#

The illegal immigrant convicted of murdering 11 people in the infamous 2015 Curio Massacre in Brazil lived as an average Granite Stater when he was arrested at his roofing job in Rye earlier this month.

“He’s somebody who was definitely in hiding. He didn’t want to be found,” said Rye Police Chief Kevin Walsh.

Federal authorities confirmed to NHJournal that Antonio Jose De Abreu Vidal Filho, 29, was in the country illegally at the time of his arrest. The former military police officer entered the country legally when he fled prosecution in his home country but illegally overstayed his visa, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman said.

“Antonio Jose De Abreu Vidal Filho entered the U.S. lawfully in 2019 but did not depart according to the terms of his admittance. He will remain in ICE custody pending a hearing before a federal immigration judge,” the spokesman said.

Meaning he lived illegally in the U.S. for some eight years, even as Brazil’s government was prosecuting him in absentia for a high-profile crime.

Filho was arrested last week by federal agents who had tracked him from Brazil to New Hampshire. Known as Tony Vidal or Tony Filho, he lived in Merrimack and worked as a roofer. 

At the job site in Rye, no one suspected “Tony” was a convicted killer sentenced to 276 years in prison for the torture and murders he committed as a member of the Brazilian military state police.

“We had no clue. The guy seemed like a nice guy, made chit chat,” Sammy Johnson, a carpenter working on the same house as Filho, told Boston’s 25 News.

The morning of the arrest, Johnson was shocked when a flashbang device exploded, and a large truck sped up to the house carrying armed agents who quickly started barking orders. Within moments, they had Filho in custody, Johnson said. Johnson never suspected the roofer was a wanted criminal.

“You have no clue, no clue in this day and age, and how he got into New Hampshire,” Johnson said.

Walsh insisted that although Rye police proactively patrol the wealthy seaside community for traffic violations and speeding, they never had any contact with Filho during the months he worked construction. If Filho was never stopped, it may have been because he was trying to avoid police attention.

“This is a guy who followed every motor vehicle law. This is a guy who did not want to be found,” Walsh said.

What Fihlo’s employer knew about the killer’s identity is another unknown. Employers are supposed to check immigration status for hires, but Walsh said there are many ways around that requirement in the contracting world. He said that many builders tend to look the other way with the tight labor market.

“If a guy shows up on time and does a full day’s work, a lot of places don’t ask many questions,” Walsh said.

New Hampshire Department of Labor Deputy Commissioner Rudolph Ogden said if Filho were working as a subcontractor, a common practice in the building trades, he would not be considered an employee. In that case, contractors are under no obligation to check the immigration status of subcontractors. Despite the apprehension of an illegal worker just days ago, the Department of Labor is not currently investigating the businesses involved in the construction site where Filho was arrested.

Michael Garrity, communications director for the New Hampshire Department of Justice, referred all questions to ICE.

Agents with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, or ERO, approached Walsh about their planned arrest of Filho before Monday’s raid. The agents had been watching Filho at different locations in the state and determined the safest place to get him was in Rye, Walsh said.

“They felt this was the best location,” Walsh said.

The arrest went down without any incident or violence on Filho’s part, Walsh said.

Agent John Mohan declined to comment on the arrest.

It was unclear how long Filho has been in the Granite State. He reportedly fled Brazil in 2019, taking his family to the United States after deserting his post in the military police. 

According to a statement from ICE, Filho was convicted along with three other military state police officers of 11 murders plus charges of attempted murder and physical and mental torture for his role in the 2015 massacre in the Curio neighborhood in Fortaleza.

El Globo, a Brazilian news outlet, reported the murders had been retaliation for the death of a Brazilian police officer in Fortaleza. Four of the 11 people murdered were teens under the age of 18, and three were between 18 and 19, according to El Globo.

Once he was convicted this summer, Filho became the subject of a Red Notice issued by Interpol, the international police organization that combines the efforts of police in 195 countries around the world. Interpol Red Notices serve as international wanted notices on fugitives who have fled prosecution or escaped from prison.

Gov. Chris Sununu acknowledged that “not all illegal immigrants are mass murderers,” of course. But he said the incident was yet another reminder of the need to step up U.S. border enforcement, including at New Hampshire’s northern border, where illegal crossings have soared by more than 800 percent.

Sununu is imploring the Biden administration and the Democrats in the federal delegation to restore funding for state support of border enforcement stripped after Joe Biden was elected president. In 2018, New Hampshire received nearly $4 million from the Trump administration through Operation Stone Garden to secure the northern border, but those funds were slashed to $180,000 by the Biden administration in 2022 and $200,000 in 2023.

Biden’s cuts to border security go deeper, however. Biden has been steadily cutting funding across the board. The proposed 2024 budget includes another cut to the number of ICE detention facilities even as the number of illegal immigrant apprehensions reaches record highs.

New Hampshire progressives say they’ve had enough of Sen. Maggie Hassan and what they call her “racist”  policies on immigration, and they’re not planning to support her re-election in November.

Tension between Granite State progressives and the governing establishment is nothing new. What is notable, however, is the willingness of progressive activists to criticize a powerful incumbent Democrat so publicly.

“Maggie Hassan is racist. No need to dance around the obvious for much longer,” said Marcus Ponce de Leon, until recently an executive team member of the New Hampshire Democratic Latino Caucus.

Rep. Maria Perez, D-Milford, another leader of the Latino Caucus, says she’s been trying to get Hassan to meet with members of the Latino community for months, to listen to their concerns about her immigration stance. Perez has finally had enough with the state’s junior senator.

“I asked Hassan today for a time to meet and she said that she’s not meeting with us and if we need to ask questions to speak with someone in her office,” Perez said over the weekend. “I’m done supporting someone who doesn’t have time to meet with us.”

After her narrow victory in 2016 — she defeated incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) by just 1,017 votes — Hassan was a reliably liberal vote, voting with Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer 96 percent of the time. But as the political climate changed and her re-election approached, Hassan began shifting her stances on issues like increased drilling for oil, tax cuts for fossil fuels and building more of Trump’s border wall — all positions she voted against in the past.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was Hassan’s trip to the southern border, where she recorded a video calling for more enforcement and “physical barriers” while standing in front of a barb-wire laced section of the Trump wall. She also endorsed continuing the Title 42 policy put in place during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic by the Trump administration, allowing border officials to immediately turn away would-be undocumented migrants without allowing them into the country.

Ponce de Leon said Hassan’s supporters in the New Hampshire Democratic Party are endorsing white supremacy by not holding her to account. He called the New Hampshire Democratic Party an embarrassing disappointment.

“I’m struggling with parsing white supremacy vs. those who support @SenatorHassan … Today many of them flat out said they didn’t care what black and brown people are going through. They chanted ‘603 for Maggie’ as if they hadn’t heard our testimonies,” Ponce de Leon wrote on Twitter. He was referencing the chaotic scene outside the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office Friday when progressives and Hassan backers tried to shout each other down as the senator filed to run for re-election. Security had to repeatedly intervene, and Hassan was eventually forced to flee the Secretary of State’s office out the back door.

Talking to reporters after her filing, Hassan appeared to confirm Perez’s account that the senator is unwilling to meet with Latino leaders.

“I have spoken with some of their members and my team continues to have conversations,” Hassan said. “But we have a disagreement here,” Hassan said. “I do not think the administration should lift Title 42 until there are resources at the border to ensure safety and security. All sides of this issue agree that, when Title 42 is lifted, we’re going to see an increase in illegal border crossing attempts,” she said. “I respect they have a disagreement with me about this. At the end of the day, I need to stand up for the safety and security of my state and my country.”

Progressives are not satisfied. 

Several weeks ago, activist Asma Elhuni confronted Hassan at a public event, an encounter caught on video. Rather than answer Elhuni’s questions, Hassan responded by telling the young activist she didn’t know what she was talking about.

“First of all, you have some facts wrong,” Hassan said. “What I understand is what I need to do is to make sure that we have a safe, orderly migration at the border.” Hassan also claimed she had spoken to migrant families and was genuinely interested in their concerns.

“You’re actions speak louder than your words,” Elhuni responded.

“You’re not interested in hearing my side,” Hassan concluded and walked away, accompanied by her handlers.

Robin Vogt, co-chair of the New Hampshire Progressive Coalition, called Hassan’s immigration policies disgusting, and he said Democrats who do not take progressive issues seriously will start to face challenges from the left.

“Holding my own party accountable does not mean myself and others are being ‘unreasonable’. It simply means that we are ready for political leadership to start listening and take action here in New Hampshire. If not, we come for your seats, and you will get called out,” Vogt wrote on Twitter.

Hassan is viewed as unusually vulnerable in a state that rarely votes for Republicans at the federal level and where no GOP challenger has yet emerged from the Republican field. The conservative group One Nation just announced a nearly $1 million buy targeting Hassan, who narrowly won the seat in 2016 by just 1.017 votes.

Ironically, progressive attacks on Hassan could fit in with her campaign strategy of triangulating against her own party. The Associated Press published a story Monday listing Hassan as one of several Democrats “actively trying to distance themselves” from the Democratic Party. They note she’s running a TV ad accusing Democrats of getting the issue of gas prices wrong (“I’m taking on members of my own party to push a gas tax holiday.”)

On the one hand, polls show the Democratic Party is struggling to earn voters’ trust on the top issues of the day — the economy, gas prices, crime and the border. On the other, Hassan’s approval ratings continue to lag in the low to mid 40’s, meaning she needs an energized Democratic base to turn out if she hopes to win re-election. Will they turn out?

“Senator Maggie Hassan will criticize Trump when he’s in office but literally support those same racist policies as if her party’s name will always protect her,” Elhuni tweeted this weekend. “This is the time for bravery. People need to stand up to Hassan and say no to racism.”

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas says the Biden’ Build Back Better” plan he voted for last Friday “is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit by $112 billion.”

Rep. Annie Kuster also says the bill “is fully paid for” by “making super-wealthy corporations and the top one percent pay their fair share.”

But nearly every economic review of the legislation, including the Congressional Budget Office analysis they both claim to rely on, says the bill will add billions in new debt. And the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) projects the actual cost of the bill is closer to $5 trillion.

That is just one aspect of the budget reconciliation bill Kuster and Pappas helped pass in a straight partisan vote (Maine’s Rep. Jared Golden was the only Democratic “no” vote) that has received little attention from New Hampshire’s media. Democrats say the Child Tax Credit monthly checks, increased healthcare subsidies, and taxpayer-funded pre-K for all will be popular with voters. And they may be right. But there are other details almost certain to appear in campaign ads next year.

ADDING TO THE DEBT

New Hampshire’s congressional delegation touted their votes when the House bill passed last week, even as the Congressional Budget Office released a report indicating the $1.75 trillion social spending bill could increase the deficit between $160 and $360 billion over ten years, despite Biden administration promises the spending will be covered by increased taxes.

And the CRFB points out the Democrats’ plan includes ten years of revenue, but only includes spending on some of the largest items for five years — or even one. For example, the Child Tax Credit sending monthly checks to couples earning up to $150,000 costs $130 billion. But Democrats only include it in their 10-year plan for just one year. Assuming the checks don’t stop in 2024 — an election year– and instead last for the entire 1o years, the actual cost is an additional $1 trillion. None of which is paid for in the current plan.

BENEFITS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Under the Trump administration, recipients of the monthly Child Tax Credit checks ($300 per child under age six and $250 for each child ages six to 17) had to have Social Security numbers. Under the Build Back Better bill passed by Kuster and Pappas, that requirement is gone, allowing many more people in the U.S. illegally to collect the taxpayer-funded benefit.

The bill also includes a 10-year “amnesty-lite” program in the form of work permits, Social Security numbers, eligibility for welfare benefits, and the ability to get a driver’s license for some 4 or 6 million illegal immigrants. The Washington Post calls it “the largest mass-legalization program for undocumented immigrants in U.S. history.”

TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

The Biden budget lifts the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions for federal filers from $10,000 to $80,000. Few Americans — and very few Granite Staters — pay $80,000 in state and local taxes. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, the top 20 percent of earners would reap more than 96 percent of the benefits of a SALT repeal, and the top one percent of all earners would see 57 percent of benefits.

Lifting the SALT deduction cap helps subsidize the costs of high local taxes in places like Massachusetts, New York and California. But it does little for the taxpayers of the Granite State. The roughly 10 percent of folks in New Hampshire who itemize deductions only receive about 0.4 percent of the total SALT deduction benefits.

MASSIVE INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE IRS

Public pressure killed the Biden administration’s plans to increase bank reporting requirements to reach more lower-income earners — a plan supported early on by both Kuster and Pappas. However, House Democrats did vote to drastically increase the size of the IRS in hopes of collecting more tax revenues.

Democrats voted to add $88 billion of new funding for the IRS, including $45 billion dedicated to enforcement and $4 billion to administer green energy initiatives. The biggest expense will be some 80,000 new IRS agents to conduct audits. The revenue target set by the legislation is $400 billion in additional tax collections over ten years. Given that high-income earners tend to have tax attorneys handling their finances, many observers believe this $40 billion a year will come from small business owners and upper-middle-class individuals.

Democrats dismiss this data, arguing the benefits of the bill outweigh any problems.

“This legislation will lower taxes while bringing down the cost of the everyday expenses that burden so many Granite Staters,” Pappas said. “It will invest in a strong workforce that will help our small businesses and economy thrive. It will lift up working people, give our kids the best head start we can, and chart a course for a healthier, stronger, more resilient future.”

One candidate calls them the “modern-day Gestapo.” Another says they’re running “concentration camps” for children.

Progressive Democrats running to replace Rep. Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire’s First Congressional District don’t like the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they aren’t hiding their disdain. In addition to wanting the abolish the entire department, several of the Democrats in the race compared these American workers and their actions to the worst of Nazi Germany.

“The actions by the Trump administration on immigration and detention are nothing more than racism played out in policy,” congressional candidate and state representative Mindi Messmer told NHJournal.  “It harkens to dark periods in our history like the Japanese internment Camps and the Holocaust. ICE is a gestapo-like arm of the racist policy and should be abolished.”

“There are many ways in which ICE resembles Germany in the 1930s,” former Strafford County Attorney Lincoln Soldati told NHJournal.  When asked if he was calling the agents of ICE “jackboots,” Soldati replied: “I’m not saying that necessarily about the [US Customs and] Border Patrol. ICE is a special unit. They need to look at themselves and what they’re actually doing and how they’re carrying out their duties. The fact is they, they are not operating within the same constitutional constraints that law enforcement in the country typically is required to.”

“So, I never used the word ‘jackboot,’” Soldati said.  “Maybe the modern day Gestapo, how about that?”

Soldati is one of a growing number of Democratic candidates across the country who’s joined the “Abolish ICE” movement. He believes the entire department should be shut down:

“You have to remember ICE was created as part of… an overreaction to the events of 9/11. I mean, a lot of it is psychologically understandable, going off and invading Afghanistan, etc. All because of the emotional baggage left after 9/11,” Soldati said.

Not all the candidates in the First Congressional District agree that ICE should be eliminated.  Maura Sullivan a former Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs and senior Pentagon official in the Obama Administration told NHJournal via email:

“There are legitimate purposes for ICE but President Trump has misdirected ICE to tear families apart, which is inconsistent with our nation’s values. I believe Congress needs more oversight of ICE to prevent future misuse of its resources.” Sullivan has also called on Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to resign.

“Our moral compass is being tested by the President’s inhumane, immoral policies,” Chris Pappas tweeted. “Silence is complicity as our govt tears children from parents who seek asylum and a better future.” However, his campaign declined to comment on the Abolish ICE issue.

“We need some mechanism to remove people who are here illegally,” Deaglan McEachern told NHJournal. “If we abolish ICE, it would be INS. Someone would have to do it.”  McEachern stressed that he opposes the Trump administration’s prioritization of enforcing immigration law, and he wanted to see the US make it far easier for more immigrants to come to the US “and get a path to citizenship.”

“They’re doing the jobs Americans won’t do, or Americans can’t do,” McEachern told NHJournal.

But clearly the passion is with the Abolish ICE activists who are gaining support across the country.  Actress-turned-politician Cynthia Nixon has been vocal in her demand that ICE be shut down, calling it a “terrorist organization,” while in Massachusetts progressive candidate Ayanna Pressley has embraced the movement in her race to unseat longtime Democratic incumbent Michael Capuano.   “ICE’s role in supporting the existing system – including separating families seeking refuge in the United States and conducting indiscriminate deportation raids in our communities – is creating an atmosphere of toxic fear and mistrust in immigrant communities,” Pressley said.

Is attacking ICE employees as Gestapo agents overseeing concentration camps a winning political strategy in a purple state like New Hampshire?  In the primary, perhaps. But with a new CBS/YouGov poll showing Americans overwhelmingly support deporting illegal immigrant families stopped at the border (48 percent) as opposed to releasing them into the US to await a hearing (21 percent).  In other words, as much as Americans may hate how the Trump administration is executing the policy, it’s the policy they support.­

UPDATE: Naomi Andrews, former Shea-Porter Chief of Staff, had declined to join the #AbolishICE movement. In a statement to NHJournal she says:

“While there needs to be big changes at ICE, it should not be abolished, because it is responsible for combatting child pornography; money laundering; terrorism; sex trafficking; and other important investigative functions. However, ICE is in desperate need of intense oversight. Republican leadership in Congress has abdicated their constitutional duty of oversight, but there needs to be accountability when rules and laws are broken. Also, Secretary Nielson should resign if she cannot successfully reunite children and their families quickly and safely.”

Bill Kristol may not be the only political pundit on the GOP’s possible 2020 POTUS list.  William Gheen, head of the influential immigration security group Americans For Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) has called on author and provocateur Ann Coulter to enter the race.  And he’s serious.

“I wish she would announce today,” Gheen told NHJournal.com on Wednesday.  “Her message should be ‘I’m running on Trump’s platform, except I’m serious about it.’”

ALIPAC isn’t a major player in the political money game—donating just $209,000 during the 2016 cycle—but it is influential among grassroots immigration activists.

The question is whether there’s a disaffected wing of the GOP primary electorate on Trump’s right to match the unhappy establishment GOP voters who would tend to support potential primary challengers like OH Gov. John Kasich or AZ Sen. Jeff Flake.

“When President Trump first ran, some of my members said ‘Why would you endorse him? He’s got no record on immigration. We don’t know if he’s conning us.’ And I said ‘Look, the guy’s running on our platform. If he diverges from that, I’ll be the first one to call him out.’ And I am,” Gheen said.

Gheen said if Ann did run, she’d likely focus on Iowa rather than the Granite State. “We’ve got a lot of strength out there on the immigration issue with leaders like Rep. Steve King,” Gheen said.

So how would mmigration activists in New Hampshire react to an Ann Coulter run? If Rep. Ann Copp (R-Merrimack), an activist on border security issues, is any indication, not well.

“Sink like a stone,” was Copp’s take on a Coulter candidacy in the Granite State. “We love Trump,” Copp said of New Hampshire conservatives. “I’m an ‘Always Trumper,’ not a ‘Never’ one.”

So far, no comment from Coulter herself—though she did take some shots at President Trump Wednesday night on Lou Dobbs’ Fox Business Channel TV show. Coulter calls Trump a “shallow, coarse ignoramus” (she meant it as a compliment. Seriously.) who was willing to tell the truth because he didn’t care what the elites thought of him. “Now all he wants is for Goldman Sachs to like him. I don’t know what happened. But that’s a different president.:

“I haven’t changed,” Coulter said. “He has.”

But has he changed enough to turn Coulter into a candidate?  Is she willing to run? Well, she does have some experience in the Executive Branch.  Fictional, but still experience: Remember Vice President Coulter from Sharknado 3: Oh, Hell No?”

After President Donald Trump issued his immigration executive order on Friday, which put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria and six other countries, New Hampshire’s congressional delegation was quick to respond.

But for some of the Democratic lawmakers, their statements are at odds with their previous rhetoric and voting records.

Before getting into their statements, it’s important to reiterate what Trump’s executive order entails. You can read guides from USA Today and Reuters. But here’s the quick highlights:

1. His executive order suspends all refugee entry for 120 days.
2. It indefinitely suspends entry by Syrian refugees.
3. The order blocks for 90 days all immigration of citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, which are Muslim-majority countries.

Since he announced his executive order, Green Card holders and permanent residents of the United States have been detained at airports, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the order, and protests have erupted at airports across the country. Trump’s administration has made it clear that the immigration ban would not apply to Green Card holders.

Sen. Maggie Hassan probably has one of the most unclear records when it comes to immigration and Syrian refugees. Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Hassan became the first Democratic governor in the country to call for a pause in Syrian refugee resettlement.

“The governor has always made clear that we must ensure robust refugee screening to protect American citizens, and the governor believes that the federal government should halt acceptance of refugees from Syria until intelligence and defense officials can assure that the process for vetting all refugees, including those from Syria, is as strong as possible to ensure the safety of the American people,” said Hassan’s spokesman at the time.

And she never wavered from that position throughout the extremely close campaign against Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte was known for being a foreign policy and immigration hawk.

But now, it seems Hassan is singing a different tune. She called Trump’s executive order “un-American” and her office said that she never supported an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

“Senator Hassan believes we can strengthen the vetting process for all entryways into the country while staying true to the values that make America the greatest country on earth. She never has and never will support a policy like what the President has put into place with this executive order, which is a backdoor Muslim ban and religious test that goes against American values. Senator Hassan will work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reverse this un-American executive order that will make America less safe,” her office said in a statement to WMUR.

“Senator Hassan strongly opposes this un-American and dangerous executive order which includes an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, something that the Senator has never supported,” her office added. “The Senator believes that we can strengthen the process for all entryways into the country while remaining true to our values and engaged in addressing this humanitarian crisis.”

So while that statement is technically correct, since she only supported a “temporary halt” in Syrian refugees, not an indefinite ban, some people are wondering where she really stands on the issue. Was she reacting to the Paris attacks with what she thought was the best decision or was she pandering to voters on her right? It’s still unclear.

@SenatorHassan yes or no? Do you support a ban on Syrian Refugees as you previously said you did? #MuslimBan #nhpolitics #NHpolitics

— Winston Smith (@RumpoleinUSA) January 30, 2017

Rep. Annie Kuster also has an interesting position on Syrian refugees and immigration policies.

Kuster called for a broad expansion of former President Barack Obama’s administration’s program to bring Syrian refugees to the United States before the Paris attacks. She joined other House Democrats in signing a letter to Obama, calling on him to increase the number of refugees to be allowed in the United States to 200,000 by the end of 2016.

But after the terrorist attacks, Kuster didn’t mention anything about bringing in more Syrian refugees. She actually voted with Republicans for a stronger vetting process.

“I am fiercely protective of our national security and believe we must be tough and smart in pursuing policies that protect Americans both at home and abroad,” she said in a statement. “As we work with our allies to defeat ISIS without endangering American lives in another civil war, we must maintain and expand rigorous screening and security checks for any Syrian refugee fleeing terrorism by seeking to enter our country.”

She joined 46 other Democrats and all of the House Republicans to pass the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act. The bill expanded the screening process for refugees attempting to enter the United States from Iraq or Syria by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct its own background checks in addition to those conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

In defense of her vote, Kuster told New Hampshire Public Radio that, “it doesn’t pause the program. It doesn’t apply a religious test. It’s a certification that the person does not pose a threat to the security of the United States.”

But Kuster is now the only member of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation that did not release a statement after Trump’s executive order was announced. Instead, she took to Twitter for a very brief statement that didn’t really say if she was for or against the ban.

America can & should be a beacon of hope around the world. Urge @realDonaldTrump to honor the values of inclusion that make us truly great.

— Ann McLane Kuster (@RepAnnieKuster) January 29, 2017

She followed that tweet up later with another one that said, “Not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, we can balance security & compassion. USA founded on freedom from religious persecution.”

Both Kuster and Hassan have brought up religion in their statements, saying they believe his executive order is a religion test as a way to ban Muslims from coming to the United States. That point is still debateable and up for interpretation. There are many media reports that have former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani saying it is a “Muslim ban” as Trump put it.

But other articles say religion already plays a role in federal asylum and refugee law. David French from the National Review has an extensive piece on it and Politifact rated former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s claim that religion plays a role in refugee screenings as “Mostly True.” Obviously, the law leaves much room for interpretation, so expect several legal experts to weigh in on the subject in the coming weeks.

As for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, they both have been the most consistent in their language when discussing Syrian refugee resettlement and immigration.

Shaheen was supportive of allowing more Syrian refugees to come to America during Obama’s presidency and she hasn’t changed her mind after Trump’s executive order.

“We’re among those members of Congress who think that the United States can and should do more, both to try and take in more of the refugees who have been vetted, but also to support — in every way we can — the humanitarian crisis that has been created,” she said in 2015.

After Trump’s announcement, she said in a statement, “This executive order is un-American and grossly inhumane. We are a nation of immigrants and should remain welcoming to all nations and faiths, particularly those who are fleeing violence and oppression. Refugees, from Syria in particular, are fleeing unspeakable terror and hunger, and it’s unconscionable that the United States will no longer provide any of these refugees a safe haven.”

Shea-Porter said the United States should welcome Syrian refugees, but should also ensure they are properly vetted. She voted with House Democrats against a 2013 Republican amendment that would defund Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

“I think we’re very capable of absorbing a certain number of refugees who are fleeing their country for the same reasons that we would,” she said in 2015. “I think we all need to know exactly what kind of vetting is being done.”

She released a very straightforward statement on Saturday rejecting Trump’s actions.

“Our nation’s founders built this nation on dreams of a better, more tolerant society, and now we must stand together and defend and preserve those ideals,” she said. “I call on President Trump to immediately reverse his actions, and I invite all Granite Staters to join me in letting our refugee and immigrant neighbors know that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them as one community.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.