Author Archives: Richard Irwin

Limited Supreme Court Order Keeps Muslim Ban Blocked for Many

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 26, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Limited Supreme Court Order Keeps Muslim Ban Blocked for Many

WASHINGTON — Today the U.S. Supreme Court granted, in part, the Trump administration’s request to allow some provisions of its Muslim ban to go into effect immediately. The Court will allow the ban to be applied only to individuals with no connection to any person or entity in the U.S.

Lifting of any part the nationwide injunction on the ban contradicts multiple major court rulings from across the country, which have consistently blocked it, finding it both unconstitutional and in violation of antidiscrimination provisions in federal law. Both the Ninth and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal recently ordered that the great majority of the ban remain blocked.

This is the first time that new portions of the ban will be in effect since the 30-hour period after Trump signed his first Muslim-ban executive order on January 28.

Today the Supreme Court also granted the administration’s request that the Court review the two major legal challenges to the president’s Muslim ban, Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and Trump v. Hawaii. The court has consolidated the two cases for oral argument to be heard in the first session of its October 2017 term.

The National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging the Muslim ban in the case, Trump v. IRAP, on behalf of IRAP, HIAS, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), and several individuals directly impacted by the ban.

Allowing the Muslim ban to proceed raises immediate constitutional concerns. Karen Tumlin, legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow some of the Muslim ban to go into effect undermines the values we hold so dear as a nation. We remember the chaos that gripped our country when the ban first went into effect, separating loved ones — and we remember how we mobilized and came together to fight back. Our fight continues now at the High Court, and our fight continues in the streets, in the airports, and at our nation’s capitol. Given the number of lives at stake, we urge the Court to hear the case quickly.

“Despite this setback, we are still counting on the Supreme Court to affirm what the American people have continued to make so clear: There is no place in this country for any policy that attempts to discriminate and divide us based on how we pray, what we look like, or where we come from.

“Americans across the country believe the Muslim ban is reprehensible at its core, discriminatory in its intent, and at total odds with who we are as a nation. Since the High Court is the ultimate arbiter of justice in the U.S., we believe it ultimately will agree with us.”

Mark Hetfield, HIAS president and CEO, gave the following statement:

“The Supreme Court order today is mixed news for human rights, for refugees, and for those noncitizens whom President Trump is trying to ban from the United States based solely on their place of birth. HIAS welcomes the ruling as an affirmation that the president does not have unfettered, unchecked authority to bar refugees from the U.S. without evidence to justify such action, and that people with ties to the U.S. can continue to enter. We are very disappointed, however, that others will continue to be arbitrarily excluded and that the executive order has been resurrected to once again cause irreparable damage to refugees, immigrants, and America’s reputation as a welcoming country.”

Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, gave the following statement:

“We hope that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the ruling of judges across the country and declare the travel ban unconstitutional and discriminatory in nature. When the first order went into effect, tens of thousands of Americans showed the world that this is not who we are and not what we want. We will never give up defending the rights of those who are affected by this discriminatory executive order.”

Beth Baron, president of the Middle East Studies Association, gave the following statement:

“MESA stands alongside fellow plaintiffs in our fight against Muslim Ban 2.0. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling upholds the fundamental principle that protects all of us from government condemnation of our religious beliefs. We will keep fighting for the rights of Muslim Americans and immigrants across the country, and for the Constitution that protects us all.”

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, gave the following statement:

“President Trump’s Muslim ban violates the fundamental constitutional principle that government cannot favor or disfavor any one religion. Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down.”

Today’s order is available at https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Trump-v-IRAP-cert-and-partial-stay-2017-06-26.pdf.

More information about this case is available at www.nilc.org/irap-v-trump/.

# # #

What Does the DAPA Rescission Mean and What Implications Does It Have for DACA?

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Ignacia Rodriguez, NILC immigration policy advocate
June 23, 2017

On June 15, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly signed a memo rescinding the Obama administration’s November 2014 memorandum that announced a deferred action program for parents of citizens and lawful permanent residents (DAPA), as well as expansions of DACA. The DACA expansion would have covered more people who came to the U.S. as children and provided all DACA recipients protection from deportation and work permits for three years instead of the current two.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a press release and a set of frequently asked questions, along with the memo.

So what does the rescission of the DAPA memo mean for DAPA and the expansion of DACA?

DAPA, a program never implemented due to a court order, will never be implemented unless a new memorandum re-announcing the program is issued and that’s impractical to expect from this administration.
The rescission of the memo also ends the expansions of DACA, which would have greatly improved the lives of those previously excluded from the 2012 DACA program due to the age requirement and/or the continuous presence in the U.S. since 2007 requirement.
DHS emphasized that people who have secured three-year work permits (obtained between November 2014 and February 2015) don’t have to return their work permits and can thus wait to renew their DACA and work permits until closer to the expirations dates. Some have interpreted that to mean that DACA will still be available until at least February 2018 because if you received your three-year work permit in February 2015 it expires in February 2018. However, as we’ve learned over the last six months, nothing is certain with this administration, and things could change at any time.
In terminating DAPA, the Trump administration intends to end the Texas v. U.S. However, they have asked for an extension until June 29 to file their status report. It is to be determined if the court will grant an extension or what would happen after that, but the case continues until the judge orders otherwise.

What does the rescission of the DAPA memo mean for the 2012 DACA program?

By the morning of June 16, rumors were circulating in the media that the memo and accompanying materials signaled that DACA was safe indefinitely. However, these were only rumors. The memo and related materials only state that the decision does NOT affect DACA and that people can continue to apply and renew their DACA. There was no affirmative promise by the administration to keep DACA indefinitely. The White House quickly clarified that the president has not made a final determination about whether to continue or discontinue DACA in the future. TheNew York Times subsequently republished its original article on the topic, clarifying that the DACA program is still under review.
June 15 also marked the fifthanniversary of the DACA announcement. Some people wondered why DHS chose June 15 to make a decision on DAPA. Was it to remind us of the vulnerability of DACA? Was it to minimize our celebration of this victory? Or was it just that they had a court deadline of June 15 and inadvertently made the decision on the same day as the DACA anniversary? Given the court deadline, we can’t read too much into why they chose this date to make a decision.

We will continue to monitor and report on developments going forward, especially because it’s not at all clear what the future holds for DACA. Even with the 2012 DACA memorandum in place, we’ve seen the Trump administration targeting DACA recipients, such as Daniel Ramirez, Juan Manuel Montes, Dany Vargas, and others, and the hateful rhetoric spewed by government officials has emboldened some immigration agents to arbitrarily target immigrant communities, including peoplewith DACA.

We also will be keeping an eye on the processing of DACA applications. The high number of DACA approvals since January (over 107,000 renewal approvals and 17,000 initial approvals), were surprising, and some assumed they all happened under the Trump administration. However, these numbers don’t really signal how the current administration will treat DACA cases going forward, given that those statistics captured a period that overlapped with President Obama’s last few weeks in office. The high number could have resulted from DACA renewal applicants applying early out of concern that Trump would end DACA immediately upon entering office, or it could be part of the cyclical nature of DACA renewals. It also may have been a combination of both. We’ll have a better sense of the Trump administration’s processing of DACA applications when the next set of USCIS data (covering April through June) is released.

In the meantime, please refer back regularly to our Frequently Asked Questions page for the most up to date information and recommendations for applicants and DACA recipients.

Latest Trump Immigration Attack Will Make Bad Problems Worse, Advocates Say

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Latest Trump Immigration Attack Will Make Bad Problems Worse, Advocates Say

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday said he will seek legislation to further limit immigrants’ access to federally-funded healthcare, nutrition, housing, and anti-poverty initiatives. Since the specific proposal he made — a 5-year ban for immigrants — has been law for twenty years, it’s likely that his remarks signal an attack on access for U.S. citizen children of immigrants or other broad attacks on working families that go far beyond the safety net. Those comments are consistent with a draft executive order leaked to media months ago but has not been signed.

Anti-hunger advocates, anti-poverty groups, faith leaders, advocates for immigrants, and advocates for diversity reacted Friday, issuing the following statement:

“This latest attack on America’s immigrant heritage makes serious problems worse. Just for starters, a renewed attack on immigrant families will drive up child poverty, deny kids and families health care, increase hunger and homelessness, and keep kids out of school.

The good news is that President Trump can’t just do whatever he wants. America needs leaders in Congress to pump the brakes. They must all demand answers. How would this policy work? How many U.S. citizens will lose healthcare if it’s adopted? How many will become homeless? How many kids will be kept out of school?

We stand with lawmakers who have the courage to stand with hardworking families and against the latest Trump Administration attack on America’s immigrant heritage.”

Signatories to the statement include:

Asian Americans Advancing Justice
Asian Health Services
California Immigrant Policy Center
CASA (Maryland)
Center for Law and Social Policy
Children’s Alliance (Washington)
Community Catalyst
First Focus
Food Research & Action Center
Legal Council for Health Justice (Illinois)
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
National Education Association
National Health Law Program
National Immigration Law Center
National WIC Association
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
New York Immigration Coalition
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
The Legal Aid Society
The Progressive Vietnamese American Organization
Western Center on Law and Poverty

# # #

Statement on Senate GOP Health Proposal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 22, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

NILC Statement on Senate GOP Health Proposal

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans today unveiled their version of a bill to repeal key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The bill tracks closely with a deeply unpopular proposal that narrowly passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in May, maintaining similar provisions that would result in millions of people who gained coverage through the ACA losing access to affordable health insurance.

Both the House and Senate bills include provisions that restrict some immigrants’ access to health programs, but the Senate bill would go even further. The proposal released today would cut off all access to health insurance for some immigrants, by barring them from the health insurance marketplaces and eliminating their access to the financial assistance that 84 percent of participants on the marketplace rely on.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Despite widespread disapproval for similar Republican proposals, the Senate GOP have doubled down on a shameful plan that would gift the wealthy with tax breaks at the expense of millions of families’ health care. Through this bill, like its House counterpart, the GOP aims to cut off millions of people’s access to affordable care, with many of our most vulnerable populations taking the brunt of this devastating blow. But the authors of this bill have gone even further, taking yet another opportunity to vilify and make life more difficult for immigrants. This includes community members who are in the process of obtaining forms of humanitarian relief that will allow them to work and live here permanently and visa-holders who are survivors of violent crimes.

“Our country needs a health care system that can care for all people in our communities—no matter where they were born or how much money they have. Senators should put the health of all communities above partisan politics and reject this cruel bill.”

# # #

Response to Trump Comments about Immigrants at Iowa Rally

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 22, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

NILC Statement on Trump Iowa Rally Comments about Immigrants

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday said he will introduce legislation that would further limit immigrants’ access to income-based safety-net programs, for at least five years after they arrive in the country. The proposal, announced without details during a campaign-style rally in Iowa, appears to mirror existing federal welfare and immigration laws enacted in 1996, as well as elements of a draft executive order that was leaked to media months ago but that Trump has not signed.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Though some of what President Trump described is already law, this latest attack on immigrants and people struggling to make ends meet would make an already cruel system even worse. And it also attacks the U.S.’s heritage by attempting to effectively bar some of the world’s most vulnerable people from seeking a chance at a better life here. Our communities demand better, and our leaders in Congress should, too.

“Trump’s recent budget proposal makes it clear that this administration has no real interest in preserving the social safety net, and this proposal certainly wouldn’t help. Instead, it would exacerbate some of our country’s most pressing problems, driving up child poverty and denying kids and families access to health care, nutritious food, and an education.

“Trump’s continued attempts to vilify immigrants in order to sell a xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda have only served to galvanize people and organizations across the country that know that immigrants are vital to our communities and economy. We stand ready with our partners to fight back against this and any other attack on our communities.”

# # #

After Five Successful Years, DACA Faces Biggest Obstacle Yet

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 15, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

After Five Successful Years, DACA Faces Biggest Obstacle Yet

WASHINGTON — Five years ago today, President Barack Obama, moved by the organizing and advocacy efforts of thousands of immigrant youth and allies across the country, announced Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The program has since opened up opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young people who, despite being integral to their communities, until then had been limited by the threat of deportation and by few avenues to access higher education, jobs, and basic necessities like bank accounts. It allows eligible young immigrants who were brought to the country as children to live and work in the United States, and can be renewed every two years.

The Trump administration has said they do not intend to end the program. However, several reported cases of DACA recipients who were detained, targeted for speaking up, or deported, have created an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear, even for those protected from deportation.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Five years in, DACA has had a transformative impact in the lives of young immigrants. It has opened the door so that hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth in our communities have an equal chance to achieve their full potential. By all measures, DACA has been a tremendous success—with great benefits for us all.

“Unfortunately, we now face serious challenges, the foremost of which is an administration that tells DACA recipients not to worry, but which seems intent on slowly eroding the program. Under President Trump, the federal government has broken its promise to DACA recipients—including Juan Manuel Montes, Dany Vargas, Daniel Ramirez, and Jessica Colotl—to allow them to live and work in the country they call home without fear. This administration, through hateful rhetoric and careless policy-making, has emboldened agents to target, detain, and even unlawfully deport DACA recipients.

“The status quo is unsustainable. We need a permanent solution now. President Trump must do more than provide DACA recipients empty reassurances when prompted by the media. He must stop threatening their sense of safety and dignity and provide unequivocal protection to DACA recipients now. Immigrant youth and their families should be allowed to thrive in our communities and continue making our country great.”

# # #

Plyler v. Doe Decision Must Be Honored and Protected

On Plyler v. Doe’s 35th Anniversary, This Landmark Supreme Court Decision Must Be Honored and Protected

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Ignacia Rodriguez, NILC immigration policy advocate
June 15, 2017

Today marks the 35th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, the landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for a state to deny students access to public elementary or secondary education based on their immigration status.

As someone who was undocumented for 19 years and who benefited greatly from a public education, I’ve benefited tremendously from the decision in Plyler. I’ll be forever grateful to those who defended my right to an education and am proud to be among those who will continue fighting to maintain this right for others.

Despite Plyler’s long history, some people in this country continue to want to eliminate immigrant children’s access to a basic education. In 1994, California voters approved Proposition 187, which in part would have prohibited undocumented children from accessing public K–12 schools. Prop 187 also would have required schools to notify federal immigration authorities of students they believed to be undocumented. These provisions were never implemented, however, because the courts struck down virtually all of Prop 187’s provisions.

In 1998, then–California governor Pete Wilson came to El Rincon Elementary School, where I was in fifth grade. Parents were notified, because the governor’s choice to visit our school was assumed to be very exciting. But for some of us it was mostly scary. My mom, when she heard about Wilson’s impending visit, told me to stay as far away from him as I could. I remembered having seen him on Univision news and in commercials. On the day he visited, lots of my fellow students were having their pictures taken with him, but I stayed as far back in the auditorium as I could. I felt like I was in danger, but I was too young at the time to articulate why. I wasn’t actually conscious of the fact that he was trying to get me kicked out of elementary school because of my immigration status.

I relate my own experience simply to show that despite their young age, children are aware at some level of what’s going on in the broader culture, and they internalize it even if they don’t have the words to describe it. I’m turning 30 this year, and I still remember viscerally how I felt when Wilson visited my elementary school.

That’s why it’s important to create a safe space for all students in schools. At NILC, we are ready and willing to push back against any attempts to hinder the effects of Plyler and also to work with partners to create a safe space for all students, regardless of their immigration status, race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, or religion.

If you’d like to join us, here are some materials on how you can help make schools safe spaces:

– Check out Jess Hanson’s recent blog post, “School Settings are Sensitive Locations that Should Be Off-Limits to Immigration Enforcement,” to learn more about why schools should actually be regarded as sensitive locations, as well as the current state of law, guidance, and on-the-ground practice of immigration enforcement related to school settings.

– Encourage your school to become a sanctuary school/campus safe zone. It’s up to your school to define what that means, but the idea is, if possible, to work with students, parents, school board members, teachers, and school staff to identify ways that the school can create an environment that fosters learning without anyone on campus having to fear what would happen if immigration agents were to show up. For model resolution language, see www.nilc.org/campus-safe-zones-language-k-12/.

– Check out E4FC’s recent publication “Understanding the Sanctuary School and Safe Zone Movement: A Quick Guide for Educators.”

– The Immigrant Legal Resource Center also has a guide for how schools can support immigrant families: “Help for Immigrant Families: Guidance for Schools.”

– Be on the lookout for a practice advisory on the extent to which both K–12 schools and colleges can legally protect their students from immigration enforcement on campus. It will likely be published and available on NILC’s website in late June or July.

“Verify First” Bill Is an Attack on Immigrants and Access to Health Care

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 12, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

“Verify First” Bill Is an Attack on Immigrants and Access to Health Care

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a bill Tuesday that would prevent hundreds of thousands of people from accessing affordable health care due to bureaucratic glitches.

HR 2581, or the “Verify First” Act, aims to throw up serious roadblocks by making people pay the price for incomplete and deficient government databases. This would prevent people from being able to buy affordable, quality health insurance in marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act and would make the immensely unpopular American Health Care Act even worse. This bill harms immigrants and citizens alike, hitting U.S. citizens born abroad, naturalized citizens and some lawfully present immigrants the hardest, including certain domestic violence survivors and victims of human trafficking.

Ahead of the House vote, 228 organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers, the NAACP, and the National Organization for Women, called on Congress to oppose the measure.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The indefensible ‘Verify First’ Act is yet another anti-immigrant, hyperpartisan effort to vilify immigrant communities and undermine advances by the previous administration in expanding access to affordable health care. This shameful proposal would prevent both U.S. citizens and immigrants who are not yet citizens from accessing affordable care when they need it most, with potentially devastating consequences for them and their families, and for public health. The health of our families and our communities will suffer under this bill.

“We should be finding ways to increase people’s access to affordable health care instead of setting up roadblocks. When someone is sick, they should be able to see a doctor and get the medical care they need. No eligible person should be unable, because of inefficiencies or errors in government databases, to enroll for affordable health coverage. Leaders in Congress, no matter their party, should pay attention to the detrimental effect such a policy would have on their constituents, and they should reject this bill.”

###

Legal Opponents Ask Supreme Court to Keep Muslim Ban Blocked

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 12, 2017

CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
Juan Gastelum, 213-375-3149
Hayley Burgess, 202-384-1279

Legal Opponents Ask Supreme Court to Keep Muslim Ban Blocked

LOS ANGELES — Legal opponents of the Trump administration’s Muslim-ban executive order today filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the government’s motion to allow the blocked travel ban provision of the executive order to go into effect and opposing the government’s request for the Supreme Court to take up the case.

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today asked the Supreme Court to reject the administration’s request to overrule two lower courts that temporarily blocked a key provision of the order, finding it was likely unconstitutional. The U.S. Department of Justice, on June 2, asked the high court to stay separate decisions from the Fourth Circuit and the district court in Hawaii, and to hear the Fourth Circuit case, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Donald Trump.

In the Fourth Circuit case, NILC and the ACLU are representing the International Refugee Assistance Project, HIAS, and several individuals harmed by the executive order.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today also upheld a separate nationwide injunction on the Muslim ban in the case of Hawaii v. Trump, affirming the majority of the lower court’s ruling blocking key provisions of the executive order finding that it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The following is a statement from NILC Legal Director Karen Tumlin:

“President Trump—before and after being sworn in, and under the false pretense of national security—made clear his desire to shut Muslims out of our country. Within days of taking office, his administration delivered an unconstitutional policy to enact his discriminatory whims, creating an untenable civil and human rights crisis that left people fleeing for their safety stranded abroad and in airports, separated families, and authorized border officials to detain hundreds of people with permission to be in the United States.

“Americans, outraged by this blatant attempt to legalize discrimination, took to the nation’s airports and our streets and appealed to their elected representatives to make their voices heard. Then, after the courts confirmed that the policy was unlawful, Trump did it again, changing slightly the contours of the Muslim ban in his version 2.0 but not its discriminatory intent.

“As the courts have found time and time again, condemning people because of where they are from or how they pray violates our core American values and the law. Thinly veiled, government-sanctioned bigotry will not stand.

“The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of our constitutional rights and protections, must uphold this fundamental principle and reject the government’s request to let Trump’s discriminatory Muslim ban go into effect. As a country, we must address matters of national security based on evidence and never single out an entire group based on their faith, their country of origin, or their skin color.”

Copies of today’s filings are available at

Read more about the case at www.nilc.org/irap-v-trump/.

###

NILC and TIRRC: New Tennessee Law Does Not Pass Constitutional Muster

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 9, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

NILC and TIRRC: New Tennessee Law Does Not Pass Constitutional Muster

NASHVILLE — Tennessee governor Bill Haslam has signed SB 1260, an anti-immigrant measure that effectively criminalizes someone for being in the U.S. without authorization if that person has been convicted of any state offense, including minor misdemeanors. Such legislation has been proposed in the state several times before, but this is the first time such legislation has been enacted.

“All of us, regardless of where we were born, should expect to be treated equally and fairly, whether we’re in Nashville or New York,” said Melissa Keaney, staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “Tennessee’s elected officials have enacted an indefensible piece of legislation, and we will work with our partners in the state to prevent it from infringing upon the constitutionally protected rights of all Tennesseans. Governor Haslam, we will not be afraid to challenge these harmful policies in court.”

“Without making a case for how this bill keeps communities safe or advances justice, the legislature has once again singled out a group of Tennesseans for differential treatment, undermining our values of fairness and due process,” said Stephanie Teatro, the co–executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC). ”From banning refugees to criminalizing all undocumented immigrants, it has become abundantly clear that elected officials in Tennessee will copy and paste the Trump administration’s failing policies rather than finding real solutions to real problems facing Tennessee communities.”

###