1.1 Immigration Policy

1.1.1 Preamble. The nation’s governors recognize the important contribution immigrants have made and continue to make to our nation. Although the federal government has the primary role in directing overall policy regarding immigration and refugees, the effects of such policy on local communities present challenges that cannot be ignored by the states; particularly, it is an unfair burden on those states that are disproportionately impacted. These challenges include demands for education, job training, social and health services, and other assistance designed to promote the integration of immigrants into our communities.

Decisions regarding the admission and placement of legal immigrants and refugees rest solely with the federal government. Similarly, the illegal entry of other individuals also is a direct responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, the federal government is expected to accept full financial and other responsibilities regarding illegal entrants, immigrants, and refugees as prescribed by law.

1.1.2 Restoration of Benefits to Legal Immigrants. The federal government’s unwillingness to provide adequate funding for costs attributable to migration and resettlement services has resulted in a dramatic shift of program costs from the federal government to state and local taxpayers. This inadequate federal commitment has strained the states’ ability to provide the programs and services necessary to promote economic self-sufficiency within the immigrant and refugee community.

Therefore, governors believe the federal government should allow states the option to serve legal immigrants with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. In addition, states should have the option to provide health benefits to pregnant women and children, who are lawfully present in the United States, through Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Governors also support the restoration of food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants and appreciate that the Farm Bill restored benefits for many families.

1.1.3 Principles. Because immigration decisions have a broad influence upon our society and involve the states, governors urge Congress to consider the following principles in the deliberation and formulation of immigration policies.

• The decision to admit immigrants is a federal one that carries with it a firm federal commitment to shape immigration policy within the parameters of available resources we as a nation are determined to provide.
• The fiscal impact of immigration decisions must be addressed by the federal government. The states, charged with implementing federal policy, have shared and are sharing in the costs; however, there should be no further shift of costs to the states, and the federal government should pay for an increased share of the costs associated with this exclusively federal responsibility.
• Immigration policy shall be developed within the context of our national interest, which takes into consideration preservation of the family, demographic trends, economic development, labor market needs, and humanitarian concerns.
• Immigration decisions shall not discriminate against nor give preference to potential immigrants because of their nationality, race, sex, or religion.
• A basic responsibility of the federal government is to collect and disseminate timely and reliable statistical information on immigration and its effects for the United States.
• Immigration policies and administrative systems should be modernized and reviewed periodically to ensure that they are fair and workable.
• A transferred prisoner’s early release before the balance of the state-imposed maximum sentence is served should be calculated and governed under the laws of that state and not the prisoner’s country of origin.
• The federal government must provide adequate information to and consult with states on issues concerning immigration decisions that affect the states.
• States should not have to incur significant costs in implementing federal laws regarding immigration status as a condition of benefits.

1.1.4 Immigration Ceiling and Preference System. Governors support control of legal immigration at a level consistent with our national interest and resources, under a ceiling adjusted periodically by Congress as conditions warrant. The ceiling should continue to exclude immediate relatives of United States citizens, refugees, asylees, and aliens whose adjustment of status is not subject to immigration quotas under current or future laws.

1.1.5 Prohibition on the Hiring of Undocumented Immigrant Workers. Governors agree that to help control undocumented immigration, the employment of undocumented immigrant workers should be prohibited. To this end, enforcement mechanisms and verification systems must be enhanced. The appropriate federal agencies selected to enforce this prohibition should have the resources necessary to carry out their task. Employers should have access to a reliable verification system that will assist them in complying with the law. Such a system should minimize the administrative burdens on employers and should not discriminate against the employment of workers and potential workers. Current federal employment verification processes have the potential to harm employment of vulnerable refugees since they require the use of a social security number. Refugees, who are work authorized incident to status, are permitted to work under the “refugee receipt rule”, but do not meet the criteria for employment under the current employer verification system. Employer verification systems should not prohibit any eligible workers from gaining employment.

1.1.6 Legalization and Naturalization. Governors urge the following.

• States require maximum flexibility in determining and allocating resources to meet the needs of newly documented residents.
• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), must be diligent in its efforts to ensure that felons are not naturalized and being given the benefits of citizenship rather than being deported.
• The naturalization process should be streamlined to be more efficient and accessible to eligible applicants wishing to become citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities thereof.
• The BCIS must take aggressive action to eliminate the backlog of naturalization applications, which is now approximately 1.1 million nationwide. Appropriate funding should be provided for processing naturalization, including conducting security reviews, to reduce the backlog.

1.1.7 Supplemental Worker Program. The “H” category visas provide entry for nonimmigrant supplemental workers for a specific purpose in the event of certain labor shortages. A nonimmigrant is an alien legally in the United States for a temporary period of time. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Labor must make sufficient resources available to process all “H” visas in a timely manner to address backlogs where they exist and to prevent development of backlogs in these programs. In addition, these departments should be instructed to review and, where necessary, adapt regulations for the H2B program in order to mitigate the current bias against seasonal employers who, by the nature of their industry, hire later in the calendar year.

1.1.8 Cooperation with Western Hemisphere Countries. A workable immigration program must recognize and involve trade and investment policies that are critical elements to reduce illegal immigration.

1.1.9 Immigration Law Enforcement. The federal government should provide sufficient funding to the DHS U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other appropriate agencies to enforce the immigration laws, modernize management, and provide for an adequate and reliable data collection system. Governors strongly believe that it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce immigration laws and that this responsibility should not be shifted to state and local law enforcement agencies. However, should the federal government be unable to meet its obligations, state and local authorities should maintain their ability to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to verify legal status and enforce immigration laws. Moreover, states that enter into these MOUs should be compensated for those federal duties assumed by state and local authorities, which could include apprehension and incarceration of undocumented persons. The federal government also should provide training in immigration law, civil rights, intercultural training, public complaint procedures, anti-racial profiling, and other training designed to prepare state and local authorities to focus on illegal immigration and related crimes, such as human trafficking, identity theft, drug trafficking, and terrorism.

1.1.10 Exclusion/Asylum Proceedings. Individual claims for asylum should be handled in a fair and expeditious manner. Prompt efforts should be made to address backlog problems.

1.1.11 Emergency Authority and Contingency Plan. As the President has contingency planning authority, the federal government must continue to develop contingency plans to deal with unanticipated flows of migrants, refugees, parolees, or asylum applicants. The states expect an immediate federal government response to such situations. Governors must be consulted in determining the role of the states. The states anticipate full federal reimbursement of any state and local costs.

1.2 Unauthorized Immigration

The federal government has the dual responsibility to protect our national borders and maintain the values that make us a beacon of democracy, human rights, and civil rights.

1.2.1 Law Enforcement. Recognizing the need for stronger enforcement against undocumented immigration and increased human smuggling, Congress should continue to provide sufficient funding for the DHS U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other appropriate agencies to control our nation’s border and to remove criminal aliens from the United States. Governors appreciate the provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that have increased the number of border patrol agents, enhanced investigative and enforcement authority for alien smuggling and document fraud, and streamlined the process of removal of criminal aliens and alien terrorists. Governors call on the federal government to continue effectively using the resources provided for these purposes.

Governors also are concerned about drug trafficking using the same channels used to smuggle undocumented immigrants. Control of the flow of drugs across our borders is a federal responsibility, and smuggling drugs into the United States is a federal felony. Governors are concerned that the federal government’s current drug-smuggling policy is allowing a large number of people caught smuggling illegal drugs into the United States to be returned to their home countries without prosecution. Governors urge the federal government to reverse this policy and to vigorously enforce our drug control laws.

1.2.2 Prosecution and Removal of Undocumented Felons. Governors are concerned about the lack of resources devoted to the early identification of criminal aliens in state criminal justice systems. Governors believe that programs like the early identification pilot programs currently operating in several states should be expanded significantly to ensure that undocumented felons are formally deported.

In addition, governors believe that greater efforts should be made by the federal government to facilitate the transfer of criminal alien felons to their home countries to serve their sentences. Current transfer treaties are unworkable because they require the consent of the prisoner and they provide little incentive for the country of origin to cooperate with the United States in the enforcement of transfer treaties. Governors call on the federal government to negotiate and renegotiate prisoner transfer treaties to expedite the transfer of criminal aliens in the United States who are subject to deportation or removal. The negotiations for such agreements should focus on:

• ensuring that the transferred prisoners serve the balance of their state-imposed prison sentence;
• removing any requirement that the prisoners consent to be transferred to their countries of origin;
• removing the requirement that prohibits prisoners who are domiciled in an American state or territory from being transferred;
• structuring the process to require that the prisoners serve the remainder of their original prison sentence if they return to the United States; and
• considering economic incentives to encourage countries of origin to take back their criminal citizens.

Additionally, governors believe the federal government should:

• increase the use of interior repatriation with countries contiguous to the United States;
• place Border Security officials in state and local facilities for early identification of potentially deportable aliens—nearer the point of their illegal entry—to ensure formal deportation prior to release; and
• upon the request of a governor, place Border Security officers in state courts to assist in the identification of criminal aliens pending criminal prosecution.

Finally, governors are concerned about the large number of deported felons that are returning to the United States. A significant number of the criminal alien felons housed in state prisons and local jails are previously convicted felons who reentered the United States after they were deported.

Governors urge the federal government to provide sufficient funds for proven positive identification systems, like the Automated Fingerprinting Identification System (AFIS), to allow for the expanded use of these systems in the rest of the nation.

1.2.3 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Recognizing that control of the borders is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, the 1994 Crime Act authorized the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) to provide financial assistance to states in paying the costs of illegal criminal aliens incarcerated in state correctional systems. In 1996 the act was amended to include local correctional facilities. The program reimburses state and local government for their costs from funds annually appropriated by Congress. States have had to wait several months to be reimbursed for expenses because the program must wait for all applicants before calculating reimbursements.

Governors recognize that SCAAP was reauthorized in 2006 until 2011, and encourage the federal government to continue its commitment to funding the program so states are fairly reimbursed for the expense of incarcerating illegal criminal aliens. In addition, the federal government should continue its commitment to other federally funded state criminal justice programs.

1.2.4 Education of Undocumented Immigrant Children. Governors are concerned about the costs associated with educating the growing numbers of undocumented children in our school systems. In a number of states, this has led to classroom overcrowding and has seriously exacerbated the funding crunch faced by public school systems. Governors are committed to ensuring all students receive an excellent education and they call on the federal government to join in a partnership to ensure that all students receive the education they deserve.

1.2.5 Study of Fiscal Impact on States. Governors across the country have experienced the high cost of illegal immigration in providing education, health, and social services. However, the true costs cannot be estimated, as no systematic survey has been undertaken to examine these costs and the fiscal impacts on states. Governors call upon Congress and the Administration, working jointly with state budget officers, to generate an accurate assessment of the costs of providing education, health, and social services to undocumented immigrants.

1.2.6 Health Care for Undocumented Immigrants. Governors oppose state, territorial, and local governments being forced to subsidize federal immigration policy. Therefore, governors call on the President and Congress to recognize the federal government’s sole responsibility in immigration policy by repealing all current federal mandates that require state, territorial, and local funds to be used to provide health care and other public services to undocumented individuals. In its place, governors call upon Congress and the Administration to develop a direct billing system to ensure that emergency or public health care needs that are provided to undocumented immigrants be financed fully by the federal government. The provision of health care to undocumented immigrants must remain a fundamental federal responsibility, financed exclusively with federal dollars, not an unfunded mandate or a cost shift to states, territories,local governments, or health care professionals.

1.3 Refugee Policy

1.3.1 Preamble. International political conditions have forced numbers of people to leave their homes and seek refuge in other countries. The United States has provided leadership to the world community in addressing the needs of refugees and displaced persons. Governors are supportive of this effort to assist those individuals who have been displaced.

We believe that refugee issues are an international responsibility and that resettlement must be shared as equitably as possible. Further, there must be a genuine effort to protect refugees worldwide.
States play a major role in refugee resettlement. They must work with the refugees to assist in their adjustments to American life and to expedite their economic self-sufficiency. Effective resettlement of refugees requires the development of systems that provide culturally appropriate services to meet the needs of ethnically diverse communities, as well as extensive networking with existing human service systems.
Governors recognize that resettlement is not a one-time event, but a process of adjustment that may take months or years. In order for this process to be successful, federal, state, and local officials must work together with the private sector and local voluntary agencies to build a seamless continuum of services from initial reception through longer term needs, leading the way to self-sufficiency.

1.3.2 Federal Responsibility. The federal government has the total responsibility to meet the basic needs of refugees and entrants. The basic needs are as follows: twelve months for cash and medical assistance and five years for social services and special education costs. The federal government also has the total responsibility for determining and accounting for secondary migration to areas of saturation. However, states should have an integral role in developing refugee resettlement programs, including the determination of primary and secondary migration.

Overall, there have been significant funding reductions in refugee programs. These budget reductions represent a major federal policy change that shifts fiscal responsibility for meeting the basic needs of refugees and entrants from the federal government to states and localities. This fiscal policy change occurs at a time when states are facing significant budget shortfalls. Because the states do not have the authority to set immigration quotas or limit secondary migration, they are unable to effectively control the additional costs incurred because of this change in policy.
Governors, Congress, and the Administration should work together to identify the appropriate mechanism to address those aged and disabled refugees who are unable to become citizens. Refugees remain ineligible for certain federal benefits beyond nine years, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), shifting the responsibility to states to decide whether to provide state benefits to these refugees admitted to the U.S. by federal policy. The aged refugees, in particular, confront extraordinary difficulties in becoming naturalized citizens (e.g., inability to pass the tests or loss of documents). Even those refugees able to naturalize would be in jeopardy for a six- to nine-month period during the process of applying for citizenship.

Children and pregnant women represent other vulnerable refugee and legal immigrant populations who are unable to qualify for federal benefits and who must rely on states to provide access to health care to ensure healthy schools and communities. The option of a federal-state partnership in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid for children and pregnant women who are lawfully present in the U.S., including those who entered the U.S. after August 22, 1996, acknowledges responsibility for the federal immigration policies that bring immigrant residents to our states. Typically, these children represent the largest uninsured population in states with a large percentage of immigrant families.

1.3.3 Principles. In keeping with the above precepts, governors support the reauthorization of the Refugee Act of 1980, with the following principles as guidance for developing new legislation.

• The goal of resettlement assistance efforts is to help refugees achieve self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. The key to economic self-sufficiency is entry into unsubsidized employment at a living wage at the earliest possible time with concurrent removal from dependency on public aid.
• Social services are vital to reaching the goal of self-sufficiency, and federal funding should not be decreased as a means of reducing the federal refugee or entrant budget.
• Under the Fascell/Stone Amendment (Section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980), Congress intended for Cuban and Haitian entrants to be treated as refugees for the purposes of federal benefits. Cuban and Haitian entrants should continue to receive similar “refugee” status as a temporary means to self-sufficiency.
• The federal government has reduced the period of eligibility for refugee cash and medical assistance from thirty-six months to eight months. At least twelve months are required to assist refugees in acquiring basic language skills, housing, and work to achieve rudimentary self-sufficiency. The federal government should provide adequate resources to ensure a full twelve months of access to refugee benefits.
• Stability of federal funding is crucial if states are to implement an effective resettlement program. In addition, the timely provision of funding is essential to enable states to discharge their administrative responsibilities in an expeditious manner, relative to funding decisions and program planning.
• States must be consulted in a timely manner when changes in the current program are being considered. A process for ongoing state participation in program review should be incorporated into the federal administrative structure.
• The federal government should synchronize admissions and appropriation cycles to allow for more effective management of the program.
• Because the refugee program is state-administered, it is essential that all funding should flow to the states to allow for centralized program planning, administration, accountability, and coordination of local planning efforts.
• Although the states are willing to consider changes in the current program that would improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the program, governors would oppose any attempt to convert funding for the program to a block grant.
• Privatization under the Wilson-Fish Amendment to the Refugee Act should be an option open to all states and not a federal mandate.
• The federal government should reduce the current delays in processing work authorization to ensure that refugees and entrants can become self-sufficient as quickly as possible.

1.3.4 Coordination and Consultation. Governors continue to be concerned about the lack of adequate consultation on the part of the voluntary agencies (VOLAGs) and their local affiliates in the initial placement of refugees and on the part of the federal government in the equitable distribution of refugees and entrants.

States have continually urged the federal government to establish a mechanism to ensure appropriate coordination and consultation. However, significant progress has not been made and the following mechanisms need to be considered to address this problem.

• There should be a requirement in the State Department/VOLAG contract to limit placement to areas conducive to resettlement. In addition, VOLAGs and their local affiliates should be required to have a letter of agreement that specifies that there has been consultation and planning for the initial placement of refugees and sets forth the continuing process of consultation. The requirement in the State Department/VOLAG contract to target placement to areas conducive to resettlement should include concurrence by the state.
• DHS, the U.S. Department of State (DOS), and the Office of Refugee Resettlement should coordinate with states receiving entrants and refugees. Entrants should be made eligible for DOS assistance for thirty days, or another mechanism should be developed to allow for a smooth transition of entrants into a community. The current system, in which an entrant simply arrives in the United States without any knowledge of the state, creates a tremendous burden on the community, leaves gaps in the provision of services, and provides no foundation for planning purposes.

Governors should be closely involved in the congressional consultation process through which new refugee admissions levels are determined to ensure that program funding is provided to support the level of refugee admissions.

1.3.5 Impact Aid. Special impact aid to state and local governments should be provided to meet unusual burdens on communities. Impact aid should be provided in the event that any of the following occur:

• a refugee flow is unexpectedly large or sudden;
  
• the resettlement area is highly concentrated by initial placement of refugees, including secondary migrants;
  
• the resettlement area has unfavorable economic conditions;
  
• the refugee population has special needs; or
  
• there is a continuing stream of refugees to one geographic area.

1.4 Habitual Residents

For clarification purposes, the immigration and refugee policy provisions also pertain to habitual residents, as defined in the compacts of free association.

Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2009–Winter Meeting 2011).
Adopted Winter Meeting 1988; revised Winter Meeting 1992, Winter Meeting 1993, Winter Meeting 1994, Winter Meeting 1995, Winter Meeting 1997, Winter Meeting 1999, Winter Meeting 2000, Winter Meeting 2001, Winter Meeting 2003, Winter Meeting 2005, Winter Meeting 2007, and Winter Meeting 2009 (formerly Policy HR-2 and Policy C-14).