I wonder if this will come up in the Veep debate
Pence Gets Clobbered By Federal Appeals Court In Refugee Case
The conservative U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in Chicago just hammered Trump’s “savior,” VP candidate, Mike Pence. The decision is Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Michael R. Pence, in his official capacity as Governor of Indiana, et al., Dkt. No. 16-1509 (October 3, 2016). Noted federal appeals judge, Richard Posner, wrote for a unanimous panel, joined by Frank Easterbrook and Diane Sykes. The latter happens to be on one of Trump’s lists of judges he would consider for the Supreme Court.
The case involved the grant of a preliminary injunction by a lower federal court to a private agency named Exodus that assists refugees in Indiana, some of whom are Syrian refugees. The appeals court upheld the issuance of the injunction.
For fiscal year 2016, Obama fixed the number of refugees at 85,000 of whom only 10,000 were to be persons coming to the U.S. from Syria. Trump touts that the present administration is allowing hundreds of thousands of immigrants, if one recalls.
The opinion also makes clear that all persons seeking to enter the United States as refugees must first undergo multiple layers of screening by the federal government, following screening by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Only after this process - taking up to two years - can such individuals be admitted into the United States. Trump asserts that screening of refugees is totally loose and inadequate.
Let’s get back to Pence as the defendant in this case. Per Posner’s writing, Pence asserts - without evidence - that some persons coming from Syria were sent there by ISIS to engage in terrorism and infiltrate the U.S. in order to commit terrorist acts here. Pence, though, presented no evidence of this; Posner characterized it as “nightmare speculation.”
Federal law provides money to states to assist refugees to become integrated into American society. To receive this federal money, a state must submit a plan to assist refugees, “to achieve economic self sufficiency.” Indiana submitted such a plan and it was approved. Exodus is one of the agencies to implement Indiana’s plan. Another section of the federal law provides that any such funding be done, “without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion.” Pence, though, has refused to pay, including to Exodus, for providing services for refugees whose “country of origin” is Syria. According to the opinion, a refugee’s country of origin is deemed his nationality unless he’s stateless, in which event it’s the nation in which he last resided.
Pence feared that Syrian immigrants could be potential terrorists and thus wanted to minimize their population within the Hoosier state. Rather than closing his state’s borders, he focused in on Exodus. In fiscal year 2015, it received $1.0M from the state for the provision of social services for refugees. The money assisted 892 refugees, none of them Syrian. During the last fiscal year, there were 174 Syrian refugees. The number for this year is unknown. Nonetheless, unless the 7th Circuit failed to affirm the lower court’s decision to grant the lower court’s injunction [again it did not], Exodus would receive no monies from Pence’s government this year. These refugees will thus have to resettle in other states. Pence wanted this to happen, despite a state that receives federal funding not to discriminate on the (above) listed grounds, particularly on the basis of nationality.
Pence and his lawyers stated to the appeals court, “the State’s compelling interest in protecting its residents from the well-documented threat of terrorists posing as refugees to gain entry into Western countries.” Pence failed to provide any evidence of this asserted position. Public resources also fail to reveal that Syrian refugees have been arrested or prosecuted for terrorist acts or attempts in the United States. As Judge Posner adroitly observed, if Syrian refugees did, in fact, pose a terrorist threat, Pence would thus increase the risk to other states where he would like to shunt them away from Indiana. Federal law prevents any state governor from deporting to other states immigrants a governor deems dangerous
In what may be the most cogent part of the opinion, Judge Posner repeats Pence’s assertion in legal filings: that what Pence is doing in denying payments to Exodus is not discriminatory, but
“is based solely on the threat he thinks they pose to the safety of residents of Indiana. But that’s the equivalent of his saying (not that he does say) that he wants to forbid black people to settle in Indiana not because they’re black but because he’s afraid of them, and since race is therefore not his motive he isn’t discriminating. But that of course would be racial discrimination, just as his targeting Syrian refugees is discrimination on the basis of nationality.” [Emphasis added.]
There is one final point to the 7th Circuit opinion. States do not have to participate in the federal refugee assistance program, but the federal government is authorized to establish an alternative program, called Wilson/Fish, that distributes federal aid to refugees in a state without the involvement of the state government.
In light of this opinion, sounds like Pence has become Trump 2.0 rather than being Trump’s savior, at least when it comes to immigration involving Syrian refugees. Tim Kaine, are you listening?
Source: HuffPost
I had forgotten just how much pure evil Pence is made of, so I found this to be a timely reminder of at least one facet of his evil, just in time for the debate.
P.S. We don't have a Mike Pence tag. I'm not sure we need one, unless Armageddon is unleashed the Drumpfster somehow gets himself elected, but I thought I might as well point it out since it looks weird to tag Tim Kaine and not his debate opponent.
The conservative U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in Chicago just hammered Trump’s “savior,” VP candidate, Mike Pence. The decision is Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Michael R. Pence, in his official capacity as Governor of Indiana, et al., Dkt. No. 16-1509 (October 3, 2016). Noted federal appeals judge, Richard Posner, wrote for a unanimous panel, joined by Frank Easterbrook and Diane Sykes. The latter happens to be on one of Trump’s lists of judges he would consider for the Supreme Court.
The case involved the grant of a preliminary injunction by a lower federal court to a private agency named Exodus that assists refugees in Indiana, some of whom are Syrian refugees. The appeals court upheld the issuance of the injunction.
For fiscal year 2016, Obama fixed the number of refugees at 85,000 of whom only 10,000 were to be persons coming to the U.S. from Syria. Trump touts that the present administration is allowing hundreds of thousands of immigrants, if one recalls.
The opinion also makes clear that all persons seeking to enter the United States as refugees must first undergo multiple layers of screening by the federal government, following screening by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Only after this process - taking up to two years - can such individuals be admitted into the United States. Trump asserts that screening of refugees is totally loose and inadequate.
Let’s get back to Pence as the defendant in this case. Per Posner’s writing, Pence asserts - without evidence - that some persons coming from Syria were sent there by ISIS to engage in terrorism and infiltrate the U.S. in order to commit terrorist acts here. Pence, though, presented no evidence of this; Posner characterized it as “nightmare speculation.”
Federal law provides money to states to assist refugees to become integrated into American society. To receive this federal money, a state must submit a plan to assist refugees, “to achieve economic self sufficiency.” Indiana submitted such a plan and it was approved. Exodus is one of the agencies to implement Indiana’s plan. Another section of the federal law provides that any such funding be done, “without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion.” Pence, though, has refused to pay, including to Exodus, for providing services for refugees whose “country of origin” is Syria. According to the opinion, a refugee’s country of origin is deemed his nationality unless he’s stateless, in which event it’s the nation in which he last resided.
Pence feared that Syrian immigrants could be potential terrorists and thus wanted to minimize their population within the Hoosier state. Rather than closing his state’s borders, he focused in on Exodus. In fiscal year 2015, it received $1.0M from the state for the provision of social services for refugees. The money assisted 892 refugees, none of them Syrian. During the last fiscal year, there were 174 Syrian refugees. The number for this year is unknown. Nonetheless, unless the 7th Circuit failed to affirm the lower court’s decision to grant the lower court’s injunction [again it did not], Exodus would receive no monies from Pence’s government this year. These refugees will thus have to resettle in other states. Pence wanted this to happen, despite a state that receives federal funding not to discriminate on the (above) listed grounds, particularly on the basis of nationality.
Pence and his lawyers stated to the appeals court, “the State’s compelling interest in protecting its residents from the well-documented threat of terrorists posing as refugees to gain entry into Western countries.” Pence failed to provide any evidence of this asserted position. Public resources also fail to reveal that Syrian refugees have been arrested or prosecuted for terrorist acts or attempts in the United States. As Judge Posner adroitly observed, if Syrian refugees did, in fact, pose a terrorist threat, Pence would thus increase the risk to other states where he would like to shunt them away from Indiana. Federal law prevents any state governor from deporting to other states immigrants a governor deems dangerous
In what may be the most cogent part of the opinion, Judge Posner repeats Pence’s assertion in legal filings: that what Pence is doing in denying payments to Exodus is not discriminatory, but
“is based solely on the threat he thinks they pose to the safety of residents of Indiana. But that’s the equivalent of his saying (not that he does say) that he wants to forbid black people to settle in Indiana not because they’re black but because he’s afraid of them, and since race is therefore not his motive he isn’t discriminating. But that of course would be racial discrimination, just as his targeting Syrian refugees is discrimination on the basis of nationality.” [Emphasis added.]
There is one final point to the 7th Circuit opinion. States do not have to participate in the federal refugee assistance program, but the federal government is authorized to establish an alternative program, called Wilson/Fish, that distributes federal aid to refugees in a state without the involvement of the state government.
In light of this opinion, sounds like Pence has become Trump 2.0 rather than being Trump’s savior, at least when it comes to immigration involving Syrian refugees. Tim Kaine, are you listening?
Source: HuffPost
I had forgotten just how much pure evil Pence is made of, so I found this to be a timely reminder of at least one facet of his evil, just in time for the debate.
P.S. We don't have a Mike Pence tag. I'm not sure we need one, unless Armageddon is unleashed the Drumpfster somehow gets himself elected, but I thought I might as well point it out since it looks weird to tag Tim Kaine and not his debate opponent.