Refugee Resettlement Watch

Archive for the ‘Reforms needed’ Category

Lutherans again with their Christian charity claptrap!

Posted by Ann Corcoran on July 19, 2014

I can’t take it!  We are paying for their public relations campaign! 97% of their funding comes from taxpayers while they pretend that what they do is out of the goodness of their Christian hearts!

The nerve of these people sending out press releases with all this garbage about how much they love the migrants without mentioning that they are BEING PAID FOR THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVISM ON BEHALF OF ILLEGAL ALIENS AND REFUGEES, and how they are working with the government.  THEY ARE WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT MEANS YOU AS TAXPAYERS!

I would love just once for them to admit that they are federal contractors*** in one of these deceptive PR pieces that are gobbled up by gullible (or worse, complicit) media outlets.  And, by the way, where the hell is the ACLU?

From Digital Journal:

LIRS CEO Hartke: “God is calling” (and God pays well!).

BALTIMORE, July 18, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — As the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied migrant children and families fleeing Central America and crossing the border into the U.S. continues, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service is working closely with government leaders, faith-based organizations and community partners to scale up its support and response efforts. “These children and families are leaving perilous circumstances in their home countries. They deserve safety, due process, and compassion,” says Linda Hartke, President and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

While the groundswell of love and support has largely been omitted from the continuing immigration debate, it has been deeply felt and noticed by faith-based and immigrant rights organizations across America in the form of people offering housing, wanting to deliver material goods, praying and advocating on behalf of children and families.

“The outpouring of support from Americans for the children and families at the center of the refugee crisis on our southern border continues to increase,” says Hartke. “In the past several months as the crisis has worsened, we have seen a surge in the number of calls from people who are volunteering to become foster parents to children in need. Many have told us that they ‘feel like God is calling’ them to take care of these children.”

 Network of “heroic service partners” are all PAID subcontractors!

“We feel a special responsibility towards children,” adds Hartke. “They should be kept safe and be with a loving family. Our network of heroic service partners all across the country support children and new foster families with excellence and compassion, but more foster families are urgently needed.”

They are bragging about how many (hundreds!) of calls they receive from loving people, called by God, wishing to sponsor the ‘unaccompanied alien teens,’ so then why send out this new appeal?

See their “heroic service partners” (aka federal subcontractors) here.  And, take a look at their posh headquarters building at Baltimore’s Inner Harbor while you are there!

LIRS and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops had been the largest contractors taking care of the illegal alien children, but have since been eclipsed by this Baptist gang out of Texas.   It is dog-eat-dog out there in the world of  “Christian” federal contractor competition!  And the new Baptist big dogs seem to be getting more than their fair share of the chow.

If you want to let LIRS (really LIARS) know how you feel, especially if you are of the Lutheran faith, about the “refugee” crisis at the border, this is their lobbyist/PR persons contact info:

Press contact: Miji Bell
410-230-2841 mbell@lirs.org

Stop pretending to be a “humanitarian” “religious” charity! How about some honesty for a change!

See their 2012 Form 990 here (the most recent one available).

They had a total revenue of $41,757,518 and $40,417,752 came from government grants (you!).

97% of their funds comes from government.   

Let’ talk about salaries for these quasi-government agencies (aka religious charities)!

They have 5 employees in the 6-figure salary range including CEO Hartke who made $214,237 in salary and benefits that year for her Godly good works.  And, for the record, Hartke is not the highest paid of the head-honchos of the federal contractors.***

Hartke makes more per year than a Member of Congress and about the same as a Supreme Court Justice, but no one can scrutinize their budget because they are supposed to be a private non-profit!

I guess these Lutherans missed the message about Caesar’s money!

I apologize to long-time readers who know all this, but we are getting so many new readers every day who have never heard this before that it bears repeating.

See all of our coverage of ‘unaccompanied minors’ invading America here.  And be sure to see one major publication that has the guts to report on the massive amount of taxpayer dollars flowing to phony non-profits.

***The contractors (we may have to start adding Baptist Children and Family Services to our list):

 

 

Posted in Changing the way we live, Community destabilization, Immigration fraud, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies, The Opposition | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

Major media mentions refugee resettlement moratorium calls in New England

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 24, 2014

Thanks to everyone who has sent me one version or another of this story about calls for refugee resettlement moratoriums in Springfield, Mass, Lewiston, Maine, and Manchester, NH.***    Regular readers here know the problems in those three New England cities well, so it is not news to us.

However….

What is news is that the news (mainstream media) is actually paying attention and making connections!  I don’t know which came first, the Fox News story (Fox does credit AP), or the AP story.

But, I’m thrilled to see the word “moratorium” used other than on the pages of RRW!

I haven’t enough time to analyze the articles for you, so please read them!  There is one thing that caught my eye, however, that needs to be mentioned.  The US State Department and its contractors choose resettlement cities with virtually no input from the locals (elected or otherwise), any reference to “stakeholders” usually means only FRIENDLY stakeholders (for the record, I hate that word)!

Daniel Langenkamp (right) Public affairs adviser at US State Dept. PRM http://www.linkedin.com/pub/daniel-langenkamp/1a/197/563

Once they have established a seed community of certain ethnic groups they then throw up their hands and say—what can we do? Families must be reunited and we can’t stop refugees from moving where there are ethnic enclaves of their kind of people.  You see their cop-out in these stories when State Department spokesman Daniel Langenkamp says this:

Such requests [for a moratorium---ed] are rare, said Daniel Langenkamp, a department spokesman.

“We make every effort to work with local officials and other stakeholders to ensure the resettlement of refugees is acceptable,” he said.  [If everything went so well there would never have been a RRW!---ed]

The Department, he said, does not place refugees unless an area is equipped to handle them. [LOL!--ed] The government’s work with refugees in Springfield is mostly about family reunification, and it cannot keep families from moving there if they are placed elsewhere, he said.

He doesn’t mention that other locales have asked for moratoriums as well.  I’m thinking of other “pockets of resistance” like Clarkston, Georgia and Amarillo, TX among others.

Note to any city contemplating “welcoming” refugees, remember this!  Once a seed community is established, the extended family comes, and there is no stopping it!  Any elected official calling for a slow-down or outright moratorium will be demonized!

See my ten reasons why a MORATORIUM is needed! —all the more important now that the border is being overwhelmed with mostly teenaged boys seeking “asylum.”

*** Search RRW for each of those three cities and find dozens of posts (spanning several years) on problems in each.

 

 

Posted in Changing the way we live, Community destabilization, creating a movement, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Resettlement cities, Taxpayer goodies, The Opposition, Who is going where | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Tennessee reader shares testimony to US State Department

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 18, 2014

Editors note:  Here is one more testimony sent to the US State Department in response to their federal register notice for public comment on the “size and scope” of their Refugee Admissions program for Fiscal Year 2015.  As readers know, the State Department is not allowing public review of any testimony submitted including the federal contractors’ *** testimony in which they invariably ask for more refugees.  By the way, Tennessee is a Wilson-Fish state and as such Catholic Charities of Tennessee calls the shots on who is resettled there.

May 27, 2014

Ms. Anne Richard
Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration
US State Department
Washington, DC

Re: Federal Register Public Notice 8690

Dear Ms. Richard,

Please accept my written comments regarding FY 2015 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. I recently learned that unlike prior years, there will be no public hearing this year. If ever there was a federal program that should be required to appear in public to answer questions and justify any funding, it is the one you oversee. The federal refugee resettlement program has increasingly operated without sufficient public scrutiny or meaningful input from all stakeholders.

As defined by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement in the 2011 report to Congress (the last report submitted), resettlement stakeholders include: resettlement agencies, state refugee coordinators, refugee health coordinators, ethnic community-based organizations and ORR technical assistance providers.

The federal contractors’ proposed resettlement numbers are never made public prior to acceptance and award of federal funds. The very communities that are directly impacted are not considered stakeholders nor offered any opportunity prior to award for meaningful input into these decisions. This past year I spent a considerable amount of time and effort using FOIA and was still unable to have last year’s resettlement proposals disclosed.

This information should not be subject to FOIA. In fact, the information should be posted on the State Department’s website prior to acceptance and award of federal funds. There is nothing proprietary about how many people a federal contractor plans to bring to a community. Treating this information as “behind closed doors secrets” strongly suggests that the information is withheld from the public because of concern about community resistance to the federal government’s plans.

Years ago I served as a volunteer with a resettlement agency. Over time I have watched this program be transformed into an industry for government contractors with little to no oversight, transparency or accountability to taxpayers. The Cooperative Agreement which VOLAGs execute requiring that federal funds only “augment” privately raised funds is simply ignored. For example, Catholic World News reported in August 2012 that “Federal funds account for nearly 93% of USCCB’s migration/refugee budget…that over 92.5% of [their] $72.1 million budget came from federal grants and contracts while under $25,000 came from private donations.”

Nor is the USCCB the exception among the nationally contracted VOLAGs.

Federal grants include the likes of “Healthy Relationship and Marriage Research,” “Refugee Home Based Childcare Microenterprise Development Project” and “Preferred Communities” just to name a few. A rational approach to helping refugees and their children integrate more quickly into their new communities and Western culture, suggests that rather than using even more government funding to employ women in home-based childcare enclaves, the money would be better spent if at all, putting these children and mothers into existing community-based childcare settings.

While federally funded Ethnic Community Self-Help organizations and Mutual Assistance Associations are made to sound like good ideas, in reality they are yet one more avenue to funnel public dollars to refugee based organizations that use public dollars to claim refugee employment. Rather than assist refugees to integrate or even marginally, assimilate into their new communities, these organizations are designed to “ensur[e] that their charges retain strong ethnic and homeland ties.”

The per capita funding structure incentivizes resettlement contractors to increase their numbers regardless of whether it results in a lower standard of services provided to refugees. The 2012 GAO report “Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program” validates this position:

“Because refugees are generally placed in communities where national voluntary agency affiliates have been successful in resettling refugees, the same communities are often asked to absorb refugees year after year. One state refugee coordinator noted that local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.”

Any attempt at objective discourse about how contractor resettlement business impacts the community in which they operate, is met with disdain. Local affiliate offices do not hesitate to publicly denigrate any taxpayer who raises legitimate questions about the functionality and cost of the program. Propaganda films like “Welcome to Shelbyville” are used to mislead the public and suggest that anyone who looks askance at the resettlement industry, is at best, just “unwelcoming” but more likely, a racist and a bigot.

The State Department’s blog entry dated May 27, 2011 notes that “Welcome to Shelbyville” was shown by your office, PRM, at the State Department on May 25 2011 to an audience of 120 that included representatives from NGOs, refugee resettlement agencies, the State Department, and other U.S. government agencies. Did you bother to share with them the other side of the Shelbyville story as reported in the local paper?

This “documentary” is pure propaganda for the federal program, obscures important facts about the program’s impact and worse, is used to silence legitimate concern about the resettlement industry. No federal agency should be permitted to use it.

States should have final control over resettlement activities within their state borders

Since states incur the on-going, long-term cost associated with refugees, states should have complete control over resettlement activities within their borders.

The 1981 Select Commission on Immigration & Refugee Policy (“Select Commission”), repeatedly addressed the financial impact on receiving communities. “Many state and local officials are concerned that the costs of resettlement assistance will continue beyond the period of federal reimbursement and that the burden of providing services will then fall upon their governments.”

The Select Commission seemed to well understand the fiscal issue for a federal program where the long-term costs would be passed to state and local governments. “Areas with high concentrations of refugees are adversely affected by increased pressures on schools, hospitals and other community services. Although the federal government provides 100 percent reimbursement for cash and medical assistance for three years, it does not provide sufficient aid to minimize the impact of refugees on community services.”

In 1982, just two years after the 1980 Refugee Act was passed, reduction in federal support started with federal cash and medical assistance reduced to 18 months. In 1988 it was reduced again to 12 months and again in 1991 to 8 months, which remains the current level. In 1986, the federal government began to reduce reimbursement to states for the state-funded portion of welfare, Medicaid and SSI, eliminating it altogether by 1991 and shifting these additional costs to the states.

The cost shift has been openly and repeatedly acknowledged by the federal government. And yet, these enduring costs are never acknowledged when calculating the true dollar cost of the program. The 2010 Senate hearing started to identify the significant costs states are forced to incur because of the federal program.

The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement places such a high premium on shifting refugee healthcare costs to states, that the 2013 ORR Voluntary Agencies Matching Grant Program Guidelines on page 9 states that: “ORR recognizes that weekly cash payments may make certain MG cases ineligible for the USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid. Thus, local Matching Grant Program service providers may give some of the weekly allowance in the form of vouchers if such a form of payment is in the overall best interest of the client and he/she concurs.”

In other words, circumvent the program’s rules to shift more cost to the state taxpayer. State governments that decided to expand their Medicaid programs probably did not anticipate that this year’s Department of Health and Human Services briefing on “Key Indicators for Refugee Placement” would so quickly advise considering Medicaid expansion when deciding refugee placements.

With regard to states that have withdrawn from the resettlement program, the federal government does not have the legislative authority to assign an NGO to continue the program in that state. This unconstitutional encroachment on the 10th amendment right of states is barred both by law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions and must cease.

Additionally, states should not be subject to the poor judgment exercised by the Obama administration’s decision to relax security screenings for certain groups of refugees.

“Self-sufficiency” terminology should be replaced with specific reporting on public assistance utilization, temporary v non-temporary employment and the number of refugees resettled each year who are considered to be “unemployable”

Despite documentation of high percentages of Medicaid and food stamp utilization, high “self-sufficiency” rates are reported by the refugee resettlement contractors. It is misleading to describe anyone, including refugees, as self-sufficient when they also receive publicly funded assistance in the form of food stamps, Medicaid and public housing. And still federal contractors are able to report high self-sufficiency rates for refugees as long as they do not receive cash welfare.

A January post on the “Friends of Refugees” blog posted the following about Bridge’s Knoxville resettlement operations: “A former case manager also sent us information about the agency and pointed out that the refugee employment figures are dishonest as most of the refugees have only temporary employment that does not help them to pay rent and be self-sufficient. The nature of the temp jobs also means that the refugees will be unemployed just a short time after the agency reports them employed to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at 90 days and 180 days. (This, however, is a problem throughout the refugee program, and it doesn’t seem that the the ORR has much of an interest in requiring that resettlement agencies report if refugees are working at temporary or non-temporary jobs.)”

Public health issues should be resolved before funding more initial resettlement

TB among resettled populations has been a particular public health concern. It was reported in 2009 that the sharp increase in Minnesota’s active TB cases was tied to refugee resettlement. Because latent TB is not a bar to refugee admission, health officials have expressed concern about cases of drug-resistant TB being documented in communities with high refugee resettlement.

In 2012 the CDC reported that TB in “foreign-born persons increased to 63% of the national case total,” a percentage that has risen steadily since 1993.

More recently it was reported that “immigrants and those who travel to other countries frequently have the highest TB occurrence,” and that “many of these cases–approximately 450,000–are the drug-resistant form of TB that has developed from improper medication usage and medical protocols.”

In April, 2012, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement circulated a grant announcement titled “Strengthening Surveillance for Diseases Among Newly-Arrived Immigrants and Refugees” since it appears that there is no comprehensive tracking of this particular segment of public health concerns. More government money to throw at a government created problem.

Reports of depression and PTSD are now being reported as reasons that some refugees are unable to work. Among Bhutanese refugees that are being resettled, the CDC has documented a troubling statistic; a suicide rate higher than the national and global average. One explanation offered has been the lack of jobs and the resulting stress of unemployment not matching expectations of life in the U.S.

Conclusion

Public funds are spent, hearings are held, reports are published and yet, nothing is done proactively to respond to the problems and issues that are highlighted.

The federal agencies involved in refugee resettlement have enabled the growth of an industry
layered with ever multiplying federal grants but extraordinarily lax on transparency and accountability. Currently, the U.S. refugee resettlement program is administered in derogation of a state’s right to withdraw from the federal program and a state’s right to set state level funding prerogatives.

Proposed resettlement plans should be made publicly available before any award of funding and be subject to public comments and public hearings. Moreover, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement is at least two years delinquent in submitting the required annual report to Congress. No funding should be appropriated until all reporting requirements are met. Importantly, the last annual report dated 2011, noted the increased difficulty in finding employment for non-English speaking refugees, especially in light of higher unemployment rates among Americans, a situation that has not improved much since then.

Rather than compounding the problems already identified, it may be time to temporarily suspend the resettlement program and focus on the health and employment needs of refugees already here. At the same time, an objective examination of security screening measures should be undertaken.

Please ensure that a copy of the entire written record is timely made available to the public.

Respectfully submitted,

Joanne
Tennessee

Endnote:  All of our posts on this year’s public comment period may be found in our category entitled “Testimony for 5/29/2014 State Dept. meeting” here.

If you have testimony you wish us to publish, see my e-mail address in the right hand sidebar.

***The contractors:

 

 

 

Posted in Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Testimony for 5/29/2014 State Dept. meeting, Where to find information | Tagged: , | Comments Off

As our 7th anniversary approaches….

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 17, 2014

RRW needs help!

From the editor:

 I believe we are now at a crisis stage in America like no other in 150 years!

It hardly seems possible, but in a few weeks Refugee Resettlement Watch (see our ‘About’ page) will be seven years old!  Almost every day for seven years we have posted some news on the US Refugee Admissions program directed by the United Nations (carried out by the US State Department, the Office of Refugee Resettlement in HHS and their contractors***) and related issues involving LEGAL and sometimes illegal immigration.

We began with 14 viewers in the month of June ’07 and that was probably a few tech helpers just testing the site!  Recently we have had 45,000 viewers in a month and they come from all over the world!   We have written 5,660 posts to date and, as I said, rarely miss a day!

Our facebook readers sometimes surpass 30,000 in a week!

I’m writing this, not to toot our horn, but to say that it is really concerning me that I can’t keep up with all of your e-mails and inquiries and write posts too.

But, please keep sending me articles because the growing number of concerned citizens are the greatest information resource I have for what is going on in your states with refugees and with the ever-expanding number of migrants being labeled as “refugees,” and with the large number coming from Muslim countries.   If I don’t always respond, please know that I am here without helpers!  LOL!  No secretaries, no interns, no nothing!

Perhaps as the invasion on the border continues, with the mostly teenaged boys being treated like refugees, the large immigration control groups (I won’t name names, you know who you are) will get in gear and pay attention to the Refugee program (assign some staff to it!) which they have largely ignored these last seven years.

Bottom line:  this week as World Refugee Day approaches on Friday—we need help!  The issue is too big for a volunteer blogger in the basement!  If you are a member of the big immigration control groups, tell them to pay attention to the refugee program and since the contractors are lobbying especially this week (in the media and on The Hill), take time to let your elected officials know (at all levels of government) how you feel about the ever-expanding resettlement of third-worlders into your towns and cities.  Bombard especially Rep. Trey Gowdy!

Thank you!!!   Ann

***The contractors (who, by the way, also are lobbying for amnesty because they will be paid to “service” the new “clients!”):

 

Posted in blogging, Changing the way we live, Community destabilization, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program | 2 Comments »

Reader from Maine shares his comments to US State Department

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 10, 2014

This is one more in a (hopefully!) continuing series of statements (saved from the State Department’s black hole!) that readers of RRW have sent in response to their notice of a comment period on the “size and scope” of refugee admissions for fiscal year 2015.

Longtime readers know that Maine has been a hotbed of controversy ever since Catholic Charities began encouraging the resettlement of Somalis to Portland and Lewiston Maine about 15 years ago.

Here (below) a reader from Maine expresses his concern about the program and asks that it be strictly limited.

Be sure to read yesterday’s post in which we directed readers and those who submitted statements to the US State Department to write to Rep. Trey Gowdy who chairs the all important subcommittee responsible for refugee resettlement and ask that he obtain the statements from contractors that the State Department is withholding from the public.  What are they afraid of?

Ask Rep. Trey Gowdy to demand the release of all testimony from May 29th public comment period and ask him to hold Congressional oversight hearings on the refugee program.

From Michael in Maine:

Dear Ms. Spruell:

I am concerned with the large numbers of refugees (~70,000 a year) that are being resettled in the U.S. I am particularly concerned regarding the large number of people claiming refugee status who are from countries containing significant populations that are not friendly with the U.S. Unfriendly populations often include people who are not aligned with the countries’ governments, so just because these people are refugees does not mean that they are pro-American.

I do not wish for anyone to be forced to live under oppression, but in many, and perhaps most, cases it seems to me that it would be better to try to resettle refugees in less oppressive countries more similar to or nearer to their home country rather than to the U.S. Moreover, there is great concern that the number of refugees we are letting in currently is so great that it is overwhelming our ability to properly screen applicants for fraudulent claims.

I think that we could probably get by with a refugee program that relocated about 1/5 of the people to the U.S. that we do now; moreover, our program ought to prioritize refugees based on how easily they can be assimilated to the U.S. For those who cannot easily be assimilated to our culture we should find alternate countries and help them to immigrate to them instead.

I am also very concerned about the influence of various Refugee advocacy groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, who gain financially from government contracts when the number of refugees increases.

Given that (for reasons that remain unclear to me) there will be no public hearing this year, I would like for a complete record of all comments to be published.

I am sending written copies of this mail to Anne C. Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, and to the proper House and Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittees. I am also sending electronic copies to my Senators and my Congresswoman, using their on-line contact forms.

Michael

cc: Senator Susan Collins, Senator Angus King, Representative Chellie Pingree,
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.

See all of our posts relating to this year’s State Department hearing by clicking here.  And, see our extensive archive on Maine, here.

And, by the way, if anyone gets any interesting response from an elected representative, send it our way.

One last thing—next week the Lutherans send 50 refugees to Capitol Hill to lobby Congress (for more money and more refugees), so it’s especially important that you get your statements in at this time as well.

Posted in Changing the way we live, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies, Testimony for 5/29/2014 State Dept. meeting | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Comment on FY2015 refugee program to US State Department from Illinois reader

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 9, 2014

We assume regular readers have been following our news from the US State Department about how first they cancelled this year’s public opportunity to give testimony (in person) on the “size and scope” of refugee admissions for FY2015, and then they have foolishly kept all written testimony secret by refusing to release it to the public.

Rep Trey Gowdy is a busy guy, but we feel sure he can do more than one thing at a time!

If you sent testimony to the State Department * for the May 29th deadline, please be sure, in addition to sending a copy to your elected representatives, to send it on paper to:

Rep Trey Gowdy, Chairman

House Judiciary Committee

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

2138 Rayburn House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

Tell the Chairman what happened and that you have not been allowed to see the testimony, especially the testimony of the refugee contractors which are almost completely funded with federal tax dollars, and ask him to investigate.

We offered to publish your comments, since the State Department won’t.

Here is John’s excellent testimony from Illinois:

Dear Ms. Spruell,

I am sending this email so that Anne C. Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, US State Department, Washington, DC can read my comment regarding the admission of more refugees. I will be sending the same to some members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee and also to House of Representative Judiciary Committee who are part of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

First and foremost I am against that more refugees should be admitted. I am speaking from personal experience and will recount what I have personally experienced. I have met many of these so called refugees and they all come here based on some silly reason that they are being persecuted, and they get admitted to the US. We must put an end to this because most of them use the refugees program as a ticket to gaining permanent residency here in the US. Most of them come from cultures that are totally alien to the United States and do not assimilate at all. Their children too do not assimilate and even if they do, they end up assimilating into the gang culture by getting into black or Hispanic gangs. Most of them still keep the ways of their so called oppressive homelands and have no intention of becoming American.

I am not saying that all refugees are bad or that they are all falsely trying to get into the United States. I have met people from European countries that came here as refugees and they are happy to be here and bless this country and its people for welcoming them with open arms. That is because they have values common with America. I have met refugees from African, Asian and Hispanic countries and they do not have any gratitude to America. They are mostly on welfare and curse America especially white Americans. Why does America have to put up with this sort of ingratitude? I think it would be better if countries that are similar in culture to the homeland of these refugees, should take them. For example, if a group of refugees come from Asia, then find an Asian country that has a similar culture as this group. There they will be happy and content in a culture they miss so much and familiar to them. India and Pakistan can take in refugees from Nepal, Burma and Bangladesh. Muslim refugees can go to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or some other rich Muslim country. Same for a group of Africans and Hispanics, find a country that has similar African or Hispanic culture as these groups. It is simple as that. No matter where people go, they still have their hearts in their homelands and culture. American culture is alien to these people.

I know of one African person in particular who came here on a student visa and then immediately after coming here applied for refugee status. He was very nice and worried that he would not get his refugee application approved. He even claimed that he was in a so called concentration camp where he was made to do forced labor. Now he had not one scar on his body or a healed broken bone to show that he had been forced to do any work and he was healthy as any person I know. He even took that story to his immigration interview and magically he got his application approved in 6 days. After that he started condemning America and Americans especially white Americans claiming that their generosity is all a sham. Really!!! If Americans were all just doing it for a sham, why would we even bother to bring so many of them? Now why do we need these ingrates?

Therefore we need to be careful about who we let into the country. Another good example is the case of the Somalis that come here and then go back to Somalia to be trained as terrorists to destroy Americans and other westerners. We have seen the same case with the Boston Bombers last year. This is clearly a case of biting the hand that feeds them. If we do not learn from these lessons, I am afraid that we are only destroying ourselves. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Blood of innocent Americans killed by refugees will be on the hands of people like you and other politicians that allow these future terrorists to enter the US. We also need to stop the importation of the Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees into the US. The war ended a long time ago and we need not keep our promise to the Hmong people that if they helped us in the Vietnam War, they could immigrate to the US. That promise expired a long time ago. Those that came when the war ended have somewhat assimilated, but those that are coming in now are not doing so and are joining gangs.

If churches want to bring in people, then they should not be funded by us taxpayer money nor should they be diverting the money taken from the collection plate for refugee programs. They need to come up with their own money and fund and also support these refugees and not allow them to become public charges. The religious organizations and churches should be ashamed that they are misusing Christ’s teachings of charity to bring in people who are not compatible with American society. Moreover, they bring in these refugees to fill in the pews which are unfortunately being abandoned by the Americans.

Therefore I humbly ask that we limit the refugees that come in. We cannot be the welfare state that takes anyone in that claims to be in trouble. There is a shortage of jobs in the United States and Americans are out of work. The refugees together with legal immigrants, work visa workers, and illegals fighting for jobs, Americans who are legally entitled to have a job are being short changed. We need to learn from Australia. Put AMERICANS FIRST! I repeat, it would be good for America and for the refugees to put the refugees in a country that has a similar culture as them, and only let into America people whose culture is similar to ours and who can assimilate. Therefore I say that we almost completely scrap off this program and let in only very limited people who really are being persecuted and who can assimilate and contribute to American society. Not destroy it.

Sincerely,
John

* Even if you didn’t send testimony, tell Rep. Gowdy what you think of the refugee program and ask him to hold hearings!  And, by the way, I learned recently that sending a letter the old fashioned way, on paper, is more attention-getting than sending it electronically.

Posted in Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies, Testimony for 5/29/2014 State Dept. meeting | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

Springfield, MA: State/city agencies stepping in to help impoverished Somali refugee family

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 7, 2014

How many more like this family across America?

 

The family of twelve was recently removed from their roach infested rental property where the electric bill had gone unpaid as well. MassLive File photo / John Suchocki

 

We recently learned that 63% of Minnesota’s Somalis live below the poverty line and in Oregon the estimate is higher than that (67% ).  I wonder what it is in every state where Somalis have been located?

Come and get it!

Massachusetts (home state of the ‘brains’ behind the refugee program—the now deceased Ted Kennedy) has been a “welcoming” state for refugees, as was the city of Springfield (originally!), so I guess they knew what they were getting in to, but I’m not so sure the taxpayers there were fully aware (until now!).   See Springfield mayor wants moratorium.

From MassLive (emphasis mine):

SPRINGFIELD – A lawyer for the city’s Housing office said Friday that the city remains committed to helping two refugee families that were left homeless two weeks ago when their Union Street apartment was condemned.

The two families, originally from Somalia and consisting of three adults and 12 children, have spent the last two weeks in a Greenfield hotel. Some assistance has been provided to the families by local and state agencies, officials said.

“The city remains committed to assuring that the families are afforded safe and sanitary housing,” said Lisa C. DeSousa, associate city solicitor. “We are looking forward to working with social service agencies that are charged with assisting refugee families in these types of situations.”

[.....]

The school-aged children have been transported daily from the Greenfield hotel to their Springfield schools.

The state Department of Children and Families and state Department of Transitional Assistance are believed to be helping the families.

Maybe it’s time for the cost of saving these impoverished families to fall on the US State Department and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (in Health and Human Services).  Maybe if the cost came out of their federal budget hides, instead of state and local taxpayers’ piggy banks, Congress would begin to pay attention.

I know, I know, it still comes from the taxpayers ultimately, but it’s about sending a message to the one government body that could stop the insanity.

 

Posted in Changing the way we live, Community destabilization, diversity's dark side, Muslim refugees, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Resettlement cities, Taxpayer goodies, Who is going where | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

It is not too late, you have until 5 p.m. Eastern time today to submit comments to the US State Department

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 29, 2014

If you are arriving here for the first time and missed it, the US State Department is accepting comments on how many refugees the US will resettle in Fiscal Year 2015 and from where they will come.

Go here for instructions on how to submit your testimony.

We encourage all of you to make your opinions known.  You do not need to be an expert!  None of us are!

You don’t need to get your statement to your elected officials today, you can do that tomorrow or next week, but please get your testimony to the State Department by 5 p.m. Eastern today!

Don’t forget to ask for a complete copy of the hearing/consultation record.  Last year, readers of RRW submitted more comments than the “humanitarian” lobby did.

All of our previous posts on this year’s hearing are here.

Posted in Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Testimony for 5/29/2014 State Dept. meeting | 6 Comments »

Travel loans for refugees and the audacity of those money-grubbing Lutherans

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 29, 2014

I don’t know whether to roll on the floor laughing my head off or scream when I see brazen fundraising appeals like this one from Linda Hartke (who makes over $200,000 a year as CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service).

Linda Hartke, LIRS CEO, already collecting over $1.5 million a year from refugee travel loans, now wants followers to pony-up with more cashola!

Here is what she said in a recent appeal to followers about travel loans:

Today, refugees from Syria, Burma, the Congo, and other conflict-ridden countries are looking to you … will you please provide welcome and support for people in desperate need with your gift today?

All refugees pay their own travel fees to come to the US. If they are unable to pay, they are extended an interest-free loan and brought to the US on the condition that they agree to repay every dollar spent on their transport.   [So you are probably thinking, great! they repay their taxpayer-funded travel loans---ed]

Fortunately, refugees are not alone — not even in this!

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service compassionately manages the loan repayment of the travel expenses for every refugee we help resettle, so they can thrive. [I am speechless, who the h*** wrote this sentence? Compassionate? Manage the loan?---ed]

As Raghu [the poster child for this fundraising appeal---ed] and his family worked to establish themselves in their new community, they also relied on your support to help them manage the repayment of their travel loans.

So what is my problem, you ask?

The majority of refugees arriving in the US receive a TAXPAYER-FUNDED travel loan—none of them have the thousands and thousands needed for airfare if they are truly impoverished “refugees.”

The contractors, including Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, act as the collection agencies to attempt to wring the cash out of newly arrived refugees and then THEY POCKET 25% OF WHAT THEY COLLECT   (Judy says that using caps means someone is shouting—I am, and in red type too!).   That 25% does not return to the US Treasury! 

So Linda Hartke is trying to raise even more money from supporters claiming they need it to “manage” the loans!  Don’t get me wrong, I am all for private people paying for this, but the over $1.5 million they get of your taxpayer dollars a year is not enough to “manage the loans?”

Don’t believe me, go to this audited financial statement (p.12) for LIRS for 2012 and 2013 and check this out!

LIRS earned $1.7 million in 2013 and $1.6 million in 2012 as “service fees” for collecting those travel loans of your money!  I bet this little “service fee” deal they have with the State Department isn’t even legal!

Page 12 (emphasis is mine):

LIRS acts as an agent for the collection of transportation loans for refugee resettlement through the International Organization for Migration (“IOM”). Collections are remitted to IOM net of servicing fees earned which are 25% of loan collections. Included in servicing fees, LIRS earned fees of $1,763,296 and $1,630,183 as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

IOM is another federal contractor!

And, by the way, the figures I have been using for LIRS income need to be updated—they have risen significantly according to this same financial audit.

Are you sitting down?

I gave you figures for their finances in 2011, here, and reported that they received $30 million from US and state taxpayers.  Now get this.  This audited financial report tells us the following information for years 2012 and 2013:  In 2012 they got $40.4 million from government grants and in 2013 it jumped to $46.4 million!

Page 6 (be sure to check out the less than $1 million they received from parishes).

2012 income from government: $40,417,752  and total income was $41,757,818 making it 97% that you supplied them via your tax dollars.

2013 income from government: $46,414,735 and total income was $48,393,131 making it 96% from you!

Endnote:  I am not saying that all Lutherans are money-grubbers but these ones sure are!  And, on the travel loans they are not alone.  I haven’t the time to check the numbers, but last I looked the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was raking in over $3 million in this same travel loan kickback scheme.

 

 

Posted in Changing the way we live, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

What you need to know about Wilson-Fish

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 27, 2014

 Editors note: One of the primary purposes of RRW is to educate readers about how the complex Refugee Resettlement program of the US State Department and the US Department of Health and Human Services (Office of Refugee Resettlement) works. When you have some basic understanding of how it operates (and how it may have been changed from its original legislative intent) you will be much more effective in demanding accountability for the taxpayers of your state and others (including the refugees!) who will be impacted by the program.

This is a states’ rights issue!

If you live in one of the following 11 states you should be paying close attention to how the program is run in your state and begin questioning whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to pass off a federal program to a non-profit group which effectively eliminates, or nearly eliminates, any state control of how state tax dollars are spent.

Do you live in one of these Wilson-Fish states?

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee or Vermont.

A grassroots volunteer has prepared this important Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and answers about the federal Wilson-Fish program.

Remember! Three days left to tell the State Department what you think should be the size and scope of the entire refugee program for FY2015.

Holly Johnson (TN Catholic Charities) left, and Jan Reeves (Idaho Mountain States Group) right, call the shots on refugee resettlement in their Wilson-Fish states. http://www.isedsolutions.org/blog/wilson-fish/wf-workshop-highlights

What is Wilson-Fish?

There are 3 ways in which the federal government disburses the 8 months of federal refugee cash assistance (RCA) and refugee medical assistance (RMA) funds to eligible refugees.(1)  These funds are disbursed through:

• a state administered program, or,
• a public-private partnership program, or
• a Wilson-Fish “alternative” program

The Wilson-Fish alternative (so named for its Congressional sponsors) was added in 1984 as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement alternative projects for refugees:

“[t]he Secretary shall develop and implement alternative projects for refugees who have been in the United States less than thirty-six months, under which refugees are provided interim support, medical services, support services, and case management, as needed, in a manner that encourages self-sufficiency, reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among the resettlement agencies and service providers.”

The Wilson-Fish amendment was initially introduced as part of the FY1985 Continuing Resolution on Appropriations. On October 2, 1984 when Senator Wilson introduced Amendment No. 6965, he stated very clearly that:

“The specific intention of this amendment is to encourage refugee self-support and employment in California, a State which consistently receives at least 22 percent of all incoming refugees. A disproportionate number of refugees end up on welfare rolls. The language in this amendment will allow alternative approaches to this welfare dependency cycle.” (emphasis added)

In contrast to the “specific intent” of the Wilson-Fish amendment, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has unilaterally and without legislative authorization, used the Wilson-Fish alternative to continue resettling refugees in states where the State has decided to discontinue participating in this non-mandatory federal program.

For example, the 1995 notice of available funding for Wilson-Fish projects states that “This announcement [for funding Wilson-Fish projects] also provides for an alternative project to be a vehicle to continue resettlement programs in States where the State government chooses not to administer RCA/RMA or equivalent programs.”

The U.S Office of Refugee Resettlement website states that “the purposes of the Wilson-Fish program are to:

~Increase refugee prospects for early employment and self-sufficiency

~Promote coordination among voluntary resettlement agencies and service providers

~Ensure that refugee assistance programs exist in every state where refugees are resettled”

The last “purpose” added by the federal agency, is not supported by either the language or intent of the Wilson-Fish statutory language.

Why did Congress feel there was a need to add an alternative program like Wilson-Fish?

Sen. Pete Wilson from California was the Senate sponsor of the Wilson-Fish amendment. When he introduced the amendment he stated very clearly his concern about the high rate of refugee welfare dependency, combined with the high number of refugees being resettled in his state.

His concerns were well founded. Center for Immigration Studies fellow, Don Barnett who has been researching and writing about issues related to refugee resettlement notes that:

“According to the latest data available, a federal study of refugees who have been in the country 5 years or less, the unemployment rate for refugees was 21 percent compared with 9 percent for the U.S. population in 2010. Twenty-six percent were dependent on cash assistance, 63 percent were in the food stamp program and 48 percent were in Medicaid or short-term federal Refugee Medical Assistance. The federal welfare program SSI is a good indicator of long-term welfare dependency rates. It is generally a lifetime entitlement and usually includes Medicaid and other social services. The federal study of arrivals over the previous five years found an 11.6 percent rate of usage – about 2.5 times the national average.

Most of this cost is borne by the federal taxpayer, but programs such as Medicaid have state cost components as well.”

How do states decide if they want to be a Wilson-Fish state?

The U.S. Office for Refugee Resettlement receives the application and decides. The scope of services available to refugees from a Wilson-Fish program is similar to that of the State-Administered Refugee Resettlement Programs, which in turn is similar to regular domestic public assistance programs. States, voluntary resettlement agencies, and other nonprofit refugee resettlement organizations may apply to initiate a Wilson-Fish program.

In several states, the State decided to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program. Thereafter, the U.S. Office for Refugee Resettlement (ORR) selected a refugee resettlement agency to operate as the “state designee” for purposes of receiving and disbursing federal funds to refugees who are not eligible for state Medicaid and cash welfare programs. In these states, the resettlement agency applied directly to the ORR to operate a Wilson-Fish project.

For example, data from Tennessee shows that once the state withdrew from the program and the federal contractor took over operating the program, resettlement numbers increased by approximately 66%. Why? The 2012 U.S. General Accounting Office report “Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program” documented the major contributing factor:

“Because refugees are generally placed in communities where national voluntary agency affiliates [local offices] have been successful in resettling refugees, the same communities are often asked to absorb refugees year after year. One state refugee coordinator noted that local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.” (emphasis added)

Which states currently operate as Wilson-Fish?

Wilson-Fish programs are currently operating in:

~Colorado, Massachusetts and Vermont but the State government still runs the program
~North and South Dakota – State has withdrawn; Lutheran Social Services runs the program
~Idaho – State has withdrawn; Mountain States Group runs the program
~Alabama, Alaska, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana (only partial withdrawal) – State has withdrawn; Catholic Charities runs the program

The parent organization of Lutheran Social Services is Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, one of the big 9 resettlement agencies that contracts with the federal government. In 2011, their total reported revenue was $31,653,748 of which $30,376,568 (96%) was taxpayer money. Their CEO was paid $204, 186 in salary and benefits.

The parent organization of Catholic Charities is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which is the largest of all the federal refugee resettlement contractors. Their 2011 reported revenue $72,102,484 included $66,723,452, which is approximately 93%, from federal funding.

Does the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement or the Dept. of Health and Human Services have the authority under the Wilson-Fish amendment to fund a non-profit organization and continue a resettlement program in a state when that State has withdrawn from the federal program?

The Wilson-Fish amendment did not address this issue specifically. All the amendment language did was allow for the establishment of “alternative projects” designed to accomplish the specifically stated goals of establishing a program that “encourages self-sufficiency, reduces welfare dependency, and fosters greater coordination among the resettlement agencies and service providers.”

While the Secretary of the federal agencies must implement the objectives of the authorizing legislation, there is no language in the Wilson-Fish amendment that permits a federal agency to circumvent a state’s decision to withdraw from the federal program by funding a private non-profit organization to establish or continue the program in lieu of the state.

This issue is particularly relevant because of the federal government deliberately shifting the cost of its program to the states, and the utilization of state-funded resources to address long-term needs of refugees.

Funding announcements for Wilson-Fish projects identify two categories of Wilson-Fish projects: those to “establish or maintain a refugee program” in a State that has either withdrawn from all or part of the refugee program, and projects that provide an “alternative to the existing system” of providing for refugees.

Only this last category of project was intended and contemplated by the Wilson-Fish statutory amendment.

Despite this limitation and the fact that the 1995 funding notice, for example, reflected the intent of the Wilson-Fish amendment to “encourage alternative projects in areas where refugees have had a history of extended welfare utilization,” this notice and subsequent ones also state that funding for Wilson-Fish projects are a “vehicle to continue resettlement programs in States where the State government chooses not to administer RCA/RMA or equivalent programs.”

What happens to the mandated consultation process between resettlement agencies and state and local governments when a state withdraws from the federal program and a federal contractor is permitted to use Wilson-Fish as a “vehicle to continue [the] resettlement program”?

The Wilson-Fish State Refugee Coordinator position is paid as part of the federal grant meaning that the “state coordinator” is actually a federal contractor, not a state-paid employee. So if the state government has withdrawn from the federal program, the federal contractor running the program is no longer accountable to the state’s taxpayers or the state and local governments.

Tennessee is a good example.

The Tennessee state government withdrew from the refugee resettlement program in late 2008. The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) thereafter contracted with refugee resettlement agency Catholic Charities of Tennessee (CCTN) to operate as the “state designee” to disburse federal funds. CCTN then applied to ORR and was granted permission to operate as a Wilson-Fish. CCTN then set up a separate office called Tennessee Office for Refugees (TOR) as a separate department of CCTN. TOR would run the federal program for the state.

Under the Tennessee Wilson-Fish project, the required consultation and any monitoring of refugee resettlement activities in the state, is internal to Catholic Charities and the other resettlement agencies operating in the state. As described by CCTN, their Director of Refugee Resettlement consults with the TOR state refugee coordinator who also works for Catholic Charities. Consult with the state refugee health coordinator who also works for CCTN and who also reports to the same agency’s TOR state refugee coordinator is an internal process highly vulnerable to conflicts of interest. Nor does this closed, self-serving system lend itself to any objective or independent compliance monitoring.

CCTN’s annual reports show that its largest program is the Tennessee Office for Refugees – TOR. CCTN’s second largest program is its own refugee resettlement program which receives funding from TOR.

A 2011 report issued by the Migration Policy Institute, a refugee advocacy organization, claims that after the consultation process, all proposed resettlement plans are provided to ORR and states. “If a state opposes the plan, PRM [the federal agency] will not approve it.” The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations recommended that in the case of a disagreement among stakeholders over resettlement, the “state refugee coordinator should be able to request a moratorium for the community.”

Under what circumstances would a Wilson-Fish “state” refugee coordinator (who is a federal contractor), working in concert with the other federal contractor refugee resettlement agencies that earn their funding for each individual refugee they resettle, oppose a plan? Maybe if the numbers were too low? Requesting a moratorium would be a conflict of interest for a Wilson-Fish state refugee coordinator.

Following the pattern of what happens when refugee resettlement is privatized, TOR’s 2011 Wilson-Fish application detailed a plan to expand refugee resettlement in Tennessee by adding two new refugee resettlement agencies and by increasing the number of refugees brought to the state.

Are refugees served under a Wilson-Fish project allowed to enroll in Medicaid or receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, aka, cash welfare)?

The statutory language of the Wilson-Fish amendment states that:

“Refugees covered under such alternative projects shall be precluded from receiving cash or medical assistance under any other paragraph of this subsection or under title XIX or part A of title IV of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. 601 et seq.]”

Title XIX refers to Medicaid and part A of title IV refers to TANF (cash welfare).

The Wilson-Fish amendment was intended to address welfare dependency. The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has qualified the original language and intent of the Wilson-Fish amendment. The funding announcement notes that only when an application for an alternative Wilson-Fish project includes “alternative medical assistance” will the recipient be precluded from using Medicaid despite the statutory language.

When the Wilson-Fish amendment was introduced on October 2, 1984, Sens. Weicker and Proxmire both confirmed that the language of the amendment was “budget neutral” meaning that the amendment allowing for the alternative projects added no additional funds to the appropriations bill under consideration. Since there was no separate appropriation for Wilson-Fish projects, funding would be drawn instead from funds otherwise earmarked for refugee cash and medical assistance (RCA and RMA) and social services allocations for the State-administered program.

Refugees are only permitted to use either Medicaid or the 8 month federal refugee medical assistance (RMA) – they cannot get both. And they either get TANF or refugee cash assistance (RCA) – they cannot get both.

Since the Wilson-Fish projects are funded with the RMA and RCA funds, refugees served under a Wilson-Fish project cannot also utilize Medicaid and TANF – it would be redundant funding.

Medicaid expansion is particularly relevant to where federal contractors are looking to increase refugee placement. That’s because under Obamacare, states were given the option to make Medicaid available to groups not currently eligible for it. This could include, for example, lowering the income eligibility. And because many refugees start out in lower or minimum wage jobs, more could potentially qualify for Medicaid.

The 2014 Dept. of Health and Human Services briefing titled “Key Indicators for Refugee Placement” included information about which states have expanded or are considering expanding Medicaid under Obamacare:

“One major factor that may affect placement is the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Accordingly, this year’s data has incorporated information on health access determinants including updates on states that plan to expand Medicaid during the final implementation phase of ACA, and states that have ruled Medicaid expansion out.”

Refugee contractors have publicly stated that they will focus more and more of the future refugees placements in those states where there is Medicaid expansion.

_________

Footnote from paragraph one:  (1) Only refugees who are NOT eligible for their state’s Medicaid program can receive the 8 months of federal medical assistance funds. The federal money stops if a refugee becomes eligible for their state’s Medicaid program even if the full 8 months have not elapsed.

Editor:  Note that this post is archived in our category ‘where to find information.  Check it out if you are trying to educate yourself on refugee resettlement and immigration generally.  And, don’t forget to see our fact sheet which every day recently has been our top post (follow top posts in our right hand sidebar)!

Posted in health issues, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 6 Comments »

 
The Muslim Issue

"Like all unbelievers and polytheists, Christians are filthy. They are najusa (feces, urine) — a filthy impure dirty substance.” [Yasir Qadhi, faculty member, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN.]

The Counter Jihad Report

News ~ Resources ~ Activism

tn Council 4 political justice

The mission of the TCPJ is to educate by disseminating accurate and documented information that concerns the rights of and justice for all Tennesseans so that policy makers will be better equipped to make informed decisions on behalf of their constituents.

Potomac Tea Party Report

News and views about Tea Party issues in Maryland and surrounding states

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,388 other followers

%d bloggers like this: