Refugee Resettlement Watch

Archive for the ‘Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting’ Category

Burma: Muslim Rohingya riot, burn homes, kill residents after leaving mosque

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 9, 2012

Update June 10th:  Fighting continues in Rakhine as armed Rohingya rebels continue to terrorize Buddhists, here.

Special note to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops—these are the “persecuted” people you want to bring to America?

From Eleven Media Group:

Eleven Media Group)- Dozens of Rakhine people were killed amidst the Rohingya terrorist attacks in border town of Maungdaw in Rakhine State, the western part of Myanmar on Friday.

Due to the violence, hundreds of houses and buildings were burnt down by mobs, said the reporter Ko Win Maung of the Eleven Media at the scene.

The death toll in the incident has reached 20 to 30 until the night of 8 June and the injured persons nearby villages of Maundaw Township have been taken to Maungdaw hospital.

The onset of the violence on 8 June was that the Rohingya Muslims who returned from the mosque yesterday afternoon started throwing the stones to the Rakhine houses and buildings in Maungdaw Township, according to the Eleven Media reporter whose house was also blazed amidst the violence.

As the riots could not be controlled, the police forces took security measures in the town where Muslims are majority and Rakhine people are minority. Rohingya mobs were setting fire on the nearby villages of Rakhine ethnics, said a Buddhist monk who resides in Maungdaw Township.

Readers, at the May 1 State Department meeting to discuss who should be resettled in the US, Anastasia Brown of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops made a case for more Rohingya “refugees” to be resettled in the US.  Is it the job of the US to bring every group of supposedly persecuted Muslims to our towns and cities?  Should the average American taxpaying citizen have to pay for the Islamic upheaval in large parts of the world by bringing the Islamists to their neighborhoods?  For what?  To help Burma or Somalia or  Syria (next!)?  To show we are good people?  To show we are fair by balancing out our Christians and Muslims?

Readers please focus on the word Rohingya and don’t let this happen.  We were asleep when these same contractor/church groups began the importation of Somalis, but we are awake now.

This is our 108th post on Rohingya since 2008, please glance through our Rohingya Reports category, here, for more information.

Update:  Here is the Reuters version of the riots, but it doesn’t matter who started what, the message for us is that we should let them fight it out in Burma!  We don’t need to be resettling all of the world’s problems into the US.

Posted in Crimes, diversity's dark side, Muslim refugees, Refugee Resettlement Program, Rohingya Reports, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 2 Comments »

Shake-up at Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 26, 2012

The longtime president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), one of the top nine federal contractors resettling refugees in our cities, resigned this month.   Hat tip: Friends of Refugees.

He says it’s for family reasons (that is what they all say!), but this article suggests that the agency was being criticized for not focusing on Jews in trouble around the world.  To tell you the truth from the earliest days of writing RRW I wondered how HIAS justified resettling Muslims.  But, I will bet if they didn’t agree to resettle everyone, the feds would cut them off financially.

You can read all about it here.  Aronoff confirms that in order to keep the organization going you need to resettle as many warm bodies as possible—not just Jews—because their funding is dependent on a per capita payment from you, the taxpayer.

The interim President, Mark Hetfield, testified at the May 1 State Department meeting among other things to lighten up on the security restrictions and to get the P-3 program completely up and running.   He specifically, sensibly, says, “The terror which refugees fled must not follow them to the United States,” then goes on to say we are being too strict with our security screening.  Go figure!

We have written about HIAS and Aronoff previously, here is one post where we learned that Aronoff was letting staff go in 2009 while holding on to his quarter of a million dollar salary.

Learn more about HIAS!  Check out our archives with all the posts in which we mention this contractor here.

Posted in Refugee Resettlement Program, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 1 Comment »

Rohingya connection to terrorist groups being searched here at RRW

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 25, 2012

Just an interesting bit of information I noticed yesterday in looking at our stats—-lots of people are looking at a 2009 post about the State Department having identified Burmese Rohingya people as being connected to Islamic terrorist groups.   For some reason that three-year-old post is getting a lot of attention.   Unfortunately, the State Department has removed the link for the terrorist group list.

There is another post in 2009 here that also mentions the Rohingya connection to Islamic extremists.

As I’ve mentioned before, we’ve written over 100 posts on the Rohingya, categorized here.  My primary interest over the years was whether we would bring Rohingya refugees to the US, but now that we are and no one is paying attention it doesn’t matter much (until something goes wrong!).

By the way, several of those testifying at the May 1 State Department meeting were pushing Rohingya resettlement, including Anastasia Brown, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops representative.

An afterthought:  I have New Hampshire on my mind (next post) and I wonder if NH got its contingent of Rohingya this past year?

Posted in Crimes, diversity's dark side, Muslim refugees, Refugee Resettlement Program, Rohingya Reports, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 2 Comments »

California citizen: refugee program a fraud!

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 24, 2012

Russian:

“Who would not tell a white lie in order to get everything for free”?

Readers, I haven’t forgotten that I plan to continue to post testimony from that May 1 State Department meeting which was ostensibly to give you an opportunity to voice your opinion on how many refugees the US will take in FY 2013 and from where.  But, the Refugee program head honcho, Lawrence Bartlett, said at the meeting that they wouldn’t make the testimony available on-line (those in attendance received the testimony in hard copy).   All of the testimony I’ve posted so far is here in our special category for the meeting.

This is what one California citizen had to say (emphasis mine):

I have been in the photography business since 1973 in a town called Rancho Cordova, California. It is a suburb of Sacramento. We do not need any more refugees in our community. We have been the destination point for over 150 thousand alleged religiously persecuted refugees from the former Soviet Union. It is nothing more than a scam against taxpayer. It is under the Lautenberg act of 1989. There is no religious persecution in Russia. And if there was, is it our duty to support them?

The churches are behind it in order to receive free money for putting phony refugees on public assistance. I cannot describe in words the resentment of my customers who work in the banks, grocery stores, and in the medical field who are extremely resentful of this largesse.

The women who work at the banks and grocery stores are witnesses to the scams and the fraud that is committed on a daily basis. As my friend who works at the bank states if I cash one more social security check for someone who has never paid into the system and is drawing more than my parents who worked all of their lives I will scream. The resentment is palpable.

Particularly when the community found out there is no religious persecution in Russia. That it is nothing more than a scam to obtain a middle class life on the backs of someone else.

I have proof it is all fraud and not even my congressman Lungren [Dan Lungren] will discuss it out of fear of being destroyed politically. I have brought the fraud to the attention to ICE. They responded with they know it is fraud. They said they would be sued if they dare try and stop it.

I am a Viet Nam Vet as is my brother via the law in those days. My brother’s neighbors from Cambodia never worked a day while they lived next to my brother. He and his wife worked to support them. How can you justify that. The nice folks from Cambodia received section 8 housing and their kids went to college at my brother’s expense.

If we took that money and spent it on the black community maybe there would not be cities full of Ghettos?

We cannot afford it period. We need to follow the original law. Meaning they cannot be a burden on taxpayers. They are supposed to have sponsors who support them. It is shameful the only reason the churches are interested in resettling is money for themselves.

You forget the domino effect in our community such as crime and gangs in the Russian community. I had a Russian friend who worked for me, by the name of Alex Sukonof tell me “Who would not tell a white lie in order to get everything for free”?

Alex also told me that he thought “It was ok that his in laws claimed religious persecution like the others.” That they only receive about $1300.00 between them, including free health care that we pay for. Apparently as alleged Refugees: they are entitled to SSI for 7 years. If they become citizens within that time, it is now a lifetime entitlement. Even though they have never worked a day in their life here.

The real sad part is that according to Alex they are allowed to take the Citizenship test in their native language. I know for a fact his in laws do not speak a word of English, as I have called their house looking for him several times.

The bottom line is: by telling a little white lie about religious persecution, they are allowed an income for life that they did not earn. That is persecution of hard working taxpayers. This entire Refugee program is an upside down cake.

Furthermore: even if it was all real as there are others that are real, this directly affects Americans who are in need of a job. We need to shut it down totally until we become flush with cash again as a country.

We need to eliminate the entire program and operate it on an individual basis with true volunteers.

The reason you do not hear from the public is fear of losing their job or demonized as a racist.

Posted in Changing the way we live, Community destabilization, Immigration fraud, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | Comments Off

Comment worth noting: large contractors like ECDC monopolize refugee funding

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 17, 2012

This is a comment I received in response to my post last week about how the Ethiopian Community Development Council (one of the big nine cabal of federal refugee contractors) testifying at the US State Department May 1 meeting, here, asked that the funds keep coming even if the refugees aren’t.

Readers not familiar with the situation in St. Louis with the African Mutual Assistance Association of Missouri, might wish to first read this article (for background) in St. Louis Today from earlier this year.

From Gedlu B. Metaferia (emphasis mine):

Although I differ in views from you [at RRW] because of my former status as a refugee with liberal background I still appreciate your blogs because you expand our horizon of dialog and understanding from various angles. I know where you are coming from.  I am with you on many posts of waste of Government use of tax payer dollar. I was sick to the stomach when I saw the $13-14 million ECDC 990 to resettle less than 300 refugees every year.  I am not envious person by nature, and I expected honesty from non-profits, foundations and our government. Now I know better.  I did not want to write this post because I have stopped writing on ORR-“VOLAG” related issues temporarily because I do not want to offend very few genuine contractors who help refugees, although I believe that change is coming soon.  I am also outspoken on ORR and the crony like racket because the grant (contract) awardees are always the same personalities and organizations. I have also stopped writing temporarily because I believe that the worst offenders of a malfunction of a system are those refugee workers who keep quite and turn their just eyes the other way instead of fixing it.  I will be having a web site of advocacy in refugee issues pretty soon.  As you may probably know ECDC has given me hard time by cropping ad helping another agency (AIRS) in St. Louis, the effect has contributed to AMAAM [African Mutual Assistance Association of Missouri] to close early. We were beaten hard here in St. Louis by ORR money which was obtained on behalf of AIRS by ECDC from 2002-2004.

ORR does not consider million of resources that VOLAGS have before distributing $600 million- $1 Billion a year.  This why small genuine organizations are wiped out  especially in this recession.  One refugee  specialist friend made me laugh when he commented that ‘If some of these rich share volags  contribute at least 1% of their net income  for agencies like AMAAM life will not be difficult for many”. I know that this will not happen. The resettlement lobby is very strong. It does not tolerate differing opinion. It is a kingdom  that uses refugees to enrich itself. I am not writing as a self-serving issue, but I was providing services for more than 500 refugee families without including other categories of legal immigrants for less than $100K with 3-7 employees.  These refugees are often given support 2 years after arrival because resettlement agencies have to concentrate on new arrivals. There are also secondary migrants (who stay in St. Louis from 1 week to 5 years). It is not self-serving to say that I have the blessing of respect, well wishes and love as I walk on the street from African immigrants. That is the only beautiful capital and gratitude I get and it is a blessing from God.  When I saw the $14 million figure in the 990 of ECDC it just makes me sad.  I am not against making wealth. I strongly believe that tamed capitalism is the best system because I had seen vestiges of 3 systems in Ethiopia which are very horrible. I am not against if VOLAGS make billions by their hard work. But this one is not right by capitalisms standard, by Gods standard, by true charitable standard, by any standard, by conservative standard, by liberal standard, by American standard.  There has to be a way to reform refugee resettlement, non-profits and foundations. I do not want the name refugee to be associated with making profits, it is immoral and unjust.

Well said!

Posted in Comments worth noting, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 1 Comment »

So what is going on in Lancaster, PA? More refugees than the city can handle?

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 11, 2012

Update May 20th:  Church World Service—thousands upon thousands resettled to Lancaster, here!

You know Lancaster—the home of the Amish.  Not!

I’m going to tell you about one of my favorite testimonies sent to the US State Department two weeks ago for the May 1 scoping meeting to hear from “stakeholders” (that is government talk for contractors) on how many refugees and which ones to bring to the US in FY 2013.  Obama will make a “determination” and send it to Congress in September where Congress will rubber stamp it just in time for the October 1st opening of fiscal year 2013.

But… before I tell you more about the testimony, a little background:  In 2007, we in Washington Country Maryland were just minding our own business when several incidents occurred with new immigrants that got the attention of the authorities and finally the newspaper.  We learned that the Virginia Council of Churches (Virginia! mind you) was resettling third worlders in Hagerstown (our county seat).  Some of us just wanted to better understand how this was happening—WHAT WAS THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS that allowed a supposed non-profit from Virginia to drop off people in Hagerstown.  Where would they work?  Who was paying for this?  Who was responsible for their health, their housing, their education?

To make a long story short, we had a public meeting for all those involved which included the primary federal contractor Church World Service (they subcontract to Virginia Council of Churches), our state refugee coordinator, and some representatives of the US State Department.  The public asked a lot of questions—many were answered in let’s just say a not straightforward fashion.  We were lectured about how we are a ‘nation of immigrants’ and probably not even two weeks later the program was closed in Hagerstown and we were labeled “unwelcoming” —I suppose because we asked too many questions.   This is how this blog was born—out of annoyance with government officials who keep information from the public!  (For anyone interested in more on what happened in Hagerstown we have a category, unused lately, here, in which we told our story in the early years.)

So how does Lancaster fit in?

We were told in 2007 that the majority of refugees we were getting were Meshketians (Russian Sunni Muslim Turks) who were originally destined for Lancaster, PA about 100 miles away.  However, somehow there was a glitch in the plan for Lancaster (we heard a crime problem had cropped up) and that Church World Service (one of nine federal contractors who monopolize the program) had to quickly find a place to take the next batch of Meshketians.  I think they just looked at a map and picked Hagerstown—fresh territory for refugee resettlement and close enough to Lancaster so the Meshketians could visit back and forth.

And, by the way, we heard that some Meshketians had homes to sell in Russia and were able to buy homes here—so were they even real refugees?  Or, were we using this program (again!) for some foreign policy political reason involving Russia and Turkey?

Here is what Church World Service (CWS) told the State Department on May 1 (Oh, and by the way, CWS is the “crop walk” group, some of you may know them from participating in their fundraising project.—ed):

In the United States, communities, schools, religious congregations, and employers welcome refugees and help them integrate in their new homes.  In turn, refugees bring their innovative skills, diverse cultures, dedicated work, and other positive contributions to their new communities, enhancing the quality of life for all parties. Refugee resettlement showcases the best virtues of the United States—community, opportunity, hard work, diversity, caring for one another, and courage to start a new life.

Now, here is what a citizen of Lancaster, PA says of Church World Service (I won’t publish the woman’s name, but apparently she has been trying to help refugees who are struggling in her community—in other words she is not a bigot and xenophobe like we are here at RRW!).  This is not the first time we have heard of refugee volunteers trying to do the best for refugees and running into problems with arrogant resettlement contractors.   For the record, I don’t know this woman.  [Emphasis below is mine---ed]

From a refugee volunteer in Lancaster, PA:

Why do organizations like Church World Service make unilateral decisions on how many refugees get settled into an area?

CWS and Lutheran Social Services have settled at least 2500 refugees (that’s probably a low guess as they refuse to give out totals, but only list how many of one nationality that they have settled in a past year) in Lancaster in the past 3 years without any approval process required from our mayor, our city council or without any consultation with our school board. The city of Lancaster population is approximately 56,000. In the past 2 1/2 years, these two organizations, who have no accountability to voters… have made the population approximately 4% refugee. I help refugees here in Lancaster and I am aware that in the short term, they are a very heavy financial burden on the city. Surely it is reasonable and right for our elected officials to have some say in how many refugees are settled into the city within a certain time period?

I work with families, I see the neglect:

I work with three refugee families in an informal support system through the Unitarian Social Justice committee here in Lancaster. I work with refugees who are hard working, serious people. They will eventually be a great asset to the city. But in the short term, they are a great financial burden on the city.

Every member of these three refugee families arrived with health issues. Many continue to have serious health issues and use the free clinics for health care, for surgery, for extensive testing, for dental work.

Each family has one or more grandparents who are permanently disabled in some way and need financial aid and city services.   [Elderly refugees may receive SSI even if they never paid into the system---ed]

Because of language and educational difficulties, earning power is low. In spite of their very low income, there are cultural issues, which lead the young women to marry early and start families right away and stay home with their babies. They do not work outside the home. I know this because… within a year… my three families, including newly married older daughters and married cousins who share the same buildings… had four new babies… and another baby is due this month. They are good families and the Nepali refugees are wonderful parents. But, each low income family needs government services and financial aid to insure that there is good food and good medical care for the moms and babies. It’s a significant cost to the community.

There are other cultural difficulties that present challenges and sometimes dangers for the refugees and for the city, which are not addressed by the two Lancaster settlement agencies.

CWS officially works with the families for 3 months but their orientations are neglectfully inadequate.

I could quickly list 10 very serious incidences of neglect by CWS, but to save time here, I will tell only one story and a few bullet points. Please contact me if you would like more information. I could write many pages based on my notes of the past 2 years.

The testimony goes on to report problems with the orientation of refugees, safety issues and bed bugs.

“CWS is dumping refugees on to the city”

Many Lancaster people that I talk with…who also try to help refugees here… use the word “dumping”… CWS is dumping refugees on to the city… taking a payment to settle the refugees and moving on to the next group of refugees who will bring in more money to pay for CWS salaries, office space and fund raising events. This is the impression of many compassionate, frustrated people here in Lancaster, who are then accused of being part of a racist or anti-immigration backlash. We are not anti-immigration. We are expending our own personal time and money and pressuring our churches to spend time and money, picking up the pieces that CWS drops into our community. We now want a say in how many refugees can be settle here.

[New readers, see this 2010 story from Greensboro, NC and see the same problem---local church volunteers crying out to stop the flow of refugees at least for awhile!]

The commenter then goes on to make recommendations and mentions the State of Tennessee’s efforts to get some local control into the program.   How much do you want to bet the State Department won’t follow-up and ask her for her proposals.  Nor is the State Department making any of this testimony available to the public.   She needs to send her testimony to her Congressman and US Senators and ask that they publish it in the Congressional Record!  The buck stops with Congress!

Posted in Changing the way we live, Muslim refugees, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Resettlement cities, September Forum, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 16 Comments »

ECDC: We want money even when refugee flows are low

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 9, 2012

ECDC is the Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc,* one of the top federal refugee contractors, here  (oh funny, I see we lost two contractors recently, the number had been 11).  A representative from this organization testified last week at the State Department meeting and although I couldn’t understand his verbal testimony, his written testimony has several interesting nuggets of information.  One nugget, which I hope to get to in the next few days, involves a pitch to take so-called “refugees” from the Rainbow Nation—that supposed heaven-on-Earth called South Africa.  Who knew that blacks could be xenophobic!

We want to be paid no matter how many refugees we resettle! 

Readers, I have reported on many occasions that one of many flaws in this program is that the resettlement contractors are paid by the head to resettle refugees, so when the flow slows, as it is right now (due to extra security measures being put in place), the agencies have to (boo hoo) let people go.   It was before my time, but I am told that immediately following 9/11 the flow was cut dramatically, but these “non-profit” contractors managed to wrangle money out of the federal government anyway to pay themselves salaries until the spigot opened again.

Here, the representative from ECDC asks for your tax dollars again, even if work has slowed.   (I have broken his long paragraph into smaller ones so you can read it easier, and added emphasis—ed)

Administrative Floor Funding for Domestic Resettlement

ECDC recommends that PRM fund local resettlement agencies at 100 percent of approved capacity. Within the last two fiscal years, partly due to the Inter-Agency Check (IAC) [involves security---ed] holds, the resettlement program has encountered significantly lower than expected arrivals.  Because local resettlement agencies are reimbursed on per capita arrivals, they have been unable to pay for administrative expenses, including staff.

While some agencies have used reserve funds and have been able to garner additional private resources, in the reality of continued low arrivals, these funding sources have been exhausted.  [This program was never intended to be fully funded by the feds (by you)! The public-private partnership meant that the "non-profits" were to raise lots of money on their own!---ed*] Consequently, many agencies have laid off staff.  When agencies do receive arrivals, they are not fully prepared to serve them with limited employees.  They must quickly hire new case management staff who may not receive the benefit of robust, extended training.

US refugee arrivals fluctuate widely from month-to-month and year-to-year, making it nearly impossible for local agencies to have a solid infrastructure in place at all times that can readily adapt and provide quality Reception and Placement services. With full funding, local resettlement agencies are able to maintain continuity in their respective administrative and staffing capacities to resettle refugees, despite unanticipated and uneven arrival patterns. [So, they can sit around in offices collecting a salary even if no refugees are coming?---ed]. It is in the best interest of refugees that local offices be equipped and ready at all times to offer high-quality resettlement.

* Now check out their most recent Form 990, here.   They took in $13 million in that year and $11 million came from you!  They have a couple of 6-figure salaries they have to maintain too.

All this would be solved if we took these contractors out of this business.  The complaints that we see on the local level are related to contractors wanting more warm bodies to resettle and then three months later turning those people over to local government to care for!

New readers:  See all of our coverage of this May 1 State Department meeting in our category set up specifically for that purpose, here.

Posted in Africa, Refugee Resettlement Program, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 2 Comments »

“We are a Nation of immigrants” mumbo-jumbo

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 8, 2012

Update and correction!  It was brought to my attention last evening by an observant reader that Mr. Hunter’s testimony to the State Department below was taken in part from a 2006 article in Frontpage Magazine, here.  The author is Lawrence Auster whose thoughtful writing on the issue of immigration has been widely published.  You may wish to read his blog, View from the Right, here.  I sincerely apologize to Mr. Auster for this rookie editor’s error.

As I said the other day, I am going to have days and weeks of material from the US State Department meeting last week on the Refugee Program.

Editor’s note to citizens and taxpayers:  The US State Department is not going to release the testimony to you although all of the testimony we received last week was available to anyone in the public who made the trek to that 11th floor obscure meeting room in Arlington, VA.  When I get a few minutes I’ll make links for all the files we have from that meeting.

Here is one segment of testimony from Edward Hunter (US Voices on Immigration Reform) where he discusses the sacred cows and pat little phrases and slogans the immigration industry pushes on the public.   How many times has someone tried to shut you up with this one—We are a Nation of immigrants!—as if that statement alone justifies wide open borders.

Hunter/Auster(emphasis mine):

This—the veritable “king” of open-borders, globalist, mass immigration, refugee resettlement clichés—seems at first glance to be an indisputable statement, in the sense that all Americans, even including the American Indians, are either immigrants themselves or descendants of people who came here from other places. Given the above, it would be more accurate to say that we are “a nation of people descended from immigrants.” But such a mundane statement would fail to convey the thrilling idea conjured up by the phrase “nation of immigrants”—the idea that all of us, whether or not we are literally immigrants, are somehow “spiritually” immigrants, in the sense that the immigrant experience defines our character as Americans.

This friendly-sounding, inclusive sentiment—like so many others of its kind—turns out to be profoundly exclusive. For one thing, it implies that anyone who is not an immigrant, or who does not identify with immigration as a key aspect of his own being, is not a “real” American. It also suggests that newly arrived immigrants are more American than people whose ancestors have been here for generations. The public television essayist Richard Rodriguez spelled out these assumptions when he declared, in his enervated, ominous tone: “Those of us who live in this country are not the point of America. The newcomers are the point of America.”

In reality, we are not—even in a figurative sense—a nation of immigrants or even a nation of descendants of immigrants. As Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial times, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Therefore to call America “a nation of immigrants” is to suggest that America, prior to the late nineteenth century wave of European immigration, was not America. It is to imply that George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant (descended from the original colonists) were not “real” Americans, but those that have entered most recently and who in many ways are bringing cultures that are inimical to that original American identity are.

Apart from its politically correct function of diminishing the Americans of the pre-Ellis Island period and their descendants, the “nation of immigrants” motto is meaningless in practical terms. Except for open-borders ideologues, everyone knows we must have some limits on immigration. The statement, “we are a nation of immigrants,” gives us no guidance on what those limits should be. Two hundred thousand immigrants per year? Two million? Why not twenty million—since we’re a nation of immigrants? The slogan also doesn’t tell us, once we have decided on overall numbers, what the criterion of selection shall be among the people who want to come here. Do we choose on the basis of family ties to recent immigrants? Language? Income? Nationality? Race? Victim status? First come first served? The “nation of immigrants” slogan cannot help us choose among these criteria because it doesn’t state any good that is to be achieved by immigration. It simply produces a blind emotional bias in favor of more immigration rather than less, making rational discussion of the issue impossible.

To see the uselessness of the “nation of immigrants” formula as a source of political guidance, imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. “Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrants/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!”

Since every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough, consistent application of the principle that a nation of immigrants must be open to all future immigrants would require every country on earth to open its borders to whoever wanted to come. But only the United States and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other Western nations, are said to have this obligation. The rule of openness to immigrants turns out to be a double standard, aimed solely at America and the West.

It is also blatantly unfair to make the factoid that “we are all descended from immigrants” our sole guide to national policy, when there are so many other important and true facts about America that could also serve as guides. For example, throughout its history the United States has been a member of Western civilization—in religion overwhelmingly Christian, in race (until the post-1965 immigration) overwhelmingly white, in language English. Why shouldn’t those little historical facts be at least as important in determining our immigration policy as the pseudo-fact that we’re all “descended from immigrants?” But immigrant advocates are incapable of debating such questions, because there is no rational benefit for America that they seek through open immigration. Their aim is not to strengthen and preserve America, but to transform it into something else.

This post and all posts on the State Department meeting are filed in a new category entitled, “Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting” here.

Posted in Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 4 Comments »

Recap of the State Department meeting on refugee admissions for FY2013

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 5, 2012

I hope no one out there has been holding their breath waiting for my report from the May 1 meeting in Arlington!   Primarily I am delayed in writing this because I was so blown away by the large amount of testimony sent in by some of you and others (I’ve never heard of) that I didn’t know where to start this report!

Much to my surprise, critics of the program sent more comments, by far! than the professional resettlers looking for more business with the government.   We are compiling those comments in Pdf format and hope to have links for you soon (the State Department is not going to make them available, but we will since they were made public for the meeting attendees).   The Refugee Resettlement program has stayed under the radar for so long because of things like this—no reporters present and the statements not distributed to the general public.

Here is what I’m going to do.  First give you a little sense of the meeting now and then in the days and weeks to come I will report on the various testimony received.   This post and all posts on the meeting will be in the category on the side bar entitled, “Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Department meeting.”  At this writing there are four other posts there.

The meeting whose purpose is to begin to determine how many refugees would be “welcomed” to America in FY2013 by President Barack Obama (in a formal letter to Congress in September) was held in a small room on the 11th floor of an Arlington, VA high rise building.  The meeting is obviously geared to those who have salaried staffers working in the DC metropolitan area. So, guess how many average American taxpaying citizens might ‘find their way there?’    LOL!  Next year we should push for regional meetings around the country so certain Mayors of certain beleaguered towns and cities might be able to attend.

I would love to have asked those in attendance (maybe around 100 max) to raise their hands if they were paid to be there.  I would guess only three critics actually gave up a day from work and other duties to attend.  The others had some financial stake in the event.   Although in fairness there were some speakers representing small advocacy groups of certain ethnic peoples they would like admitted to the US and who surely aren’t making 6-figure salaries like the big contractor reps.   Of the contractor behemoths, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethiopian Community Development Council, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Kurdish Human Rights Watch and Church World Service gave testimony and had written statements available.

I can only assume the other biggies gave private testimony to the State Department.  The International Rescue Committee, one of the largest recipients of federal grant money, doesn’t need to present testimony when its Vice President has just recently been chosen by Obama and approved by the Senate to head the program, here.   Check out the IRC’s 2009 Form 990They received $200 million from the US taxpayers that year!  And, while you are at it, have a look at the 6-figure salaries of its top-grossing employees.  I wonder how they were able to exclude their President’s nearly $400,000 salary and benefits package of previous years on this tax return?

I’m digressing and that is one of the reasons I didn’t get started on this post earlier—I knew I would have too much to say!

Back to the meeting!

Sitting at the head table were the following:

Lawrence Bartlett

Director, Office of Refugee Admissions

Department of State

Barbara Strack

Chief, Refugee Affairs Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Department of Homeland Security

Eskinder Negash

Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement

Department of Health and Human Services

I’ll tell you more about the principals (above) in later posts.

No public record of the meeting will be available, nor was anyone permitted to videotape it.   Efforts had been made to urge certain Members of Congress to request that videotaping be allowed or that C-Span be invited in to film the event so that Congress (which holds the purse strings) might have some idea of the process whereby contractors ask for more immigrants (and more money!).  I doubt any serious effort was made by Members of Congress because it would have happened if someone, or several Members, had pushed hard enough (What is that I hear? click here!).    After all, this isn’t the Supreme Court!  It is a meeting for government officials to hear from contractors!

Each person who had signed up IN ADVANCE was permitted 5 minutes to make a pitch.  Most of us read from our previously submitted statements (mine is here).  There were no questions permitted and those presiding asked no questions (although I am told in the past there was more give and take).  The meeting concluded in about an hour and a half.

More Muslims please!

I can’t wait to tell you about the testimony.  I haven’t read all of it yet.  But, one thing that jumped out at me in what I’ve read so far (or heard at the meeting) is that no one spoke for Christians persecuted by Muslims!  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops never even mentioned them, but they sure asked the State Department to send more Muslims to the US, in particular, they want more Somalis and Rohingya* (Burmese Muslims)!   Several of those testifying also called for the prompt re-opening of the P-3 family reunification program that has been closed for nearly 4 years due to the widespread fraud uncovered involving Africans, mostly Somalis.  The State Department has reported that as many as 36,000 Africans entered the US fraudulently in a 5 year period after 9/11!

Perhaps my favorite testimony came from a citizen of Lancaster, PA who is helping refugees, but critical of Church World Service (the contractor).

Watch for upcoming posts on the testimony!

* Please take a few minutes and begin to familiarize yourselves with Rohingya Muslims.  We have a whole category (Rohingya Reports) with 100 posts in it on this group of “stateless people” that the US State Department initially resisted when the UN told them to start letting them into the US.  They have begun to be resettled here (although at the moment there is some bureaucratic snafu with Bangladesh where many are located).

Posted in Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Rohingya Reports, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 13 Comments »

State Department hearing today on refugee numbers for FY 2013, commenter concerned about Shariah Law

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 1, 2012

I’ll be reporting back tomorrow morning about the meeting.

In the meantime, I have been posting comments sent to the State Department from people who send their comments to me.   Below is the latest.   To see others go to our new category (Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. Meeting) here.

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing to submit written comments on the President’s FY 2013 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program as part of the upcoming May 1st public hearing in Arlingon, VA.  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)   The USA cannot afford the high welfare cost of refugees.  Welfare use by refugees is staggering and is a huge cost to the USA at a time when it cannot afford this.  According to the 207 Report to Congress by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (p.91), among refugees who arrived during the 5 years previous to the survey 51% are on government medical assistance such as Medicaid, 25% have no health insurance at all, 49% are receiving food stamps, 25% are in public housing (an additional percentage is on a public housing waiting list), and 32 % are getting cash assistance such as TANF or SSI.   Related to this, I understand that 47% of loans made to refugees for transportation to the U.S. are unpaid leaving a balance of 450 million.  If interest is included on some of these unpaid loans, then the unpaid amount is well over a billion.  This is not affordable in a time of massive federal deficits.

   2)  Refugees and recent immigrants are often a source of Islamic terrorists and extremists – Somali refugees have been a source for Islamic terrorist recruits from Lewiston (Maine), Minnesota, and other parts of the USA such as Minnesota.   We should stop accepting refugees from countries with a history of producing Islamic terror as this brings terrorism and Islamic extremism into our country.  This should include Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia, northern Nigeria, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and northern Sudan at a minimum.

    3)  I am especially concerned that refugees from the Muslim faith will and are advocating for Shariah Law in the USA which is incompatible with our society and governmental system in many ways.  This is happening much more extensively in Europe which has a higher Muslim population.  The incompatibility with our system includes:

a.       Shariah involves a merging of church and state, rather than separation.
b.       It opposes freedom of speech as criticism of Islam is prohibited under Shariah.
c.       Since a Muslim cannot leave Islam without threat of death or serious injury by other radical Muslims, their religion does not support  freedom of religion which is a key part of our society.
d.      Islamic Shariah law opposes equal protection under the law since Muslims and Muslim men are treated much better under Sharia Law than nonbelievers and Muslim women. This is contrary to our notions of equality.

    4)  Muslim refugee immigrants are not integrating – they are staying separate.  They are highly unemployed even after many years here.  Many of the refugees are a source of crime in the USA such as the recent Somali sex trafficking case in Tennessee.  Muslim refugees and recent immigrants are known for sending money home to support extremism back in their home countries.   All of this is even more true in the United Kingdom and Europe which have much larger Muslim populations – showing that the hope that these patterns will change with time is wrong.

Thank you for considering my views  (author wishes to remain anonymous)

Look for more testimony tomorrow.

Posted in Muslim refugees, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Testimony for 5/1/2012 State Dept. meeting | 3 Comments »

 
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.

The Counter Jihad Report

News ~ Resources ~ Activism

"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.]

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 1,204 other followers

%d bloggers like this: