Resettlement cities: old article refreshes my memory

In response to my post this week on Boise, ID,  a reader (Infinicat) brought to my attention an article in the Washington Post from 2006.   The article is entitled “More refugees are settling in mid-sized cities, study finds” and discusses a Brookings study by Audrey Singer.   We wrote about the Singer report here last year.

Reading the Post article today brings to mind a few points we raised long ago, but perhaps need to be brought to the forefront again as citizens in various cities are wondering how their city was chosen as a resettlement city.

We’ve written previously that it is our understanding that the Clinton administration directed that refugees be resettled throughout the US, thus taking pressure off the traditional gateway cities.   This is pretty much what has happened.   

The article on Boise added more information when we learned that the volags meet once a week to choose resettlement cities.

It also reminded me that the National Governors Association wrote the following in its Policy Position on Immigration and Refugee Resettlement in March 2007. 

The Governors continue to be concerned about the lack of adequate consultation on the part of the voluntary agencies (VOLAGs) and their local affiliates in the initial placement of refugees and on the part of the federal government in the equitable distribution of refugees and entrants.

States have continually urged the federal government to establish a mechanism to ensure appropriate coordination and consultation. However, significant progress has not been made and the following mechanisms need to be considered to address this problem.

Read the rest of this important Policy document and see the Governors’ recommendations.

So, it was especially interesting to see (in the Washington Post article) that the states of Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Iowa were losing population and actually lobbying for refugees.   But, who in the state? —the Governor, the legislature or a bunch of volags in need of more clients. 

Some states, such as Iowa, Pennsylvania and North Dakota, have been lobbying for refugees, Singer said. “Iowa is experiencing population decline and looking into its future and sees refugee resettlement as a vital way of keeping up population,” she said.

Read the whole 2006 Washington Post article, it contains some interesting numbers and a very informative graphic.

Readers in Pennsylvania, Iowa and North Dakota might want to look into the claim that your states are actively lobbying for refugees.

 

 

What do we owe Iraqi refugees?

An op-ed piece in the Washington Times yesterday, A moral imperative, reports on an “Iraq Action Days” conference at George Washington University.

People representing nearly two dozen non-governmental-organizations detailed what is happening to 2.2 million refugees outside Iraq and 2.77 million displaced persons inside the country. These people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance, and Congress must approve funding for key humanitarian assistance programs in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental budget.

Further, 

… the lack of moral clarity has become a major issue threatening American national security interests. Let’s make no mistake — the refugees and their suffering will be used by both their government and regional powers to stoke anti-Americanism. That’s why the United States — if determined to succeed in the region — needs to be far more aggressive on how it uses its soft power.

But what does “soft power” mean? I would say that it should mean helping to take care of the refugees and ease their terrible conditions where they are, and trying to resettle them back in Iraq as fast as this can be done without creating more chaos, including helping settle property disputes and building new houses. But there’s another agenda. The article ends:

Finally, as it often does, some historical perspective sheds a little light on the situation. “As of March 31, 2008, 2,627 Iraqis have arrived in FY 2008,” the State Department reported last week. Since 2003, the United States has taken in roughly 6,000 Iraqis. In contrast, more than 131,000 Vietnamese had settled in the United States from May to December 1975, according to International Rescue Committee reports. We may not yet be at that threshold but the next president should get ready for accepting larger amounts of Iraqis for permanent settlement in the United States.

Our friend Chris Coen wrote a response, which the Washington Times published today, with which I agree:

Reconsider refugee resettlement

With 1.5 million refugees displaced from Iraq, it would be impossible to resettle any significant number in the United States. It also would be cost-prohibitive. Far more Iraqi refugees could be helped if we assisted them in the countries to which they already have been displaced, mainly Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (“A moral imperative,” Op-Ed, yesterday).

The nongovernmental organizations know this but keep lobbying for the admission of ever greater numbers of refugees into the United States because it is lucrative for them, not because it is in the best interests of the refugees.

Our group has found extensive neglect of refugees resettled to the United States by the NGOs. Rather than spending so much time and effort attempting to bring larger numbers of refugees to the United States, they should concentrate on taking care of those refugees they already are bringing to this country.

CHRISTOPHER COEN

Director

Friends of Refugees

Minneapolis