« Recent audit of the Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota's handling of the Refugee Resettlement program points to "Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance" | Main | Major corruption in the federal SNAP program »

February 28, 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lora Hubbel

It was a heroic thing to do on Tapio's part - but there is nothing he could have done since we a Wilson Fish State. It is UP TO THE GOVERNOR TO JOIN Tennessee's Law suit with Thomas Moore Law Center paying for it. No brainer to me....why hasn't Daugaard done it? By LAW we MUST allow Lutheran Social Services to control our immigration. If you really want to get rid of fake immigration...get me elected....

larry kurtz

Lora, you have zero chance of winning the earth hater primary. If you were serious about getting people's attention you'd leave the earth hater party and run as a third party or unaffiliated race for governor.

JimHoliway

Lora, The State of South Dakota could reclaim handling the resettlement program, which would remove the administration of it from LSS & properly return it to the State to handle. That would give us more control right away while we could still join the Tennessee law suit.
Reference: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/wilson-fish-alternative-program-guidelines which says in part:

C. Procedure for a WF Program to Revert to a State-Administered RCA or PPP Model

Once a WF program has been established in a state that has withdrawn from the refugee program, and absent any statutory or regulatory requirement for a WF program to revert to a state-administered RCA or PPP model upon request by the State, it is ORR’s policy that the following requirements be met for ORR to support the State’s request:

The State and the current WF agency (and collaborative partners if applicable) come to an agreement that facilitates the transition from a WF to a state-administered or PPP model (or)
The State provides justification that the change is in the best interest of the ORR-eligible clients, with a plan ensuring that services to ORR-eligible clients will continue uninterrupted and be coordinated with all of the resettlement agencies, (and)
The State provides justification that the change is cost effective, and ORR concludes it is in the best interest of the federal government to effectuate a change.

larry kurtz

For clarity “us” means white male Republicans.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Comments

Blog powered by Typepad

Tracking