Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Immigration Resettlement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Health and Human Services: county lacks authority to block refugee resettlement; legal memo cited

2381194 · February 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Health and Human Services discussion and memo from county counsel concluded Dunn County has no legal authority to veto refugee resettlement; federal law governs placement and local actions would be symbolic or nonbinding, the board was told.

Health and Human Services and the County Board addressed refugee resettlement after a formal request by a supervisor to review the matter. Supervisor Morehouse summarized the HHS discussion and legal guidance: federal law governs refugee resettlement and local governments lack veto authority.

Morehouse told the board the refugee resettlement program is authorized by the Refugee Act of 1980 and (as presented to the committee) cited “federal code 8 USC 15 22.” He said the federal process assigns vetted applicants to a resettlement organization (World Relief in Eau Claire’s case) and that the federal government must consult state and local governments but retains the ultimate decision to resettle refugees. Assistant Corporation Counsel Barbara Fagan advised the committee that local ordinances cannot supersede federal law and that prior efforts to give local governments veto authority have been struck down as unconstitutional.

The HHS meeting included public comment asking for a pause or moratorium on refugee resettlement; the clerk had received a petition with roughly 343 signatures in favor of such a resolution. No formal county resolution had been presented to HHS at the time of the discussion, and Morehouse said he placed the topic on the November 21 agenda as a discussion item precisely because no official proposal had been submitted.

Morehouse also summarized a Saint Croix County corporation counsel statement that any local action would be symbolic and would not prevent resettlement. HHS also reviewed whether a county advisory referendum would be allowed; Fagan’s memo concluded the board may not conduct an advisory referendum on this matter under Wisconsin statute 5 9.52 sub 2 5. The committee did not adopt a moratorium or binding restriction; it discussed legal limits and the way federal consultation occurs.