Boston Bombing blowback: Senator Graham has an amendment or two to S.744

Who said politicians can’t learn?  Here we apparently have Senator Lindsey ‘Amnesty’ Graham attempting to fix S.744 (the Gang of Eight plus Grover bill) which as we reported addresses our refugee and asylum program right along with the kitchen sink, in response to the Tsarnaev family’s asylum fraud.

What do ya’ think, Chuckie? AP Photo

Everyone is asking, how persecuted were the Chechens if they were traveling back and forth to Russia?  Indeed!

Remember there is absolutely no need to make changes to the Refugee Resettlement Program within this “comprehensive” bill.  Don’t misunderstand what I am saying, the program needs a complete Congressional review, but it should be a review SEPARATE FROM the Gang’s bill.

Since the Gang (which includes Graham) does make it easier for more refugees to enter the US for flimsier reasons (if they belong to a particular ‘special’ group or are a certain nationality), Graham’s proposed amendments are of interest.  Thanks so much to reader John for wading into this and alerting us.

Go here for a list of amendments to S.744.

Graham’s Amendment #1

The purpose is:   To provide for termination of asylum or refugee status in cases of country return.

Then below are the guts of it.  Refugee industry advocates will go nuts!  It basically says, if you go ‘home’ (with certain exceptions), you will have your refugee status TERMINATED!  Which means that right now a very large group of “refugees” and “asylees” would presumably get the heave-ho!  (Of course, assuming we had an administration with any guts to do it!).

… any alien who is granted asylum or refugee status under this Act or the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), who, without good cause as determined by the Secretary, subsequently returns to the country of such alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, returns to any country in which such alien last habitually resided, and who applied for such status because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution in that country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, shall have his or her status terminated.

Of course there are exceptions.  They can seek a waiver from the Secretary of State (big potential loophole there).  And, now I am rolling on the floor laughing—it does not apply to Cubans!   We don’t want to p*** off Rubio—NO! NO! NO!

I’ll tell you about another of Graham’s amendments tomorrow.

Ft Wayne health commissioner: greatest fear is increasing generational poverty

This is a story from the week the Boston terrorist attack happened and like so many it became lost in my stack as all of my attention became fixated on the fact that “refugees” were responsible for the marathon bombing.

The US State Department Director of Admissions, Lawrence Bartlett, visited Ft. Wayne, the Burmese capital of America (where they produce diversity wheelbarrows), along with a UN Representative to assess the damage there.  LOL!  that last part is my assertion!   However, I have noticed that the State Dept. does send out people when cities have problems, it must be to smooth feathers.

Lawrence Bartlett, State Department Director of Refugee Admissions visited Ft. Wayne, Indiana last month.

In this case, I felt sorry for the mayor who has blinders on to what this refugee overload has done to his “welcoming” city.

Here is the story from the Journal Gazette (emphasis mine):

Burmese refugees will continue to resettle in Fort Wayne, although in smaller numbers, an official for the U.S. State Department predicted Thursday.

The decline might be offset by an increase in refugees from Congo and Iraq, according to Larry Bartlett, director of refugee admissions for the State Department.

About 60 Congolese refugees have arrived in Fort Wayne in recent years.

“I would expect the program in Fort Wayne to remain strong,” Bartlett told a gathering of local, state and federal government officials at Citizens Square. “We certainly do not want to overwhelm a community.”

Mayor Tom Henry said that “for a while, we were being overloaded. … We just did not have the resources.”

Henry was referring to 2007-08, when Catholic Charities of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese resettled more than 1,400 Burmese refugees in Fort Wayne.

This year’s local cap for refugees is 170.

Bartlett acknowledged that the 2007-08 influx “probably is not the right model for how we manage a program.”   [Excuse me!  The State Department could easily have reined this in, there was plenty of controversy in the newspapers in Ft. Wayne at that time.---ed]

[....]

More than 2,700 Burmese refugees have come to Allen County since 1993 to escape military rule in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. Democratic reforms taking shape in the Southeast Asian country are expected to slow and perhaps reverse the exodus.

Fort Wayne is home to at least 5,000 Burmese, Henry said.

“To me, it’s a good problem to have,” the mayor said about challenges to both the city and its refugee population. “They wouldn’t come here if we didn’t have something to offer them.”

Henry said Fort Wayne adheres to a “welcome mat” philosophy. In addition to Burmese and Congolese, the city is home to refugees from Bosnia, Darfur and Somalia.

[.....]

The new arrivals tend to lack the education, job skills and English-language proficiency needed for quick assimilation and advancement, service providers said. Some have to travel out of state to find work. There are Burmese mothers who are raising children while their husbands remain in overseas refugee camps.

I think they call this “burying the lead!”

“My greatest fear is that we are increasing the generational poverty,” said Dr. Deborah McMahan, city-county health commissioner.

Read it all.

Don’t forget!  You have until 5 p.m. today to tell Lawrence Bartlett what you think about refugee admissions for fiscal year 2014 because he will likely be presiding over the hearing on May 15th.  Go here for instructions.

Testimony already submitted by others is archived here.

Almost forgot, former Indiana Senator Richard Lugar is responsible for getting this critical GAO report done on the Refugee Resettlement Program because he saw what is happening in Indiana.

Today’s State Department refugee testimony comes to you from North Carolina

But before we get to it, be sure to visit VDARE where Paul Nachman has penned an excellent piece urging readers there  to send in testimony by close of business tomorrow, May 8th.  He has some information from years before I followed this program that I found very enlightening. I think you will too.  Mr. Nachman shared his testimony with us here, yesterday.

Go here for instructions on how to send your comments (and don’t forget to copy them to your elected officials in Washington and you can throw in some state and local officials too for good measure).  Tomorrow is the deadline!  E-mail or fax instructions:

Persons wishing to present written comments should submit them by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2013 via email to spruellda@state.gov or fax (202) 453-9393.

The comments below are from Jon Sobieski of North Carolina (emphasis mine):

North Carolina is in the top ten resettlement states in the US (surprised?).  Type ‘North Carolina’ into our search function for more.

(See previous testimony from Texas, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Montana.  We have an archive here for all posts relating to this meeting.)

Mr. Sobieski wrote to his Senators and included his testimony.  In a P.S. he asks the Senators this question:

PS I would also like to know why the State Dept. has banned any camera or recording devices at their 1 day public comment hearing?  Isn’t that my tax money that is paying for that meeting?  What are they afraid of that they refuse to allow recording at the public hearing?

Readers should know that last year a serious effort was made to get the State Department to allow recording of the meeting but it was denied.  Good question Mr. Sobieski!

Ms. Anne Richard
Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration
US State Department
Washington, DC. 20520

April 27, 2013

Re: Federal Register Public Notice 8241 Comment Request

Dear Ms Richard:

I am writing to submit written comments on the President’s FY 2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program as part of the upcoming May 15 public hearing in Washington, DC. Sadly, the refugee and asylum resettlement programs have become overtly corrupt and harmful to America.   Below I outline only a few examples of the negative effect these programs are having.  For a nation that is broke, why are we financing huge numbers of inassimilable and dependent people into America?  Why do we allow family chain immigration for the initially approved refugee?  While I want to end the refugee and asylum programs due to their corruption and negative effects on communities, that request will likely be denied.  Therefore, I ask that a full scale audit of the performance of refugees and asylum seekers and the NGOs placing them in the US be completed before any further immigration is allowed.  There are so many questions that demand answers.  What percentage of entrants continues to use welfare after 1 year, 2 years, 5 years?  Can we ban Muslim immigration due to the inherent hatred and preaching of violence toward nonbelievers demanded by Islam and its teachings?  If no outright end can be considered, I urge that the government dramatically reduce refugee and asylum entries to less than 3,000 per year total including family resettlement (if family resettlement is not banned outright ).

The following are only a few of the many reasons that refugee and asylum entry must be stopped or drastically curtailed:

1)    The Boston marathon attacks were committed by jihadis allowed into the US as part of family repatriation.  What is more disconcerting is how their parents were able to easily attain asylum.  Just like that.  They were here on tourist visas and through the father’s sister, were able to get asylum status.  Who checked on these people?  Why do asylum seekers get unlimited welfare access?  Forever?  They did not pay a dime into the system and milked it for all it’s worth.  If their homeland was so terrible, why did they go back on ‘tourist’ visits and now live there permanently apparently.  Now we learn the mother was a shoplifter and skipped back to southern Russia to avoid trial for a $1600 theft (shoplifting) at Lord and Taylor’s.  Are they still on welfare?  Are we depositing welfare payments in their bank accounts in Russia?  America is a sucker and the State Dept. is the biggest sucker of all.  What about the hundreds of thousands of Somalis that the State Dept. has imported?  Is the State Dept. even aware of the criminal behavior Somalis are notorious for in Minneapolis?  Entire communities have been destroyed.  They don’t call areas of Minneapolis ‘Little Somalia’ for nothing.  There is truly a perverse agenda at the State Dept. as they bring in more and more inassimilable groups and dump them in American communities. And who pays for this folly?  We do, the struggling taxpayers.

2)    Who audits these NGOs like the IRC, Catholic, Hebrew, and so many others?  Is anyone looking at the long term ramifications of allowing these NGOs to have free reign to import thousands of inassimilable groups and dump them in our towns?  Why do officers of these NGOs make more than the President? David Milliband was just  hired as CEO of one group (International Rescue Committee) with a $430,000 salary!  Over half of their funding is paid by US taxpayers, others are over 90%!  Does anyone care about the citizens who have to deal with these NGOs and the inassimilable people they dump into our communities?

3)    The State Dept. is failing at screening evil asylum seekers, you appear to only be concerned with import quotas and spending all the money the foolish Congress allots to you.  Damn the American citizens.  Who cares about them and their communities?  To me, the State Dept. was right there in Boston helping these Muslim jihadists build and place these bombs so that they could slaughter the infidels they so despise.   Meanwhile, the stealth jihadists collect welfare and laugh at the stupid infidels in the US.  But it is the State Dept’s failures in managing this corrupt program that is the true evil.  It is as if the State Dept.  is a sponsor of terrorism against the American people.

4)    Why are we importing evil and inassimilable groups when we are broke and suffer from high unemployment?  Due to these groups low IQs and extremely low education levels, the only jobs they can get are the same jobs that our own poor and low IQ citizens are fighting for.  On top of that,  these NGOs provide free training and financial incentives to employers to hire these people over our own citizens.  This has to stop.

5)   Why are we financing NGOs?  Aren’t they supposed to be voluntary and charitable enterprises.  Instead, they are BIG BUSINESS feeding at the taxpayer trough.

6)    The refugee program, like all govt programs, started out small with a tightly targeted purpose and benevolent intentions.  Now it is a monster devouring billions of dollars and destroying our communities.  Indeed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

7)    In conjunction with the above, U.S. admissions policy has become subsumed to the demands of the UNHCR. The UN is not our friend.  We should not allow a foreign agency to dictate policy to the U.S., especially when it causes adverse effects to local, often small, communities in rural areas. We owe the UN nothing, we owe the world nothing.   We should no longer acquiesce to the UN’s demands and sharply and I mean sharply curtail all asylum and refugee admissions.

The State Department should declare a one year moratorium on settlement and take a critical look at how this program has been corrupted and how adversely it is affecting American communities.

To fully understand the corruption and incompetence in America’s refugee and asylum program, I recommend you study at length the rich and insightful Refugee Resettlement Watch website.

Sincerely,

Jon Sobieski

CC:  Senator Richard Burr, Senator Kay Hagen
Representative Mel Watt
Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Additional CCs to Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Lindsay Graham Senator John McCain

For your faxing enjoyment, Mr. Sobieski has included this list of fax numbers for Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  (you will probably need to put a ’1′ in front of each number.

Handy numbers to have if you have comments to fax on S. 744 as well!

Sen. Charles Schumer US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-228-3027

Sen. Patrick Leahy US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-224-3479

Sen. Diane Feinstein US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-228-3954

Sen. Dick Durbin US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-228-0400

Sen. Amy Klobuchar US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-228-2186

Sen. Richard Blumenthal US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-224-9673

Sen. Mazie Hirono US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-224-2126

Sen. John Cornyn US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-228-2856

Sen. Chuck Grassley US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-224-6020

Sen. Orrin G.Hatch US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.202-224-6331unsuccessful fax, Hatch office investigating – update: his office gave me his direct email address  senatorhatch@hatch.senate.gov so I could deliver my comments 5/6/13

Sen. Jeff Sessions US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-224-3149

Sen. Jeff Flake US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-228-0515

Sen. TedCruz US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.US 202-228-0755

State Department Refugee testimony submitted from Montana

Thanks so much to all of our readers who have responded and sent testimony to the US State Department for their consideration as they prepare for the FY2014 Presidential Determination that will be sent to Congress in September.  The State Department is seeking your input on the size and scope of the program for the new fiscal year—-how many and which refugees will be admitted.

If you haven’t submitted testimony and wish to, here (again) are the instructions.  You have until the Close of Business Wednesday, May 8th, but don’t cut it too close!  And, please note you are requested to fax or e-mail your comments.  If you only send a paragraph or two that will help those in a decision-making position better understand the public’s sentiment on the issue.  Up until last year, the State Department heard primarily from refugee contractors with a vested financial interest in a larger refugee population.

And, don’t forget, again go to these instructions and see the list of those you should copy on your testimony (you can mail those snail-mail after tomorrow if you wish).

Below is another testimony, this time shared by our reader Paul Nachman of Montana.  (Others we have received and published so far are archived here).  Emphasis below is RRW’s.

Federal Register Notice

To Delicia Spruell:

I’m writing, as prescribed in the link above, to comment on the FY2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

What I say here is heavily informed by an encounter I had in early 2003. At a conference on immigration and assimilation hosted by the Claremont Institute and held at Chapman College in Orange, CA, I met Professor Jan Ting, then and now a law professor at Temple University and formerly the Assistant Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under President George H. W.. Bush. Learning of his pedigree, I asked Professor Ting, “Is it true what I’ve heard, that 90% of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?”  He instantly replied, “95%.”

In other words, most “refugees” and “asylees” weren’t endangered in their home countries. They simply want to live in the U.S., because it’s a better deal for them economically.

This basic fact—that asylees and refugees frequently take cynical advantage of the American public’s goodwill—has finally received widespread and much needed public exposure via the bombing of the Boston Marathon.  The two young men responsible were present in the U.S. only because their parents had received LPR status as asylees.  Notably, and consistent with what Professor Ting had said, the parents have, in the meantime, returned to whence they came, strongly implying that their request for asylum had been fraudulent.

This is not an isolated case nor a new phenomenon: For example, in 1995, former State Department (U.S.I.A.) employee Don Barnett wrote in The Social Contract quarterly, “At any given time about 20,000 of the all-expenses-paid refugee visas have been awarded to former Soviets who have decided they don’t want to leave just now. The visas remain in effect indefinitely allowing the holder to leave at his or her convenience.”  People who choose to leave their domiciles ‘at their convenience’ are clearly not being persecuted and are at no hazard to life or limb!

Following are two specific comments spurred by reading and comparing several documents found online: the DoS/HHS(ORR)/DHS Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2013 [henceforth, "the three-agencies report"], the DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2012 (Tables 6 and 7), and the DoS Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration’s [PRM] Summary of Refugee Admissions as of 30 April, 2013.  (I assume that the proposed-admissions document for FY2014 will be similar in scope and content to that FY2013 document.)

– Refugee numbers are grossly inconsistent among these documents.  Take FY2011 as an example.  According to both the three-agencies report (Table II) and the PRM summary, the total count was 56,224.  But the DHS yearbook gives the refugee total as 113,045 (Table 6) and 105,528 (Table 7).  Yet the DHS has also signed onto the three-agencies report!  Nor is this gross discrepancy unique to FY2011.

Therefore, Question #1: Why are the numbers of humanitarian admissions tabulated by the different departments so disparate?

– The footnote on page “i” of the three-agencies report says “Detailed discussion of the anticipated social and economic impact, including secondary migration, of the admission of refugees to the United States is being provided in the Report to the Congress of the Refugee Resettlement Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Department of Health and Human Services.”  [Emphasis added.]  But my careful online search failed to turn up such a document.

A footnote on page 58 of that report says “[The 'refugee resettlement'] category … does not include costs associated with the … Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, or Supplemental Security Income programs,” thus reinforcing the point that major costs of refugee resettlement—indeed, probably the dominant costs—aren’t being revealed to the public.

Getting the refugee numbers correct (see my Question #1) has an obvious bearing on the costs burden.  I see from that same footnote on page 58 that the Office of Refugee Resettlement [ORR] also serves  “asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants.”  Thus even if those DHS refugee numbers are grossly high, the PRM and the three-agencies-report numbers may actually be lowball, since the combined numbers of refugees and asylees are in the same numerical territory as DHS’s refugee-only numbers.

Putting these points together leads to Question #2: Why is the taxpaying American public systematically denied  information revealing the true cost to us of the humanitarian-admissions programs?

Sincerely,

Paul Nachman
Montana

Copies by U.S. mail to:

- Senator Max Baucus

- Senator Jon Tester

- Representative Steve Daines

- US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

- US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Readers:  Everything relating to this year’s hearing on May 15th (testimony due May 8th) is located in this special category here at RRW.

It is time to speak up!  Send even a couple of paragraphs by Wednesday and be heard!  It doesn’t need to be long or detailed, just polite!

Send your testimony to me if you would like to see it in print!  Tomorrow…North Carolina speaks up!

Tsarnaevs milked taxpayers for over $100,000 in benefits (asylees are welcome to welfare!)

Bomber Mom, Zubeidat, poster girl for LEGAL immigrants on welfare?

Your tax dollars!

If you are not following the British press on the Boston Bombers, you might not be getting the full flavor of the Tsarnaev’s scams on you (the American taxpayer) in addition to learning more details about their murderous rampage in the name of Islam.  The Boston Herald has the story here.  But, here the UK Daily Mail has it laid out in a more interesting format.  Read the very thorough accounting of what the Tsarnaevs milked the US and the State of Massachusetts for!  Hat tip: Don Irvine on twitter.

I’m so sorry for the victims of the Tsarnaev terrorists, but honestly this horror has finally focused the public’s attention on our out-of-control system for asylum seekers.  Help make sure this program is reformed and get it (refugee and asylum sections) dumped from the Gang of Eight’s “comprehensive reform” bill now before the US Senate.  The bill will make it easier for more refugees and asylum seekers to get into the country, get permanent residency and ultimately citizenship.

Here is the UK Daily Mail story (emphasis mine):

The family of the Boston bombing suspects has received more than $100,000 in welfare benefits over the last decade, according to the Boston Herald.

Details of the benefits – which included cash, food stamps and housing assistance – are contained within more than 500 documents that were handed over from Massachusetts welfare officials to a committee of state lawmakers on Monday.

The documents have not been released publicly, but a person who has reviewed them told the Herald that the ‘breadth of the benefits the family was receiving was stunning.’

Apparently Mass. Rep. David Linsky pressured the state agencies to release the information over the head of Governor (and Obama pal) Deval Patrick saying the citizens have a right to know.

DEMOCRAT Mass. Rep. David Linsky: taxpayers have a right to know! Yes! and all citizens (in every state) should be demanding the same right to know about the extent of all refugee welfare use (not just in the case of terrorists)!

‘I can assure members of the public that this committee will actively review every single piece of information we can find because clearly the public has a substantial right to know what benefits, if any, this family or individuals accused of some horrific crimes were receiving,’ said Linsky, the committee’s chairman.

[....]

Welfare officials have been forced to divulge details of the aid that was paid out to the family of the bombing suspects.

Mass. Gov. Patrick Deval [Deval Patrick---ed] told state agencies last week that they should not discuss the details of what government assistance Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had received, citing privacy concerns.

Welfare information is not available for public release unless the person in question provides their consent, but it is available to lawmakers.

Massachusetts State Rep. David Linsky called on the state’s Department of Transitional Assistance to provide him with the information.

Linksy issued an ultimatum on Thursday to welfare officials, giving them 24 hours to provide the information.

The letter from Rep. Linsky was provided to the Boston Herald.

‘My office is working to fully comply with your request,’ DTA interim commissioner Stacey Monahan wrote in his report to Rep. Linsky, saying they were only providing a summary ‘given the great interest in this matter.’

In addition to the aid paid out to Tamerlan and his wife, both alleged bombers had benefited from welfare since their parents Anzor and Zubeidat Tsarnaev collected foodstamps and TAFDC – from 2002 to 2004 and again in 2009 to 2011.

Go to the full article for all the gory details.  However, keep in mind that they were granted LEGAL status in the US.  So, the next time you are tempted to say, “I’m o.k. with LEGAL immigration, it’s illegal I have a problem with!”, don’t say it, just zip it! because it shows how uninformed you are!

The Daily Mail wraps up:

Since the Tsarnaevs are Chechen immigrants, some wondered why they received aid. But the state agency explained that they were considered eligible for the public assistance.

‘The Tsarnaev parents were eligible to receive benefits as legal, non-citizen residents who were granted asylum status and met the basic eligibility criteria for DTA, including household income levels, presence of dependent children and other factors,’ the DTA interim commissioner Stacey Monahan said in a letter addressed to David Linsky, Chairman of the House Post Audit and Oversight Committee.

Contact your Members of Congress and US Senators and tell them it’s time to hold hearings on the refugee and asylum programs authorized under the Kennedy/Biden/Carter Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980.  And, by all means strip out changes made to those programs in the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill now!

Still waiting!  We are all still waiting breathlessly for the details on the Tsarnaev’s original application for asylum, and the application for family reunification—if you see details on those docs before me, please let me know!

This is our tenth post on the refugees who became the Boston Bombers.  Go here to see our archive.

Testimony to the US State Department from New Hampshire

The US State Department will be holding its annual hearing on the “appropriate size and scope” of the refugee resettlement program on May 15th.  The meeting will be dominated by federal refugee contractors (LOL! disregard that ‘voluntary agency’ label, they are paid by you to resettle refugees) looking for a larger number and greater variety of refugees.  We urge concerned readers to send in testimony by May 8th (see my previous post for details).

Below is a testimony forwarded to my by Jeannine Richardson of New Hampshire.  See also testimony by John Williams of Texas, here.   You do not need to be an expert on the program or to write a tome—a few paragraphs will help greatly!

Ms. Richardson (emphasis RRWs):

Dear Representatives

My name is Jeannine Richardson and I am the President of Landlord Connection http://landlordconnection.com

We are a NH Company that offers rental history reports to landlords, property management companies and several housing authorities throughout the state of NH.  We have over 2,000 rental property owners/managers as our customers.

I can state that much of the government subsidized housing in NH is being taken by refugees leaving many lifelong NH residents on waiting lists of up to 4 years.  Many of these refugees have enormous trouble getting into the workforce and are competing with our residents for what few jobs are available. I suggest that a moratorium be in place unitl the time when our unemployment numbers fall below 5%.

My personal experience has been apartments left in disastrous conditions and after a few months, these refugees are abandoned by the agencies who brought them here.  The State of NH does not have the resources at this time to care for more refugees. As it is Manchester*** is dealing with overcrowding of its classrooms and is spending over $1million per year teaching English as a second language to people who speak 70 different languages.

The system is out of control and has turned into a moneymaking scheme for several non-profits in NH.

Here is a link to some information regarding these Refugee Agencies
http://american-rattlesnake.org/2012/01/the-fugees/

I’m tired of the “we are a nation of immigrants” myth as well. It’s an urban legend. Some of us have ancestors who were here over 350 years ago. How far back do we have to go? Is England a nation of immigrants too? After all, the Vikings landed there thousands of years ago. If I remember correctly the Romans and Saxons immigrated there too.There have been several periods in our history when immigration was stopped. In fact it should be stopped now but instead the pace has accelerated to over 2.5 million per year when historically the high point was 500,000. Since 2000, 30 million immigrants have arrived. That’s as many people as in all of Canada. I say enough already.

We don’t even have jobs for people already here so we want to bring in more competition? I know for a fact that the welfare rolls have increased because many of the disabled were working part time jobs as dishwashers, clean-up crews in restaurants, etc. Those jobs have been taken by these newcomers leaving the disabled with no opportunities. None of it makes sense to me. We are the third most populated country on the planet. Why do we import more people?

Some of these refugees who are allegedly fleeing somehow feel safe enough to visit their village for a month. In fact, the Manchester Union Leader featured a story of  last year who had gone home for a visit and his town had no water, when he returned to Manchester he told a group of nuns of their plight and they flew over there and  built a well for the village.

The refugee program is nothing more than a source of revenue from the Federal Government for these do-gooders. They are paid for each person they bring in while we are stuck paying for their airfare and everything else.I am tired of the scam being played by the UN on the American people.

I am hoping something can be done to stop the tremendous burden this is placing on Americans.

Sincerely and thank you for your time.

Jeannine Richardson

Cc: Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Representative Carol Shea-Porter, Manchester NH Mayor Theodore Gatsas, Nashua NH Mayor Donnalee Lozeau

US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, p/202-225-3951.

***For new readers:  Manchester has had enormous problems with refugee overload.  A year ago the Mayor tried to get a moratorium on refugee resettlement but was defeated in his effort.  Go here for all of our posts on Manchester.  Are they turning red states blue?  Sure looks like it!

Your one chance to tell the US State Department what you think about refugee resettlement is coming up in May

They want to know what you think the “appropriate size and scope” of the program should be for Fiscal year 2014.  (We are presently resettling an average of 70,000 refugees a year and many are coming from Islamic countries.)

If you have friends in the media, tell them to cover this hearing!

Here is my post from last week (I promised to repeat this every week until the deadline for testimony May 8th).

Readers this post is a repeat of one I wrote last week.  I promised to reprint this information every week until the deadline for testimony—May 8th—arrives.

You have virtually no voice in the decision about bringing refugees to America—where they come from and in what towns and cities they will be placed.  However, each year the US State Department hears mostly from federal resettlement contractors (nine major and approximately 300 subcontractors) to help them determine who (and how many) will be resettled.   The contractors have a vested interest because they are paid by the head (by you, the taxpayer) to resettle as many refugees as the State Department lets them have.

The State Department will be looking to set its (the President’s) goals for FY2014 on May 15th.

You can send testimony too!   Here is what you need to do, be sure to pay attention to the last part about copying your testimony to your elected officials.  (Your US Representatives and Senators have pretty much abrogated their roles in questioning this program.)

And, one last thing—The Boston Chechens were not the first refugee/asylee terrorists who have entered the US and been caught, just the most successful so far.

My post from last week:

Anne C. Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration—we love the UN!

Every week from now until May 8th, I’m going to repeat this post!

Do not be silent!

The US State Department holds a hearing, usually in May, largely populated by the refugee contractors telling sob stories and looking to boost the number and variety of refugees (not to mention the contractor’s income) to be admitted to the US in the upcoming fiscal year.  My report on last year’s hearing is here.

Last year, and maybe for the first time ever, critical comments outnumbered those looking to add more refugees to already overloaded cities and states.  Let’s do it again!

The whole Federal Register Notice is here.

The meeting’s purpose is to hear the views of attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Your testimony can be long or short, detailed or general, but get something in by the deadline of 5 p.m. May 8th!

Address testimony to:   Anne C. Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, US State Department, Washington, DC. 20037

Reference Federal Register Public Notice 8241

E-mail or fax to Delicia Spruell:

Persons wishing to present written comments should submit them by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2013 via email to spruellda@state.gov or fax (202) 453-9393.

Now listen-up, this is important!   If you don’t copy your testimony to your elected officials, you can be sure your testimony to the State Department will never see the light of day!

You must put cc at the bottom of your testimony and list the following:

~Your member of the House of Representatives  (look up their addresses!)

~Your US Senators

~Any elected officials in your state who may be interested

Also, send to (and list on your testimony):

~US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.  Go here for list of Subcommittee Members.  You will be listing and mailing to the Subcommittee, however, if your US Senator is on that subcommittee then please be sure they are listed prominently on the testimony you send to the State Department.  Mail to:  U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.  Mail your testimony to the Subcommittee even if your Senator is not on it!

~House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.  Go here for a list of all the Subcommittees and see if your Member of Congress is on the Subcommittee.  But, even if he or she isn’t then still send your testimony here (addressed to the Subcommittee):  2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, p/202-225-3951.

When sending anything to your US Senators or Members of Congress always ask a question so that hopefully it forces them to answer your letter!  You might ask them to put pressure on the State Department to have this “hearing” held in several locations around the country!

If you plan to attend the hearing in Washington on May 15th (location and time details in my previous post), you need to let Ms. Spruell know by the same deadline.

Persons wishing to attend this meeting must notify the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone (202) 453-9257 by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, to reserve a seat.

Send me a copy of your testimony and indicate whether or not I have permission to publish it!

I made a special category for testimony last year, here.  So, check it out and see what others said last May.

Send copies to Ann@vigilantfreedom.com

For all posts relating to this hearing, go to our category entitled ‘Testimony for 5/15/2013 State Dept. meeting‘

A Texas reader has sent us his testimony, here, and it might be a good model to follow.  But, please give your own opinion, experiences, etc.   Politely!

Addendum:  Anne C. Richard revolved into her present position from the International Rescue Committee—what a coincidence!  Kinda cozy huh?

Rubio gets pounded!

And, you landed some of the blows!   

Run for the exits Marco! Run!

Update!  April 30th: Word goes out to the pro-amnesty crowd to get their comments in too!  (see report at VDARE)

Remember on last Wednesday we asked that you tell Senator Marco Rubio what you think of the “comprehensive immigration reform” bill otherwise known as the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill and ask him to strip out the refugee/asylum program changes the bill makes.   (We need Congressional hearings specifically on the Refugee Program!).

Yesterday Byron York writing at the Washington Examiner sums up the bad news for Rubio—most respondents are furious!  (emphasis mine)

Senator Marco Rubio, the leading Republican behind the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform proposal, has often challenged those who criticize the bill to come up with ways to improve it.  And not just his fellow lawmakers; Rubio has opened a new page on his Senate website asking for help from the public. “Visit our website and submit your ideas to ‘Help Us Improve the Bill,’” says an announcement from Rubio’s office Friday. “Since the immigration legislation was introduced, Rubio has received over 1,100 suggestions for how to improve the bill.  Rubio encourages the public to continue reviewing the bill and sharing their ideas on ways to make the bill better when the time comes to amend the legislation.”

What is the hold-up?  Why aren’t the other one thousand or so posted?   York continues:

A visit to the “Help Us Improve the Bill” page shows the senator has posted just 147 out of the 1,100 suggestions he has so far received.  Rubio’s staff is reviewing each one — a wise move, given the emotions that the immigration issue can involve and the tendency of some people to say nasty things on the Internet.  But even after screening for foul language and general content, the suggestions Rubio has so far received are remarkably negative.  Actually, they are overwhelmingly, crushingly negative, criticizing a wide spectrum of issues included in the Gang of Eight bill.  The commenters Rubio has invited to speak really, really, really don’t like what he has done.

Read York’s whole juicy piece!

Check out the 100 plus comments posted so far and see that there is a good representation of ones telling Rubio to dump the Refugee/Asylum sections—thank you!

More comments on Rubio’s comments:

VDARE has more useful commentary on Rubio’s gambit.  Patrick Cleburne says it’s a dumb move and proves Rubio is dumb.  I had the same feeling about Rubio as I watched his dreadful pro-bill TV spot in which he looks like an earnest kid trying to suck up to the big bully boys—like Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, who are probably enjoying watching Rubio commit political suicide.

Then last evening VDARE reported from a reader who says his reasonable suggestion for changing the bill has not been posted.  (My reasonable one has not been posted and I did it mid-week last week).   The reader speculates that the Rubio team is selecting the ones that impugn Rubio’s character so that he might treat them dismissively.  The readers ends with this:

One can only hope, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that the Senator is more intelligent than he may appear, and that these comments be a welcome pretext for him to withdraw his own support for the bill: he tried valiantly, he reached out to the opposition, but the people have spoken.

He/she has expressed my thoughts (hopes!) too, that Rubio will respond to the passion out there and gracefully back out.  My blog partner, Judy, expressed misgivings about whether Rubio would make such a brave move.  In an e-mail this morning she asked:

Once you’ve joined the ruling class, do you ever leave?

In fact, I would bet at this very moment, the Rubio staff (comrades of Grover) are running to the master and asking Norquist to please help gin-up comments in praise of the bill to balance out what has to be 90-plus percent of commenters who are furious with Marco Rubio.

If you haven’t yet commented, it appears that Rubio’s comment thread is still open even though they have posted nothing new in days!

Go here and tell him what you think!   I know you probably hate the whole thing, but tell him specifically to strip-out, dump! the references to refugees and asylees (especially in light of the Boston horror!).

Are you on twitter?  If so, please tweet this!  And, follow me at Ann C @RefugeeWatcher!

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.

Sample State Department testimony: This one from Texas

As regular readers here know, the US State Department will be taking testimony in mid-May on the “appropriate size and scope” of our refugee resettlement program for fiscal year 2014.

Prior to last year the testimony was almost exclusively from the federal contractors (nine major and approximately 300 subcontractors) looking for more and a greater variety of refugees to resettle to your towns and cities.  Last year citizens concerned with the direction of the program actually outnumbered the contractors in the number of comments submitted.

We have described here how to prepare your testimony.   I also said, I would publish any you wish me to publish.

A reader, John Williams of Texas, has sent us his letter to the US State Department and we share it here with you for inspiration and guidance.  Your testimony may be long or short, detailed or general, but please send in something by the May 8th deadline!

Anne Richard
Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration
US State Department
Washington, DC. 20520

April 22, 2013

Re: Federal Register Public Notice 8241

Dear Ms Richard:

I am writing to submit written comments on the President’s FY 2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program as part of the upcoming May 15 public hearing in Washington, DC. Overall, I am writing to request that Refugee admissions be cut back dramatically to less than 5,000 admittances annually.

There are many reasons for this:

1)    Recent terrorist attacks suggest many refugees being admitted pose substantial risks to the United States and its citizens. There has been a tendency to relax scrutiny of refugees and other aliens in an effort to not appear prejudicial to certain groups or religions. This effort, while perhaps well-intentioned, is naive and dangerous. Some individuals claim persecution precisely because they are considered dangerous to the country in which they live. Admitting such individuals merely moves the danger to the U.S.

2)    If pending Comprehensive Immigration Reform is passed, there will suddenly be a huge additional burden to U.S. unemployment and social services rolls at a time when we can least afford it. Refugees would have to compete with millions of low-skilled workers in an already saturated job market. If we are so anxious to legalize these millions already resident, we should take prudent steps to minimize the impact on our weak economy by reducing other immigrants.

3)    The existing resettlement system does not adequately take into account the desires and resources of the communities in which refugees are placed. As a result, refugees are often “dumped” into an area that is already saturated or is unable to provide the special services refugees often require. This is unfair to the community and can create a huge burden to the local tax base. The federal government should be prepared to support the refugees or not admit them.

4)    Refugee settlement has become a big business that has corrupted what was supposed to be a voluntary activity. If the voluntary agencies are indeed voluntary, they should be self-funding. As long as they depend upon the federal government they will advocate increased levels of admission and funding, regardless of the true cost to local communities or society as a whole.

5)    The refugee program was originally intended to provide safety to small persecuted groups and has become an open-ended tool of US foreign policy. This has perverted the purpose of the program and shows an extreme lack of sensitivity to the communities that are expected to absorb this burgeoning flow of humanity. If the program were reduced then the State Department would presumably select their admissions with better care.

6)    In conjunction with the above, U.S. admissions policy has become subsumed to the needs of the UNHCR. We should not allow a foreign agency to dictate policy to the U.S., especially when it causes adverse effects to local, often small, communities in rural areas. We Americans in “flyover country” do not exist to satisfy the whims and needs of the UNHCR.

7)    Finally, the current high levels of refugee admissions are causing untold damage to small communities all across the U.S. It appears the State Department is either unwilling or unable to acknowledge this very real human cost. This is perceived as callous and arrogant treatment of some of the most generous and caring people in the world. The resulting resentment generated will eventually breed a callous cynicism that will endanger other humanitarian programs deemed desirable by the State Department. This will become apparent when voters demand a general moratorium on foreign aid and an isolationist position for U.S. foreign policy.

Like many programs created by the federal government, the refugee programs have suffered from significant mission-creep and a tendency to become corrupted by the money involved. In all of this the needs of the refugees as well as the “welcoming communities” have become secondary to other priorities. The State Department needs to review the original purpose of the program and what a “voluntary agency” is supposed to be and do. A good way to begin would be to pare admissions to a minimum while re-designing how the program is administered and funded. Enough is enough.

Sincerely,

John D Williams

CC:  Senator John Cornyn
Senator Ted Cruz

Representative William Flores

US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Thanks Mr. Williams!

Again, go here for instructions!

I just realized that we need to make a new category for this year.  Last year some testimony and my commentary of the May meeting was posted here.   I’ll make a category now for ‘Testimony for 5/15/2013 State Dept. meeting’ for your easy access going forward.