Lawmakers weigh ending refugee resettlement program, face questions about who government should serve

Sarah Zuech teaches her four kids that charity begins at home.

A person’s first responsibility, the Salisbury mother tells them, is to care for their own family, friends and community. In that same vein, “so is it a government’s responsibility to prioritize its own citizens,” Zuech told a legislative committee on Tuesday.

New Hampshire’s refugee resettlement program, she said, doesn’t do that. She wants to end it.

For others, like Ghana Sharma, resettlement services can change lives. Sharma, who’s from Bhutan, spent 18 years in a refugee camp in Nepal before moving to Concord. Now, he’s a math teacher for English language learners at Concord High School and on the board of several local organizations that serve immigrant and refugee communities.

Resettlement services placed him on that path to success, Sharma said. They helped him navigate language and accent barriers, get a driver’s license and find a job.

“Without them, we would not survive,” Sharma said in an interview.

He stressed that refugees don’t come to the United States for free — he worked as a dishwasher at Friendly’s when he first arrived to support his family and repay a $6,400 travel loan to the federal government.

In the coming weeks, state lawmakers will weigh both arguments as they evaluate a bill proposed by Weare Rep. Travis Corcoran that would end New Hampshire’s involvement in the national refugee resettlement program.

At the bill’s public hearing on Tuesday, state officials, faith leaders and the nonprofits that run these services argued that helping refugees acclimate to their new home and become self-sufficient contributes to the economy by adding to the state’s aging workforce. Others said they felt a moral obligation to help.

“I think that it’s fair to say that these are people, in large part, who have had to flee for their lives, or at least for their liberty,” said Bob Dunn, the director of public policy for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester. “They’re therefore people who, in a unique way, have taken us at our word that we stand for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Corcoran met their comments with bluntness.

“My response is simple: I don’t care,” Corcoran said. “Lots of things might be good for Somalis or Haitians or Bhutanese, but the government of the state of New Hampshire does not exist for the benefit of Somalis or Haitians or Bhutanese. It exists for the benefit of citizens of New Hampshire.”

He objected to sending U.S. citizens’ tax money to what he views as unsuccessful welfare for non-citizens and said the program is “massively socially detrimental.”

“The sooner we end it, the better,” Corcoran said.

Since the 1980s, more than 7,500 refugees have resettled in New Hampshire. Most of those, 5,157, have arrived in the last 15 years, according to data from the state Office of Health Access, which administers the program funds.

President Donald Trump has authorized up to 7,500 refugees in total — mostly Afrikaners, a white South African ethnic group — to be admitted to the U.S. during this current fiscal year.

Corcoran’s bill likely wouldn’t mean an end to resettlement services in New Hampshire, according to the state health officials who currently oversee the program. The legislation, House Bill 1706, would merely end the state’s involvement in the federal operation and prohibit the state government from accepting or spending any money on it.

John Williams, the director of legislative affairs for the Department of Health and Human Services, said state officials would lose control of how that money — roughly $4.5 million each year — is spent and the ability to conduct oversight.

“The state of New Hampshire prides itself in having control over the administration of these funds, and if this legislation were passed, it would not end the federal program,” Williams said. “Federal preemption would certainly control, and the refugees would still be coming here to New Hampshire. It just would be managed by the nongovernmental organizations that are out there.”

How does it work?

Federal grants pass through the state to nonprofit organizations that aim to help refugees find their footing in the U.S. Only two agencies are certified to resettle refugees through the federal program: the International Institute of New England and Ascentria Community Services. Combined, they are expected to manage approximately 49 cases during the current fiscal year, according to the most recent contracts approved by the Executive Council in October.

Both contracts equal about $160,000 in federal grants. The agencies use that money to provide resources for refugees for up to 90 days after they arrive “to ensure they are able to obtain life skills needed to become self-sufficient and to achieve sustained social and economic wellbeing,” according to the contracts. This includes services like financial literacy training, vocational English and personal wellness plans as well as career coaching and job placement.

Refugees are people who have fled their country to escape persecution or the fear of it.

Other organizations, like Overcomers Refugee Services based in Concord, also receive federal grants and provide similar resources to refugees who have been in the U.S. for longer than 90 days but less than five years. Overcomers’ current two-year contract with the state provides the organization with just under $150,000 to serve over 200 federally-eligible refugees.

Agency leaders stressed that the refugees they work with are all in the country legally and eligible for assistance through the federal government, which vets people — sometimes for years — before they are allowed to enter the U.S.

Henry Harris, the managing director at the Manchester branch of the International Institute of New England, said the people his agency serves go on to build careers, start businesses or contribute to the workforce and the economy in other ways.

“This is not a handout. It’s an investment,” Harris told the committee. “It’s not just like taking money and burning it. It is actually gonna pay back in time.”

What’s next?

The committee has until mid-March to act on Corcoran’s bill. Though other attempts to repeal the program have faltered in the past few years, it could get further this time.

Corcoran posted on social media last year that the Republican majority in the House had promised “massive” backing for it if he supported the state budget during a close vote last June. House Majority Leader Jason Osborne and other high-ranking Republicans have signed on to cosponsor the bill.

As legislative support for the proposal has grown, so has the sentiment behind it. In New Hampshire and across the country, conservatives have continued to call for an end to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Some residents who testified at the hearing said they feel Western civilization is “under threat” and urged lawmakers to nix government handouts.

“If we’re going to preserve our cultural value of being in a cohesive nation, one that values people based on content of their character and not color of their skin,” said Nate Dwyer of Manchester, “we need to make sure that we don’t encourage programs that start to differentiate between people based on the color of their skin or what nation they come from.”

Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s office did not respond to the Monitor’s questions about whether she supports the legislation.

The post Lawmakers weigh ending refugee resettlement program, face questions about who government should serve appeared first on Concord Monitor.