportedly in the US illegally.
According to Detective Michael Alexander of the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office, Ali gained access to his alleged victims by gaining the trust of the victim’s families, who invited him into their homes to teach the Quran to their children.
Other Members of the Islamic community are distancing themselves from Ali:
Shariq Abdul Ghani, Director of the Minaret Foundation and representative of the Muslim community, added that Ali was not an employee or official volunteer of any particular mosque, but he traveled to different mosques and schools in the area, establishing himself as a defacto religious leader.
In a phone interview on Monday afternoon, Ghani also said that leaders within the Houston Muslim community were unfamiliar with Ghani. Ali lives in the Houston area of Fort Bend County, according to a news release from the sheriff’s office.
[….]
Surveillance of Ali began in September of 2019, after victims reported the abuse to the FBI, but investigators believe the alleged crimes date back to 2013. Investigators said they believe there are many more victims who have not spoken up, and the sheriff’s office urges those victims to come forward.
I’ve been joking here at ‘Frauds and Crooks’that Michigan and Florida seem to have the most ‘new American’ crooks and criminals, but Texas might be giving them a run for the money.
See yesterday at RRWabout the Iraqi refugee arrested in Texas suspected of murdering a mother of three in Colorado.
As you can see, there is a lot of crossover between my blogs!
Editor: I don’t like to cross-post between my two blogs (I fear it looks lazy!), but it is very important that what Tucker Carlson reported last night gets the widest distribution possible. (I don’t know how many of you read RRW.)
Much of what is discussed in Carlson’s piece is that the Christian federal contractors pushing for more refugees are not truly ‘religious’ charities when they are paid by taxpayers for their supposed good works—so the topic is apropos for ‘Frauds and Crooks.’
In just a little over 5 minutes last night Tucker Carlson in a segment on the US Refugee Admissions Program and the President’s efforts to reform it, explains exactly what we have been saying for weeks in dozens of posts.
Especially interesting is the focus on phony Christian charity as Carlson’s millions of viewers learn that it is federal contractors masquerading as charitable religious groups that have successfully lobbied Republican governors—18 so far—to thumb their noses at Trump and ask for more refugees for their states!
It is vitally important that you send this far and wide.Hat tip: Brenda.
The segment begins here:
Don’t miss my post yesterdayabout CAIR sending wet kisses to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan when he became the 18th governor to say his state welcomes more poverty from the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
Editor: This is cross-posted from Refugee Resettlement Watch this afternoon. I had planned a new post for ‘Frauds and Crooks’ but was so annoyed by this news about my governor’s action that I posted this at RRW and want you to see it too (in case you don’t read RRW).
We are thrilled with this decision.”
(Zainab Chaudry, director of CAIR Maryland outreach)
Of course they are, they have apparently been lobbying him heavily. Just as you can be sure they were busy in most states making sure that governors, especially Republican governors, toed the line.
I told you about Hogan’s consent yesterday, here. I guess it shouldn’t have been a surprise because he has always been a ‘never Trumper’ so supporting the President on reform of the UN-driven Refugee Admissions Program wasn’t at the top of his priority list.
So far I am not seeing any Maryland county governments begging for refugees (although I can think of several ready to invite more ‘diversity’ and more poverty to their counties).
Hogan letter: Maryland will keep door open to refugees
BALTIMORE — The Council on American-Islamic Relations is praising Gov. Larry Hogan’s decision to agree to receive refugees this year while criticizing President Donald Trump’s policies.
CAIR power! Big smooch for Hogan!
Hogan made his decision well before a Jan. 21 deadline set by the Trump administration.
In a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Hogan wrote, “We are willing to accept refugees who the federal government has determined are properly and legally seeking refugee status and have been adequately vetted.”***
“They are a great asset to Baltimore and to Maryland,” said Ibrahim Abusway, community development of Islamic Circle of North America Relief USA.
“We are thrilled with this decision,” said Zainab Chaudry, director of CAIR Maryland outreach.
The president imposed the requirement for cities and states to make a decision as to whether or not they would accept refugees after he cut the total number of refugees the United States will accept to a historic low of 18,000.
“This is just another step that is indicative of the Trump administration’s anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-refugee agenda,” Chaudry said.
While Maryland has accepted nearly 10,000 refugees under the Hogan Administration since 2016, Hogan was among 31 governors who wanted to refuse Syrian refugees in 2015.
“In 2018, CAIR had the opportunity to actually introduce Gov. Hogan to a couple Syrian refugee families that were settled in the Baltimore area, and not only was he able to hear more about their personal story, the circumstances that led them to flee their country and civil war and strife and to settle here in the United States, but he also learned about how they were launching a small business,” Chaudry said.
Just so you know, by very large margins (even under Trump), the vast majority of Syrians entering the US are Muslims.
*** This vetting issue is a red herring! Hogan surely knows that you can’t robustly vet anyone when they come from failed states. The vetting in many cases involves nothing more than asking the refugee if he/she has associated with any terrorist groups. What do you think they will say! Lying to infidels is permitted in the Islamic ‘faith.’
And, besides, the State Department’s Funding Guidance expressly says a governor can’t put any conditions on his/her letter. However, Hogan did place a condition—he said they must be “legally vetted refugees” (whatever that means!). See his letter here.
Was that so he could throw a little bone to all of you who might be concerned about who he is welcoming to Maryland?
The letter may consent to initial resettlement for refugees only in certain localities within the state, but otherwise must convey the state government’s unambiguous and unconditional consent to accept the initial resettlement of any refugee in that state in FY 2020. The consent may not be conditioned on acceptance of certain refugees or on any other factor, such as refugees’ race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.
For the umpteenth time—why are the squabbling factions in the Middle East our problem? They have been fighting among themselves for centuries and we are then expected to take them in—why?
Of course they are, they have apparently been lobbying him heavily. Just as you can be sure they were busy in most states making sure that governors, especially Republican governors, toed the line.