The measures include requiring resettlement agencies to carry insurance that would defray the cost of prosecuting refugees who commit violent crimes, and a bill that would allow towns and cities to request a moratorium on resettlements in their communities.

In Montana, which took in just nine refugee families from January to early December, about a dozen bills related to refugees, immigration, and terrorism have been filed ahead of next month’s session.

HELENA, Mont. — The push to restrict immigration and refugee resettlements in the United States that figured so prominently in Donald Trump’s election is now headed to state legislatures, where a slew of immigration bills have been filed for the new year.


Refugee rights advocates say those measures are a sign of what is to come as the anti-immigrant sentiments spill over to state houses and local governments.

‘‘It’s pretty widely known that this is going to be a hard year for those of us who are seeking to protect the rights of refugees and immigrants,’’ said S.K. Rossi, advocacy and policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana.

The president-elect campaigned on building a border wall with Mexico to stop illegal immigration, deporting immigrants who are in the nation illegally, and halting the resettlement of refugees to strengthen the federal program that vets them.

Some down-ticket conservative candidates took Trump’s cue and integrated the anti-refugee platform into their campaigns. Montana Representative Ryan Zinke, for example, spoke multiple times about the possibility of child terrorists slipping into the United States.

Anti-immigrant groups have state and local governments in their sights as they seek more restrictive measures, in addition to whatever changes may happen at the federal level, said Michele McKenzie, deputy director of the Advocates for Human Rights, a Minneapolis organization.

‘‘It absolutely does not end with the presidential election,’’ McKenzie said. ‘‘It’s a national strategy by a small but organized group of anti-immigration advocates and anti-refugee advocates.’’


An Indiana legislative panel led by state Senator Mike Delph didn’t recommend any legislation after it spent eight months reviewing illegal immigration. Delph said after the election that the US government’s actions may make immigration less of a problem for the states.

Conservative lawmakers in other states, such as Montana, aren’t waiting to find out, and are instead looking at measures to give towns and cities a larger voice in the federal resettlement process.

‘‘We need to get serious,’’ said Nancy Ballance, a Republican state representative from Ravalli County.

Ballance said refugees are a ‘‘gigantic issue’’ in her southwestern Montana county, just south of the liberal college city of Missoula. ‘‘People expect to see some legislation brought,’’ she said.

Missoula has taken in all of the state’s refugees this year and has been approved to accept another 150 through September. That makes leaders in rural surrounding areas nervous that people will settle in their towns, where housing and job opportunities are limited.

‘‘If Missoula wants to have their soft-landing program, that’s fine,’’ said Bob Keenan, a Republican state senator from Bigfork, a town north of Missoula on Flathead Lake. ‘‘Those communities may not be as willing to expend their social service dollars for a soft landing.’’

Soft Landing Missoula and the International Rescue Committee have been the main organizations working with the federal and state governments to resettle the refugees, who come from Congo, Iraq, and Eritrea.


Mary Poole, Soft Landing Missoula’s director, said much of the legislation being proposed in Montana is based on misinformation. Some measures — such as requiring surveys of communities’ capacity to take refugees — already are part of the federal process, she said.

‘‘I hope people are still open to talking to us and getting accurate information,’’ Poole said. ‘‘Our doors are definitely open for conversation.’’