This week, Gov. Greg Abbott joined more than 30 governors across the country in notifying President Barack Obama that their states will not accept Syrian refugees for security reasons. But Chris Traylor, Abbott’s head of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, went a step further than most in ordering 19 Texas volunteer groups to immediately cease activities relating to the resettlement of Syrian refugees. Thinly veiled political posturing notwithstanding, this directive represents an unprecedented overreach by state government and raises significant legal and moral issues.
As legal justification, Traylor cites Section 1522 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Under this provision, he claims volunteer organizations have a “statutory duty to cooperate and consult with the state” on resettlement programs. Traylor correctly identifies these duties. More dubious is his interpretation of “consultation” as inclusive of the state’s authority to order nonprofit groups to cease resettlement operations. This interpretation creates legal complications because in order to follow this directive, volunteer groups must directly contravene federal law. Ironically, one such violation is of the exact federal statute cited in the letter. In the same section, the law mandates that refugee assistance be provided “without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion” [emphasis added]. In mandating that local volunteer groups refuse services to only Syrian refugees, Abbott’s demands are inconsistent at best and unlawful at worst.
However, noncompliance with the order could be costly. Traylor’s letter ends by ominously warning of a potential “amendment to [the group’s] local contract” if the order is not followed. While the federal government covers the costs of resettlement programs in working with local groups, state agencies accept and distribute these funds to nonprofits. This means that organizations can lose federal funding at the state’s discretion, providing a powerful economic incentive for groups to comply with Abbott’s request to retain federal funding.
These strong-arm tactics have already had an effect. Several Houston- and Dallas-based organizations complied with the governor’s request. Nevertheless, the varied responses underscore the range of opinions on the issue, with reactions differing even within groups. Catholic Charities of Dallas, for example, initially announced compliance with the Governor’s order before switching course and stating that they would “serve all refugees.” How other organizations respond remains to be seen, as do the short-term results on refugee numbers.
Furthermore, one should not discount the moral element present in these discussions. Abbott’s attempts to block resettlement of Syrian refugees raise considerable ethical issues. Also troublesome are the morals of leveraging the power of the state in threatening the basic everyday operations of volunteer agencies, an irony given Abbott’s antipathy towards government overreach.
Discrimination on the basis of national identity calls to mind the ugly specter of xenophobia present in the Chinese Exclusion Acts and the Japanese-American internment, some of the worst episodes in American history. These acts were undoubtedly a product of the politics of their times, and in this way, Abbott’s order is no different. But edicts and laws must respect existing precedent. Morals and historical lessons should trump fear-mongering and political pandering. In bullying agencies with an explicit mandate to help the underserved, Abbott does neither.
Bo Kim is a Rice University senior majoring in economics and art history. He works with China Studies fellow Steven W. Lewis on asylum policy and has also written on energy policy.