Refugee Resettlement Watch

Barnett: Contractors monopolize US resettlement as it is all about money, not what is best for America

Posted by Ann Corcoran on December 1, 2015

Don Barnett, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies reports on how the resettlement contracting business works in an opinion piece in the Washington Times, here on Sunday.

don-barnett

Don Barnett, a resident of Tennessee, is a longtime expert on the US Refugee Admissions Program, and is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.

In his opening paragraphs he reports on a little known (declassified) report for the National War College published in 2000.  The author was (and may still be) a longtime employee of the US State Department and intimately involved in refugee resettlement.

I urge all of you to read the Robinson study, we reported on it here in 2010 (you will find a link to the study in that post), because it demonstrates how supposed ‘refugees’ became political pawns for the Clinton Administration’s justification for its phony-baloney Bosnian war, and how the contractors looking for more paying clients (aka refugees) urged an airlift of Kosovar ‘refugees’ who didn’t even want to come to America!  The airlift was a twofer!

The report is entitled: ‘How public opinion shaped refugee policy in Kosovo.’

Barnett at the Washington Times:

Despite the exposure refugee resettlement has received lately, there has been little discussion of how the program actually operates.

Each year the administration establishes source regions and numbers for next year’s quota. The U.N. refugee agency refers most of the refugees that come through the system, though embassy staff and State Department contractors may also make referrals. An influential network of private contractors implements the program.

Speaking of the contractors running refugee resettlement, David M. Robinson, a former acting director of the refugee bureau in the State Department, wrote in 2000,

“The agencies [the resettlement contractors—ed] form a single body [that] wields enormous influence over the Administration’s refugee admissions policy. It lobbies the hill effectively to increase the number of refugees admitted for permanent resettlement each year and at the same time provides overseas processing for admissions under contract to the State Department. In fact, the federal government provides about ninety percent of its collective budget. If there is a conflict of interest, it is never mentioned.”

“[Its] solution to every refugee crisis is simplistic and the same: increase the number of admissions to the United States without regard to budgets or competing foreign policy considerations.”

Continue reading here.

Readers!  For the first time in 35 years you are helping to create a serious roadblock to these nine federal contractors that have ruled the roost and called the shots for decades, please keep up the pressure.

The most important thing  you can do today is laid out for you in our post yesterday on the Omnibus funding bill before Congress!

Addendum:  As I reread my post from 2010, I was reminded that one of the terrorists arrested as part of the Ft. Dix Six terror plot was a refugee—add him to the list of refugee terrorists that the contractors say do not exist!

And a note to any reporters reading this: we have an enormous body of work here—over 7,000 posts—use our search function for key words for anything you are working on!

Action Alert:  Call your members of the House and Senate at 202-224-3121 and ask them to vigorously oppose the Refugee Resettlement funding contained in the Omnibus Spending Bill that will be voted on by 12-11-15! Please call by this Friday, Dec. 4th.

11 Responses to “Barnett: Contractors monopolize US resettlement as it is all about money, not what is best for America”

  1. domstudent11 said

    Ann, you are a genius! Look at this article in Breitbart:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/29/unholy-alliance-christian-charities-profit-1-billion-fed-program-resettle-refugees-40-percent-muslim/

    Like

  2. 7delta said

    I should add that the citizenship-focused NGO’s were in trouble because of widespread fraud in helping the immigrants to obtain citizenship. Stacks of tests were found that were all written in English, in the same handwriting and with all the questions answered in exactly the same wording. In interviews with some of the immigrants, interviewers discovered large numbers of immigrants that could not speak or understand one word of English, but answered all the questions on their tests in English. Apparently, there were no translators to blame, which is maybe why Clinton passed a law that requires translators to be provided every step of the way through life for non-English speaking immigrants. There were other issues with the NGO’s, as well, but the above sticks out in my memory.

    Like

    • Ann Corcoran said

      The Clinton Administration requirement for interpreters was an Executive Order that Bush could have tossed if he wanted to—he didn’t want to (according to Bush’s brain Karl Rove).

      Like

      • 7delta said

        Really? I thought it was an actual bill, or tacked onto one, from Congress that he shepherded through and signed. Not a bill, huh? That creates a requirement, regulation or rule, without State consent or legislation that expressly provides executive authority to impose such a requirement? Which, even then, possibly circles back around to divisions of power and restricted authority within those powers to infringe on another power’s authority?

        I don’t recall the Constitution granting the feds the authority to force States to provide anything materially to immigrants. Art. 1, Sec. 8 merely grants the central government the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization. Providing translators isn’t exactly a necessary uniform rule of discretion about persons or the procedures for admittance to the U.S. or for the legal process to citizenship, which is all the Constitution grants in plenary powers to the feds, plus what is required to recognize or deny citizenship of children born abroad to citizen parents and children born within U.S. jurisdiction to non-citizen parents, neither of which apply in this case. The States don’t have any role or responsibilities in any of those procedures, other than when citizens and States object to the fed’s handling of their responsibilities and loudly tell their reps and the executive about their unhappiness. Admission, U.S. citizenship and required uniform rules and regulations are solely between the feds (Congress mainly) and the alien.

        If there is authority to provide translators throughout the whole country and school districts, etc., then looks to me (and the Constitution) like it should be the feds responsibility to pay every dime of the costs, not the burden of States or local governments. Very interesting. I’m thinking… Need some documents to read…for a change. Thanks.

        Like

        • Ann Corcoran said

          Here is the basic info…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13166

          bottom line when some state agency gets federal bucks (which is just about any agency!), it must provide interpreters. There is so much that has never been challenged in the courts and I predict if it would be then we might actually get somewhere. Now, I’m not one of those who want to put all my eggs in the court basket (not today’s courts!), but it would be one more way of sending a message to our do-nothings in Washington!

          Like

          • 7delta said

            bottom line when some state agency gets federal bucks

            Exactly. That’s how the feds institute unconstitutional programs. States give consent by accepting funding for the program and relinquish their sovereignty within the narrowly defined parameters of the contract, so they agree to abide by all rules and regulations that apply to the program. I see the angle for this EO is Title IX, non-discrimination, but I think it could (and should) be challenged, since the federal government’s responsibility to ensure immigrant compatibility. Not speaking English is not what I’d call discrimination when you’re in an English speaking country. I wouldn’t expect somebody to pay for me to have an Arabic translator, if I went to Saudi Arabia…as if I would. Besides, what agency is getting federal dollars for a specific program that would apply to requiring translators on State and local levels? Do States get money for refugees or immigrants, specifically, for public aid programs, like Medicaid and TANF or whatever, or is it part of the original agreement that the refugees simply have to qualify, then sign up, like Americans? If that’s the case, then they aren’t on the program because they refugees or immigrants, but because they are allowed to be, which puts them on the same level as Americans. Since English-speaking Americans aren’t getting special services above and beyond the basic offerings, providing them to aliens is discriminating against Americans. Heck, the expenditure discriminates against all Americans, since public aid programs are intended for American citizens. Sounds good to me anyway.

            In the past, pre-Clinton EO, English was required to immigrate, but not without exceptions. If Grandma didn’t speak English or not well, the family or sponsors were required to provide someone to translate when needed. Back in my public health days, pre-EO, our translators were either family or community volunteers who came with patients to clinic appointments. Since the feds have taken over being “sponsors”, then they should be the volunteer “family” :>) My tax dollars deny the feds authority to make every single want or need of every single person in the world a civil right…that I must pay for. You can’t pay for a civil right, since there is no purchase price for equal treatment under the law. Good grief. There is no civil right to a translator and we aren’t discriminating against someone because they don’t speak English. Geez. Next up…a civil right to have free high-speed Internet…oh wait…Mignon Clyburn, head of the FCC or something, said that a while back…but hasn’t happened…yet. What’s wrong with people? I mean, other than intellectual laziness and lusting after someone else to pay the bills, as if you don’t eventually run out of other people’s money.

            Thanks, Ann.

            Like

  3. 7delta said

    I urge all of you to read the Robinson study, we reported on it here in 2010 (you will find a link to the study in that post), because it demonstrates how supposed ‘refugees’ became political pawns for the Clinton Administration’s justification for its phony-baloney Bosnian war, and how the contractors looking for more paying clients (aka refugees) urged an airlift of Kosovar ‘refugees’ who didn’t even want to come to America! The airlift was a twofer!

    Thanks for linking to Robinson’s study. That’s one I’ve missed. However, not long ago I read the Congressional records for a hearing held during the Clinton Administration regarding the influx of refugees and immigrants from third-world countries and the Administration’s push to grant them citizenship as quickly as possible. The hearing covered the lack of vetting and the “streamlining” of the both the approval process and naturalization, which, of course, resulted in a mind-boggling morass of inefficiency, national security failures and miscommunication between agencies that, before being “streamlined”, already had simple efficient methods for doing the job.

    The Administration allowed in thousands of people who, it turned out, didn’t pass the security checks, but that information was lost in the “streamlining” black hole until after they had already been admitted into the country. No one, as far as I can tell from the hearing records, was deported for failing to pass muster. If deportation of any of the failed checks did happen, possibly it took place after the hearing and were likely very few. I don’t know, since I don’t recall the hearing addressing the issue.

    One email from within the Administration, obtained by a FOIA request–I think by the Center for Immigration Studies–had the author of the email lamenting about the outright neglect of previous standards applied to immigrants, such as good character, no criminal record, no subversive ideologies, etc. Those standards had been completely abandoned and we were allowing in the absolute “dregs of humanity.” His words, not mine, though that might not be an exact quote. It does express his sentiments and maybe even more kindly. The body count was apparently more important than the compatibility or security risks of aliens.

    Much of the hearing dealt with the motivation of the Clinton Administration in subverting the immigration system. Evidence certainly pointed to a concerted effort by the Administration and politically/ideologically sympathetic NGO’s that sprung up to streamline voter registration and to lobby for more refugees and immigrants to increase Democratic voters. These NGO’s sported names like Voting America or something that seems awfully similar to Welcome America. There were state chapters too, just like with Welcome America. May still be.

    While I agree that procuring votes was likely the prominent goal for most of the actors in pushing these reckless changes to the system, it’s not off the rails to remember that nothing happens in a vacuum. With what we know now about the ease with which Bill and Hillary have accepted “donations” from specific entities, including foreign interests, it’s likely that other “interests” were able to use this opportunity to advance their own agenda. Huma Aberdin comes to mind. There’s always more to the story when power and wealth is the carrot.

    Sadly, it looks like the hearing did little to set right the immigration and refugee system abuse.

    Like

    • I called my US House Rep Thomas Massie (for the 21st time) and again reiterated my support of defunding immigration via refugee resettlement. The minion answering the phone (not his fault he is only acting as instructed) stated that he sees that I am “in the system” having called and emailed before. I asked him, “tell me, son, are you from the Northern Kentuckly area served by Rep Massie?” His answer, as predicted, was, “no, ma’am, I am not.” I quickly told him no offense but not being from my area, he cannot possibly understand nor support the voting constituents in Mr. Massie’s US House representative area. I went on to state that THE hot button item for 2016-2017 is the immigration issue. I further stated, that, having campaigned for Mr. Massie on his conservative/family values/christian values platform, I would NOT be supporting him in the future if he did not exemplify those values as they relate to this issue. I went further to inform the phone-answering minion that, after 20 plus calls, 12 emails and 3 letters sent via USPS, I did not receive an answer from Mr. Massie himself, he could consider my campaign to thwart his re-election null and void, as I would inform each and every person I know, both personally and in the groups I attend, that he has lied to the people of Northern Kentucky and I will use every effort to ensure that he is not re-elected. I further stated that,. at the very least, Mr. Massie needs to contact me personally, not via a minion from wherever USA to let me know where HE stands on this issue.

      Like

  4. […] Barnett: Contractors monopolize US resettlement as it is all about money, not what is best for … December 1, 2015 […]

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: