This is insane! Taxpayers pay rent for Somalis who feel the need to visit Somalia (for months!)

You cannot make this up! Virtually all Somalis who live in the US came here (we are told) as poor refugees (there are going on 200,000 of them). So how persecuted and fearful of returning home are they if many travel back and forth to Africa and the taxpayers of Minneapolis cover most of their rent while they are gone!

By the way, Somalis are not the only (fake) persecuted and impoverished ‘refugees’ who go ‘home’ for visits from time to time.

This is the story at the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Public housing residents in Minneapolis will no longer need to pay their normal monthly rent when travel abroad erases their income, a change particularly sought by East African immigrants.

The board of the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority approved this week reverting to its previous policy of collecting only minimal rent during extended absences. The change takes effect once approved by federal housing officials, which is expected by year’s end.

Minnesota Governor Dayton with Warsame. Remember Dayton is the MN pol who said if you don’t like our Somalis, you can move to another state.

Abdi Warsame, a City Council member, told the board that the policy in place for the past five years works a particular hardship on elderly East Africans who must save for long periods if they want to visit their homelands. He said that many receive federal Supplemental Security Income, which is halted when the recipient is outside the United States.

Yet the policy required people to keep paying rent, which is income-based. Travelers gone for 30 to 90 days could apply for a hardship, which meant that they paid the minimum $75 monthly rent during their absence, but were required to make up the difference between that and their normal rent over the next year or two.

The change will mean that residents will pay only the $75 minimum per month, assuming they apply for the hardship status. [Hardship status! Hardship status! How many of you have airfare money to fly to Africa?—ed]

From 50 to 75 public housing residents report such absences annually, according to Mary Boler, an agency manager. She said the cost of the change will be less than $50,000. The agency found that the paperwork burden of tracking repayment was higher than anticipated.

“This was brought up to us again and again and again in every building we visited in our ward,” Warsame said. “Everybody was afraid to leave the country.”  [But they weren’t afraid to go home to Somalia the country they supposedly escaped from???—ed]

We are such suckers!

By the way, one reason given for travel is the Hajj (it lasts 4 days not 30-90 days).

Additionally, I wonder is some Somali community activist group getting grants from the feds like the one in Maine.

36 thoughts on “This is insane! Taxpayers pay rent for Somalis who feel the need to visit Somalia (for months!)

  1. Not only that, but if Somalis in Minnesota are making an average wage of under ten dollar per hour (according to US Office of Refugee Resettlement), how can they afford a round trip ticket to Africa? I’ve flown to Africa round-trip, the fare was $2,500!


  2. Bout time people started waking up.
    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again and again until it becomes a reality:
    Islam should be eradicated from the face of the earth for the moral/social/religious plague that it is. Since that will never likely happen, the next best thing is for all civilized nations to ban Islam from their nations and to DEPORT ALL MUSLIMS, whether imported (immigrant) or home grown (citizen).
    That is, all Muslims in any civilized nation, after having been given the opportunity to renounce forever, the religion of Islam and having origins in another nation should be deported to their country of origin (regardless of current citizen/resident status) If their country of origin is another civilized nation where Islam is banned, then they are to be shipped to the nearest Islamic nation. All homegrown Muslims, after having the same opportunity to renounce Islam, should, upon refusal, be stripped of their citizenship and deported to the nearest Islamic country. Again, Islam should be banned from all civilized nations, the Muslims in those nations offered the chance to remain if they renounce Islam and if they love Islam more than the nation where they live, they can go live in an Islamic nation, freeing the rest of the world from the moral and social perversion that is Islam. Oh, I forgot to mention, under the umbrella of all Muslims needing to renounce Islam or be deported, that includes Islamic sympathizers/promoters. The ban on Islam would of course include any promotion or defense of it.
    Jail,and/or fine, all Muslims or Islamic sympathizers/apologists upon conviction of returning to the practice/defense of Islam, and deport upon release from Jail/Prison all Muslims or Islamic Apologists who resume the practice or defense of Islam.
    If you think these terms are harsh, think again. If you live in a Muslim country and are a Christian, Buddhist, Animist, whatever other than Muslim, you face far worse, you face anything from long term imprisonment up to and including beheading. So I say to hell with Islam.
    Oh, and it goes without saying, we in the USA should begin with Obummer and every member of his Criminal Enterprise Regime.
    Endnote: Not all Arabs are Muslims, this is not about “race” but about good vs evil, about the moral offense that is Islam.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. It needs to be pointed out the statement made in the headline is not supported by the article. No one is paying rent.

    This is public housing, which simply means the city is not collecting rent on a vacant unit. The claim in the headline would assume a landlord needs to write a check every month he cannot fill a unit or that a hotel must pay lodging taxes for rooms that are unoccupied on any given night.

    Sure, there are costs to keeping a unit vacant, but the $75 likely covers the majority of those costs. The estimated $50,000 lost in rent is likely offset by reduced wear and tear, as well as reduced requirements for staff.

    Equally important to point out is that, based on the writer’s numbers, this pertains to less than 0.04 percent of refugees, even though some here seem to think it’s running rampant.

    Sorry to interrupt your folly with a few facts. Proceed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is a ridiculous explanation. There is no reason that Somali refugees should be traveling (expensive flight) to the site of their supposed persecution (for months) and then expect to not pay their usual rent to hold the apartment (or are you telling me it is completely FREE?). Are there no other legitimately needy Americans in Minneapolis who would like that apartment for 12 months of the year instead of the Somali who gets it for 9 months!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Not really an explanation. Rather a clarification to point out your misleading headline.

        However, not all Somali refugees are here because they fled persecution. Some were escaping famine and drought or other hardships. (Likely a high percentage than the 0.04 percent that would benefit from this policy.) So, it seems justifiable that they may want to return home to assist their families or attend a funeral or other significant event. Or, have we lost all human compassion that we need to deny people the right to save their money over long periods so they can hug a loved one, say farewell to a family member or simply reconnect with their roots?

        And no one is saying it’s free. Your own post cites a $75 charge. I know you have already proven yourself incapable of understanding what words mean, but please due society a favor and learn the language before posting in the public realm.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. By legal definition a refugee is someone who is escaping persecution (nothing else) PERSECUTION for several reasons. Words do matter.


          1. Ahh. But this isn’t in a legal journal or court document. It’s in a commentary on a news article, which uses AP style and therefore assumes standard dictionary definitions unless otherwise defined. My Oxford dictionary defines refugee as “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster:”

            Understanding the source is the first rule of opinion writing. The second is to not assume everyone knows what you are talking about. (Although, on this site, it’s safe to assume they all are willing to agree with right-wing propaganda without actually looking too deep.)

            Liked by 1 person

        2. Mr. Death! I just had an idea! We are always looking for critics willing to write a guest column here at RRW (or those who want to correct something I’ve said). We do want to hear differing points of view. Would you write an opinion piece explaining how this special program for Somalis works in Minneapolis and explain how it is that they live in subsidized housing and yet travel back and forth to Africa because that looks really suspicious to some of us. I am serious. You can write it into a comment and I will place it prominently as a post. You can remain anonymous as you are now.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. Utter rubbish. If the tenant is paying even $75.00 rent he or she is obviously, at least to logical minds, the sitting tenant. Rent paid means the premises are occupied and not available to rent to any other party.

      I suppose the next move on the part of the moochers is to wrangle SSI payments even if the recipient is overseas.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. So they are paying rent, and they are not taking anything away from anyone else. At this point, it becomes an expensive storage locker that allows the tenants — whether overseas, across the country or in the hospital for a prolonged stay — to return to their homes after up to 90 days without adding additional hardship on the system, which we would then pay for. The cost of eviction and finding new homes for evicted tenants, or funding homeless shelters, would be far greater. But, maybe you’d rather pay higher taxes to see people put out on the streets.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. OIC so either give it away now or have to give it away later? More Pinko extortion. The Pinko always, ALWAYS uses the “are you that cold canard?” to give away public resources. Your other arguments are complete crap. Someone paying less money than they otherwise would have to IS loss to the public purse despite your attempt to backflips with logic. “The estimated $50,000 lost in rent is likely offset by reduced wear and tear, as well as reduced requirements for staff.” Really, according to who, you? “Pertains to only .04%” of people. The original article never says that–that number is your supposition. And even if you’re right, you ignore not only the symbolic disaster of this policy but the fact that the number is bound to grow once these people see others feeding at the trough.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Obviously, the answer is that they do not come here. But something tells me that this is unacceptable to you. Bring them all in, right?

          Your avatar is a perfect representation of a horse’s ass.

          Good on you.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I can’t help but point out that you are correct. Turning my back on people in need goes against what I am taught as a Christian and would be unacceptable to me. I would rather embrace the outsider in need and be rejected by neighbors who would be cruel than to turn my back on the lessons I learned in Sunday school.

            However, on another point, I must also correct you. My avatar, as my handle would suggest, is a donkey, not the hind end of a horse. So, your all-too-witty comment should have just noted it is the perfect representation of an ass. I would even accept jackass, but horse’s ass is simply wrong if you understand English and anatomy.

            This has been too fun, but I am needed elsewhere for the rest of my life. Carry on.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Great. Published:


    On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Refugee Resettlement Watch wrote:

    > Ann Corcoran posted: “You cannot make this up! Virtually all Somalis who > live in the US came here (we are told) as poor refugees (there are going on > 200,000 of them). So how persecuted and fearful of returning home are they > if many travel back and forth to Africa and the taxpa” >

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Insane is the word. Dangerous too. If you give people totally unreasonable and totally unmerited privileges like this, it doesn’t make them grateful, it makes them more and more arrogant and demanding. And the entire world has a big problem with Moslem arrogance.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. As if that would do any good. They are not interested in what the American people want, well, not normal Americans anyway. They’re only interested in accumulating personal power and wealth, which they hope to do by giving the Libtards in the nation what they want.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. what happened to for the people and by the people in our constitution . where does these government officials have the right to over rule the wishes of the american citizens of this country . this man in this post needs deported along with the samolis in michigan. more hillary clinton by getting paid for kissing ass of non citizens of this country . you need to impeach this guy and throw him out of office. texas stood up and was heard .

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.