Pew: Christians still make up most of US immigrant population, but Muslim share is growing

No worries!  Only a quarter of a million US Muslims say violence against civilians in the name of Islam may sometimes be justified!

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life came out with a new study just yesterday about the religious make-up and size of the mostly legal immigrant population in the US.

As you read through this ponder these facts (I’ve rounded the numbers):

~ The US population is around 315 million.

~Pew says the US Muslim population as of 2011 was 2.75 million.

~We are adding roughly 1 million immigrants a year (for the past 20 years) and 100,000 of them are Muslim.

~Christians make up the largest share, but the share of Muslims and Hindus is growing.

Here are some interesting segments of Pew’s conclusions (I’ve highlighted the parts that interest me):

Over the past 20 years, the United States has granted permanent residency status to an average of about 1 million immigrants each year. These new “green card” recipients qualify for residency in a wide variety of ways – as family members of current U.S. residents, recipients of employment visas, refugees and asylum seekers, or winners of a visa lottery – and they include people from nearly every country in the world. But their geographic origins gradually have been shifting. U.S. government statistics show that a smaller percentage come from Europe and the Americas than did so 20 years ago, and a growing share now come from Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region.

With this geographic shift, it is likely that the religious makeup of legal immigrants also has been changing. The U.S. government, however, does not keep track of the religion of new permanent residents. As a result, the figures on religious affiliation in this report are estimates produced by combining government statistics on the birthplaces of new green card recipients over the period between 1992 and 2012 with the best available U.S. survey data on the religious self-identification of new immigrants from each major country of origin.  [US refugee program does track religious affiliation, they just don't make the information public.---ed]

While Christians continue to make up a majority of legal immigrants to the U.S., the estimated share of new legal permanent residents who are Christian declined from 68% in 1992 to 61% in 2012. Over the same period, the estimated share of green card recipients who belong to religious minorities rose from approximately one-in-five (19%) to one-in-four (25%). This includes growing shares of Muslims (5% in 1992, 10% in 2012) and Hindus (3% in 1992, 7% in 2012).

More coming from Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

The geographic origins of new permanent residents have shifted markedly during the past two decades, according to U.S. government data. In 1992, a total of 41% of new permanent residents came from the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East-North Africa region or sub-Saharan Africa. By 2012, more than half (53%) of new green card holders were from those regions.

No surprise!  Most Muslim population growth in US is coming from immigration.

The estimated number of new Muslim immigrants varies from year to year but generally has been on the rise, going from roughly 50,000 in 1992 to 100,000 in 2012. Since 2008, the estimated number of Muslims becoming U.S. permanent residents has remained at or above the 100,000 level each year. [Readers, that means that probably the biggest chunk of legal Muslim immigration is coming through our refugee and asylum programs---ed]

Between 1992 and 2012, a total of about 1.7 million Muslims entered the U.S. as legal permanent residents. That constitutes a large portion of the overall U.S. Muslim population (estimated at 2.75 million as of 2011).

Most Muslim immigrants coming from Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh, Iraq, Somalia and Ethiopia.

The most common countries of origin among Muslim immigrants in 1992 included Pakistan, Iran and Bangladesh. Those countries, as well as Iraq, also were among the most likely birthplaces of Muslim immigrants to the U.S. in 2012.

In recent years, a higher percentage of Muslim immigrants have been coming from sub-Saharan Africa. An estimated 16% of Muslim immigrants to the U.S. in 2012 were born in countries such as Somalia and Ethiopia. In 1992, only about 5% of new Muslim immigrants came from sub-Saharan Africa.  [Whew! That means about 16,000 Somalis and Ethiopians came last year!  Higher than I thought!---ed]

Now just for fun, go to Pew’s worldwide Muslim survey last month, here.

Don’t you just love it how Pew spins this with the word ‘few’!

Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam. Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.

So, if we have roughly 2.75 million Muslims in the US and 8% say it’s often or sometimes justified to use suicide bombings and violence against civilians in the name of Islam, that means that 220,000 American Muslims think violence against civilians is justified (someone check my math, maybe I have too many zeros!).  Ahhhhh!

I’m confident (aren’t you?) that when we take immigrants from Egypt, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories that we are only getting those from the percentage who do not approve of violence against civilians in the name of Islam—right!

I bet there is a lot of juicy stuff in here for anyone with the patience to dissect it!

Partnership marks the launch of Support The Belly—refugee contractor joins Ingrid and Isabel for fundraising

Dear critics:  Much to your surprise I’m not going to make fun of the International Rescue Committee for raising money through a capitalistic joint venture with a for-profit business like Ingrid & Isabel.   That is, assuming, of course, that the more money the IRC raises privately means they will dip into the US Treasury less—right!

The kind of support every refugee woman needs!

And, helping poor refugee women around the world sure beats “resettle and dump on… “  American cities and towns.

Besides, the IRC needs to raise money to pay its new CEO—David Miliband—the $400,000 plus salary he will be receiving, and the less of that coming from the US taxpayer the better.

Here is the gist of the new ‘Support the Belly’ partnership:

SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Ingrid & Isabel, the maternity company known for its best-selling Bellaband, has partnered with the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a non-profit organization that responds to the world’s worst humanitarian crises, for the launch of Support the Belly, the company’s philanthropic initiative. Founded in 1933 at the request of Albert Einstein, the IRC offers lifesaving care and life-changing assistance to refugees forced to flee from war or disaster. At work today in over 40 countries and 22 U.S. cities, the IRC restores safety, dignity and hope to millions who are uprooted and struggling to endure. The organization delivers 200,000 babies in crisis settings annually. Refugee women with little or no access to maternal health care are particularly vulnerable, and this is why Ingrid & Isabel wants to help.

“Motherhood is life-changing, it shouldn’t be life-threatening. So, we are proud to join forces with the IRC to address the dire need for healthcare, nutrition and maternal support around the world.”

“Ingrid & Isabel’s passion and focus is the expectant mother,” explains Ingrid Carney, Founder and CEO of Ingrid & Isabel. “Motherhood is life-changing, it shouldn’t be life-threatening. So, we are proud to join forces with the IRC to address the dire need for healthcare, nutrition and maternal support around the world.”

Together with the IRC, Ingrid & Isabel has developed a selection of charitable “Rescue Gifts” that can be purchased on http://www.rescue.org/Support-the-Belly to help expectant mothers in need. Ingrid & Isabel has pledged to match donations to the IRC up to $30,000. These tax-deductible gifts are offered at a variety of price points:

For gift ideas, read on.  I repeat, private charitable giving should be the goal of all NGOs doing humanitarian work!

If you are old and managed being pregnant ‘back in the day’ without a BellaBand, go here to learn what you missed.

Bhutanese resettlement in America surpasses 60,000 headed to 70,000

In 2006, then Bush Assistant Secretary of State for Population Refugees and Migration, Ellen Sauerbrey, announced that the United States would begin to “clean out the [refugee] camps” in Nepal where people of Napali origin had been living since being expelled from Bhutan.  She said we would take 60,000 of the 100,000 refugees.

We have resettled over 66,000 and there is no end in sight.  In fact, one has to laugh because the camp population appears to be growing.

Some of the Bhutanese are doing well in America, others are not.  Type ‘Bhutanese’ into our search function for many reports on how they are faring around the country.  One problem that has become apparent is that the Bhutanese have a very high suicide rate.

From UNHCR:

KATHMANDU, Nepal, April 26 (UNHCR) – The resettlement of refugees from Bhutan reached a major milestone this week, with 100,000 people having been referred for resettlement from Nepal to third countries since the programme began in 2007. Nearly 80,000 of them have started their new lives in eight different countries – an important step towards resolving one of the most protracted refugee situations in Asia.

[.....]

The acceptance rate of UNHCR’s referrals in Nepal by resettlement countries is the highest in the world – at 99.4 per cent of total submissions. The United States has accepted the largest number of refugees (66,134), followed by Canada (5,376), Australia (4,190), New Zealand (747), Denmark (746), Norway (546), the Netherlands (326) and the United Kingdom (317).

The math is a little fuzzy here, or is it me?  There were 108,000 in the camps originally, 100,000 have been dispersed to the “four winds,” yet 38,100 remain to be resettled?

Of the original population of 108,000 refugees originating from Bhutan and living in Nepal, some 38,100 remain in the Sanischare and Beldangi camps in eastern Nepal. Most of them have expressed an interest in the resettlement programme.

Ellen Sauerbrey, Bush Asst. Secretary for PRM. We have to resettle them to keep them from becoming terrorists.

Controversial decision!

Sauerbrey’s original decision in 2006 was highly controversial, not so much controversial to Americans (most had no clue this was happening) who might question the wisdom of cleaning out refugee camps in the third world (especially where the refugees were in no danger) and adding to our unemployment and welfare rolls, but from a segment of the Bhutanese camp dwellers themselves.

We wrote about the camp conflicts in many posts in the first years of RRW’s existence, but here is a story from 2010 I hadn’t seen in which former GOP candidate for Governor of Maryland explains what happened.

From Inside the Bay Area:

“We all expected repatriation but it did not happen,” said Amalraj, a Jesuit priest from India. “Fifteen rounds of talks. Nothing happened. All the countries pressurized. Nothing happened.”

Then came Ellen Sauerbrey. With a few choice words delivered at a United Nations meeting four years ago, the Bush administration official triggered an end to repatriation talks and put the American dream on the minds of thousands of refugee children and their parents.

The United States would take them — up to 60,000 of the more than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees stranded in Nepal — and find homes for them in American cities and suburbs. That was the surprise message Sauerbrey brought to a meeting of diplomats in Geneva in fall 2006.

Some in the audience were stunned. Sauerbrey knew her words would put immediate pressure on other wealthy countries to act, but she did not tell many of them in advance.

Like most Americans, the former Republican state legislator from Maryland spent most of her life knowing little about the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, home to fewer than 700,000 people. That changed when President George W. Bush nominated her director of the State Department’s refugee division in 2005, brushing aside Democrats — including then-Sen. Barack Obama — who argued at hearings that Sauerbrey lacked experience for the job. She was appointed in early 2006. Bhutan quickly became a priority.

“I remember saying to some of my heads, some of my offices, we’re going to settle this,” Sauerbrey said in an interview this year. “Next year is going to be the year of Bhutan. We’re going to settle this problem.”

Sauerbrey said getting the refugees to “third countries” — someplace other than Bhutan and Nepal — was the best and only remaining solution to an intractable humanitarian crisis in the Himalayas. Bhutan refused to recognize as citizens those who fled in the early 1990s, arguing their departure was voluntary and permanent. Nepal, one of the world’s poorest countries, did not have the economic capacity to integrate them. The United Nations could not run the camps forever.

Really!  The UN could not run camps forever?  Isn’t that exactly what the UN is doing with the Palestinians.  Why isn’t the UN, after 50-60 years! not dispersing the Palestinians to the four winds?  We know why—they must remain right there as a constant thorn in the side of Israel!

Sauerbrey said in 2007, apparently about Muslim refugees, that we had to take them so they wouldn’t become terrorists, here.  Below she suggests the largely Hindu and Buddhist Bhutanese/Nepalese might turn to radicalism if we didn’t take them to your cities.

Why are these UN camps our problem?  And, with the US’s mighty economic influence, couldn’t we put some pressure on these tiny poor nations to repatriate their people?  By the way, Bhutan considered the Nepali people as illegal aliens who were diluting their ethnic population.

Observers also worried the situation in the region might grow dangerous as refugees, frustrated by years living in limbo, looked to radicalism or political violence, Sauerbrey said.

“My perspective became, we could be arguing about who’s to blame for 100 years,” Sauerbrey said. “The U.S., we’re not here trying to make political statements about who’s right or wrong. There’s a big problem, a humanitarian problem, when children are born and raised and have never seen anything but a refugee camp.”

State Department officials predict the U.S., by 2014, will be home to at least 60,000 Bhutanese refugees, more than half the total. Seven other countries, led by Canada and Australia, have accepted the rest.  [The US surpassed 60,000 by late 2012.---ed]

“When I made the statement that the U.S. was willing to take 60,000,” Sauerbrey said, “it was with the knowledge that between Canada and Australia and to a small degree, European countries, we could almost clean out the camps.”

“There were a lot of refugees who say for the first time there was a solution,” said Sauerbrey, who resigned at the end of 2007, just as the resettlement began. “There were other refugees who wanted only one solution, which was to return to Bhutan. It started a real debate.”

Violence erupted in camps largely instigated by those who objected to their people being dispersed to the four winds to live “like beggars.”

A contracting agency, the International Organization for Migration, or IOM, was met with resistance when it arrived to the town of Damak to organize the resettlement in 2007. Some refugees enthusiastically took buses into Damak to sign up for resettlement and be interviewed. Other refugees pelted those buses with stones. Families known to harbor thoughts of leaving the camps faced death threats. In one nighttime attack, assailants lobbed small explosives over the gates of the IOM office, injuring no one.

The most influential protests came from refugee political leaders and their allies in Nepal who wanted to keep the pressure on Bhutan to take the refugees back.

“Instead of pressurizing Bhutan, which violated our human rights, America initiated the resettlement process,” said Tek Nath Rizal, an exiled Bhutanese politician who now lives in Katmandu and opposes the mass resettlement to the West. “We have to go there like beggars. We cannot live in dignity.”

So when do we start cleaning out the Palestinian camps so as to stop the radicalization?

Arab country doesn’t take refugees, so we take them off their hands

Sri Lankans who arrived illegally in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have arrived in Los Angeles!

Sri Lankan refugees, bags packed and  headed your way!

 

This is a similar pattern to the “Malta Doctrine”*** the Bush Administration created some years ago.  Illegal aliens arrive in some country seeking asylum and we go in and scoop them up to add to our “refugee” population.  Readers, international law says that “asylum seekers” must ask for asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive—that country is not meant to be a transit stop on the way to America.

The UAE’s migrant population is NOT our problem!  The fact that many ARAB countries do not take refugees is not our problem!

Gang of Eight bill will codify what the State Department is already doing!

Before I get to the news, let me say here that one of many problems, and a very significant one, in the Gang of Eight’s “comprehensive” immigration reform (S.744) is this line (I highlighted it on Wednesday):

a. Section 3403 – expands the President’s authority to designate “specifically defined groups of aliens” for resettlement based on either humanitarian reasons or because it “is otherwise in the national interest.”

The first part of that change means that whole groups of people could be deemed refugees just because they belong to a certain class (presently they must prove they personally are persecuted), and it is going to surely open the flood gates even wider.  Asylum seekers only need to say: I’m Iraqi, I’m Somali, I’m gay, therefore I am persecuted.

But, it’s the second part that I’m focusing on here this morning, and it is troubling because we are already doing it!  Illegally!  We have been using the refugee program to ‘help out’ other countries for some other purpose.  Can you say Uzbek airlift? (where we airlifted political dissidents/so-called refugees who had been troubling the President of Uzbekistan to the US at the time Bush wanted access to Afghanistan through Uzbekistan).

S.744 would codify what the State Department has already been doing on the sly.  What the hell is “in the national interest?”

Are we trying to curry favor with the government of the UAE by taking their illegal alien Sri Lankans off their hands?  Is it in our “national interest” to do so?  Hmmmm?

From The National (more people in need of welfare on their way to LA!) Hat tip to Joanne:

DUBAI // Eleven Sri Lankan refugees have arrived in Los Angeles  to begin their new lives after receiving care in the UAE for six months.

[....]

“We can now lead a life without fear and don’t have to live as refugees any more,” said Sivabalan Niranjani, 35, of the harrowing journey that ended when she landed in Dubai. She arrived in the US with her husband and two children yesterday.

Mrs Niranjani was seven months pregnant when she and 44 others set sail from India by boat last October to seek asylum in Australia.

Five days later their boat broke down and they had to be rescued by the Singaporean ship Pinnacle Bliss, which was en route to Jebel Ali.

[....]

When the group arrived in Dubai on October 23, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) notified the UAE of their presence.

Although the Emirates is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and not legally obliged to allow refugees to stay, they were allowed to disembark and the UN agency was granted access to determine the legitimacy of their claims for asylum.

While waiting for asylum, Mrs Niranjani gave birth to a girl in December at Dubai’s Latifa Hospital.

[....]

Babar Baloch, a spokesman for UNHCR, said the refugees’ departure was arranged by the International Organisation for Migration.

“Authorities in the US will handle refugees that have been accepted for resettlement,” Mr Baloch said.

Of the 46 who arrived in Dubai, including Mrs Naranjani’s baby, seven were sent back by the UN as they were deemed not to be in need of international protection.  [Some were not legitimate refugees!---ed]

Eight were sent to Sweden and one went to the US earlier. After another 11 left for the US yesterday, 19 are left in the UAE to continue their wait.

Asylum shopping:

Kulasegaram Geetharthanan, a lawyer with Jein Solicitors in the UK, has submitted asylum applications to several consulates in Dubai on their behalf – including Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Austria, Ireland and the UK.

I guess he can take Switzerland off his list!  But, we hear Ireland is very welcoming!  BTW, Tamils are mostly Hindu, with about 5% Muslim population, however, the Tamil Tigers are infamous for having invented the suicide belt.

For more on Sri Lankan “refugees,” just type ‘Sri Lankan’ into our search function and see the problems both Australia and Canada are having with them arriving in boats.

*** I call it the Malta Doctrine, but back in 2007 or 2008, Bush’s Ambassador to Malta set a precedent by turning “asylum seekers” (really economic migrants arriving on Malta’s coast illegally from North Africa) into refugees to be resettled in the US.  Type ‘Malta’ into our search function and you will see in dozens of posts how this really illegal process has evolved turning Malta into a magnet for even more illegal migration.  That is why it is so important for the refugee industry advocates to get that line into the new Gang of Eight bill—the President can deem someone or some group as being in the “national interest” to bring to America.

Obama extends TEMPORARY “refugee” status to Hondurans and Nicaraguans

Josh Gerstein writing at Politico nails it when discussing our ludicrously-named backdoor immigration program—Temporary Protected Status.

“Temporary refugees!”  They came to America illegally and  Hurricane Mitch (in 1998!) became the excuse for never leaving! Photo: History Files

Here is Gerstein’s most “undercovered” story of the week!  (Emphasis mine):

My candidate for undercovered news story of the week: the extension of TPS for immigrants potentially subject to deportation to Honduras or Nicaragua.

What’s TPS? Unheard of in many communities, it stands for Temporary Protected Status and is well known in places with substantial populations of immigrants from Central America.

[....]

The provision allows the federal government to defer deportations, nominally temporarily, to countries where a problem such as natural disaster or unrest could put added stress on a country or make it unsafe for those abroad to return. Perhaps more importantly than halting deportations, it allows immigrants in the U.S. illegally from those countries to receive authorization to work here. [They can work, but there is no path to citizenship (yet!)---ed]

On Wednesday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced that she was extending the legal status of immigrants from Honduras and Nicaragua for another 18 months. The action was purportedly taken to allow the countries more time to recover from a hurricane. If you’re having trouble remembering a huge hurricane that hit the region recently, it’s not you. The disaster which led to the deportation halt, Hurricane Mitch, took place in the fall of 1998—more than 14 years ago.

Napolitano’s designations for Honduras and Nicaragua are the eleventh extensions of the original grants of TPS. With the passage of time, the findings in the extensions become more and more implausible, as does the notion that there is anything temporary about the program and that the conditions in those countries today are fairly traceable to the 1998 hurricane.  [Technically to receive TPS status the illegal alien had to be in the US before the crisis occurred, but this is just more of the winking and nodding that surely goes on with this program.--ed]

The truth is it has become politically unthinkable to end the TPS designations, especially given how long they’ve been in place. The policies now stretch through three presidential administrations, two Democratic and one Republican [Bush of course!---ed]

In many ways, the extensions are a symptom of the nation’s broken immigration system. About 64,000 Hondurans and 3,000 Nicaraguans are affected by the programs. Another TPS for El Salvador based on earthquakes in 2001 affects even more people: 212,000, making it a major source of remittances* for that country.

Read it all!

They are all waiting now for the big break—amnesty. Yippee! New Democrat voters!

*We told you about the role of remittances here at Potomac Tea Party Report.  The most recent group to receive TPS status are the Syrians—just in time for amnesty!

Canada: Is access to health care a basic right for illegal aliens?

They call them failed asylum seekers—aliens who have arrived in Canada illegally, asked for refugee status, but come from countries that are capable of protecting them and so are being denied the right to stay in Canada.  We mentioned this policy earlier this month, here.   In the past they received free medical care, but no more.

America pay attention because as Obamacare kicks in and we can’t afford it, we will be headed down this same road.  Socialized medicine—free to all—cannot survive.

Here is the news from The Star:

Immigration minister Jason Kenney: They have to be real refugees to get our free healthcare.

Israel Sosa’s deportation has been put on hold as the 50-year-old battles colon cancer.

The failed refugee claimant from the Dominican Republic has been allowed to stay in Canada on humanitarian grounds for now — but he has been banned from getting treatment under Ottawa’s Interim Federal Health (IFH) Program for refugees.

The Toronto man could choose to delay treatment and face death — or go into debt paying his medical costs.   [He could go into debt and pay it off over time, could he not?---ed]

That’s the new reality for asylum seekers from the so-called “safe countries” — ones such as Mexico and the Czech Republic, which are deemed democratic countries capable of state protection — as well as failed refugee claimants.

They are no longer eligible for government health care as of last June, unless they put public health at risk. The old program covered them for emergency and basic health care, similar to what is included with OHIP.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has said these are not legitimate refugees and taxpayers should not be held accountable for their care. The cuts are expected to save Ottawa $100 million over five years.

“It is very important to distinguish between a refugee, an asylum claimant and a failed asylum claimant. Canadians have been clear that they do not want illegal immigrants and bogus refugee claimants receiving free, gold-plated health-care benefits,” Alexis Pavlich, Kenney’s press secretary, told the Star this week.

However, critics say the federal government cannot just sit back and watch these patients suffer as resource-stretched hospitals demand prepayments for medical procedures and tests.

A court will decide if the cuts are unconstitutional:

Two national organizations made up of physicians and lawyers are suing Ottawa, arguing the health cuts are unconstitutional and illegal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case is expected to be heard in a year.

There is much more, more sad cases to tweak the Canadian taxpayers’ guilt, read it all.

This is what I don’t get, why can’t all the complainers start a foundation to collect private charity to fund some of these medical cases.  Maybe they can’t all be saved, but some would and surely they could find enough rich people/celebrities and so forth willing to show their generosity to the poor immigrants.

Another 1000 Bhutanese headed for Canada

Just now looking over the website for Canada’s Immigration Department I see that they just this week announced that they will take another 1000 Bhutanese from camps in a safe country—Nepal—which would bring  their resettled Bhutanese population up to a total of 6,500.  Not to be too picky about the facts, but the Bhutanese are of Nepali descent and are in Nepal, again a safe country, but somehow they are persecuted refugees in need of resettlement to Canada (and to the US where our totals are now approaching the 70,000 mark!) and will be eligible for free, free, free health care?

I repeat: Who took Karnamaya Mongar to have an abortion? And, why?

One day I guess we will know the answers to those questions (see my previous post for background).  Maybe after Gosnell gets his due there should be another prosecution?

I see today on Drudge that he has a link to the opening of the Kermit Gosnell abortion doctor trial in Philly and this (below) is near the end of the article.

Gosnell and his Philadelphia abortion clinic.

Gosnell’s attorney calls the prosecution “elitist” and “racist.”   From Philly.com:

He is also charged with third-degree murder in the death of a Virginia woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, who prosecutors allege was administered too much anesthesia during a 2009 abortion.

McMahon, however, argued that Mongar, a political refugee from Bhutan who arrived in the United States four months before her death, did not tell Gosnell or his staff that she had respiratory problems that made her more vulnerable to anesthesia.

If Mrs. Mongar had only been in the US for four months as a refugee who didn’t speak English, she would still have been under the supposedly watchful eye of a resettlement contractor.   So who helped her ‘find her way’ to Philly?

Was it Catholic Charities?

Lutheran Immigration Services?

Virginia Council of Churches?

or, the secular International Rescue Committee?

It could have been any of those four—all are resettlement contractors operating in Virginia.

I’m not convinced that a new refugee from a camp in Nepal could decide to have an abortion, find one of the few abortion clinics like Gosnell’s that still exist, get herself to another state and then be expected (without English) to give an accounting of her medical condition.  She had to have American help.   Were other refugees being taken to Gosnell?

Shall we call Lexington, KY “Little Congo?”

Sure sounds like it.  Don’t tell Professor Kotkin that these new immigrants didn’t ‘find their way’ to Lexington, Kentucky as the result of all the buzz back in Kinshasa about the great economy for ‘new Americans’ in “the horse capital of the world”.

Red states are being turned blue through refugee resettlement.

Once a seed community has been established and no one complains, more will arrive. 

From WEKU-FM (hat tip: Robin)

They aren’t coming from Syria yet!

As refugees flee the civil war in Syria, few will probably settle in the Commonwealth.  Barbara Kleine with Kentucky Refugee Ministries [subcontractor of  one of the top nine federal contractors Church World Service---ed] says many displaced Syrians still remain within that nation’s borders.  “There are just multiple layers of security checks before people are admitted to the U.S. and that can takes months up to years really.  So right now, there is no process in place that is processing Syrian refugees who are outside the country,” said Kleine.

But, they are going to “welcoming” Lexington from the Congo:

Congolese on the march! ‘Finding their way’ to Lexington, KY with the help of Church World Service!

Meanwhile, the number of immigrants from the African nation of Congo who settle in central Kentucky is expected to grow significantly.  Kleine says about 800 Congolese ex-patriots now live in Lexington.  She predicts they’ll attract even more refugees from that war-torn nation.

“When there is a community of say Congolese or Bhutanese in your community and you can prove to the State Department that you have the language capacity and the community support to welcome those refugee, then you are able to continue to resettle that population,” added Kleine.

Kleine says the new immigrants could arrive in the Lexington-area this coming fall.  Over the last five years, she says Lexington has become one of the nation’s most popular destinations for refugees from Congo.

Iranian TV calling Mali conflict “the French war on Mali;” blame the French for refugee crisis

This is actually funny if it weren’t so serious.

“French War on Mali increases Refugees,” from Press TV (Official Iranian English language news outlet):

The number of Malian people crossing into neighboring countries goes on to rise amid the French-led war on Mali.

According to reports by the United Nations, over 4,000 Malian refugees have arrived in Mauritania alone since January 11, when France launched a war on Mali under the pretext of halting the advance of fighters in the country.

Just some random fighters?  Not Jihadists trying to control the country?

They go on to tell readers about the terrible plight of refugees created by the FRENCH.

And, why did France launch this war?  To steal the resources of Mali, what else?

Press TV:

Some political analysts believe that Mali’s abandoned natural resources, including gold and uranium reserves, could be one of the reasons behind the French war.

If you missed it last Saturday we reported that a Leftist agitation group in Illinois is already calling for temporary refugee status for Malians already in the US, here.

More refugees to Wisconsin….

…..and more federal dollars to fund them (well, to fund the contractors).

There is nothing unusual about Wisconsin.  Everyone is going to get more refugees and Washington will surely have the funds flowing to the contractors* now that the Obama Administration is free to go full steam ahead.

If you live in Appleton, Barron, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee and Oshkosh, here they come.

From AP at Fox 11:

MADISON (AP) – Agencies in six Wisconsin communities will receive a total of $1.5 million to help resettle new refugees.

The state Department of Children and Families says the latest refugees arriving in Wisconsin are mainly from Burma, East Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nepal. To receive refugee status, a person must have a well-founded fear of persecution and not be able to safely return to their home country.   [LOL! Now they are saying East Africa so as not to say Somalis.---ed]

That definition of a refugee is important.  It used to mean that the individual refugee had a fear of persecution, now one only needs to be from a certain region of the world and one is assumed to be persecuted.  The refugee industry has long wanted that expanded definition and now they have just made it so.  And, hey, didn’t Obama tell us that Iraq and Afghanistan are safe—after all, he says we don’t need our military there!   Somalia has a new government and is encouraging its people to come home.   And, who is persecuting in Nepal?

AP continues:

The state has funded refugee programs using federal money, beginning with the Hmong resettlement in Wisconsin. Local agencies provide a host of services to the refugees, including language and literacy classes, school enrollment, job information and mental health services.  [You pay for all of this!---ed]

The funding has been targeted for agencies in Appleton, Barron, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee and Oshkosh. About 1,000 new refugees are expected to settle in Wisconsin this year.

For Wisconsin readers, you can learn more about refugees in Wisconsin here at your state agency website.  Five of nine federal contractors appear to have divvied up Wisconsin.

An afterthought:  Just as I hit publish I remembered that I wanted to mention that one of the bits of information for you to note at the Wisconsin website might answer an oft-asked question, namely, do refugees who come as senior citizens get social security?  The answer is yes—for up to nine years.   SSI will continue past that time if they become US citizens:

A refugee senior must naturalize within nine years of arrival or lose eligibility for SSI.

* The ORR website is down, but for new readers the big nine contractors who hold a monopoly on federal contracts are:

The so-called “religious ” contractors receiving tax dollars:

US Conference of Catholic Bishops  (we just mentioned them yesterday, here)

Church World Service

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services

World Relief

Episcopal Migration Ministries

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

The secular contractors:

US Committee on Refugees and Immigrants

International Rescue Committee

Ethiopian Community Development Council