Update: Breitbart has just learned that the Vermont Health Dept. has treated 17 cases of ACTIVE Tuberculosis in the refugee population placed in that state by the US State Department.
I’ve been remiss in not reporting on the drama in Rutland, VT last week as the Aldermen there voted on whether to place a referendum seeking the public’s approval (or disapproval) of the city becoming Vermont’s next federal resettlement site.
I am woefully behind on the Vermont news (although I did post on the latest regarding ACTIVE TB in the state here), so forgive me if more important things have happened since the vote. Here Watchdog.org reports on the vote (they voted to not put the referendum on the ballot).
By the way, the focus has been on Syrian refugees resettling there, but once an office is open, a smattering of many other ethnic groups will be brought in—Somalis, Congolese, Burmese, Iraqis and so forth—making assimilation even harder as each ethnic group creates its core community. Myriad ethnic groups also increase the expense to local tax payers for the school system and even the health department as interpreters must be provided for each group.
You should read Watchdog.org for all the details of the debate, but I wanted to emphasize one thing mentioned by one of the Aldermen:
David Trapeni, a two-time mayoral candidate and the organizer of the petition drive, criticized the resettlement plan as too open-ended.
“It’s not a hundred — it’s hundreds of refugees that come,” Trapeni said. “Once you open that door that’s it — you’re going to get hundreds, and you’re not going to have any say.”
I cannot stress enough how significant Trapeni’s comment is. He is exactly right! You cannot shut the spigot off once the pipeline starts to flow. You can’t next year say, well, that doesn’t work for us and expect the feds and their contractor to shutter the office they opened and fire the staff. This program builds on itself because first, the agency is paid by the head to resettle the refugees, and secondly they are hellbent on bringing in the family members once the original seeds are planted. You will be even more vilified when you say we don’t want families reunited.
In the controversy in Spartanburg, SC a year ago, the contractor/feds promised to bring in only 50 refugees, now the plan for next year is 150 (I didn’t check the exact number, but it is at least that many).
It will not end, just ask the mayors of Manchester, NH or Amarillo, TX who have been trying for years to close the spigot!
Aldermen ask Asst. Sec. of State Anne Richard for more information
This (news) is a very interesting turn of events and frankly I have to give this local body a thumbs-up for even taking an initiative like this.
Basically they are signaling that local governments have a right to all the facts. That is the last thing the refugee industry wants to set a precedent about. The arrogant feds and contractors are so accustomed to operating in secrecy that they don’t want to be in a position to answer questions.
A word of caution…
However, when pressed they have been able to put on shows for the public as they did in Spartanburg, SC and in Twin Falls, Idaho where they came to town and held private meetings (Spartanburg) or held a stacked public meeting as they did in Twin Falls and gave their positive spin on refugee resettlement. (So Rutland should be prepared for such a propaganda initiative from Washington.)
Nevertheless, every city government should be so audacious as to demand more answers from the federal government. After all, your town will be changed forever!
I’ll be very interested to see how Ms. Richard responds to the letter (read it here). Will she decide the controversy in Rutland isn’t worth pushing any further and move on to another (weaker) target town in Vermont? Or, will she put up a fight here as a show of power by bringing in her dog and pony show?
Read the whole story at the Times Argus.
Our Rutland archive is here (for new readers!).