Refugee Resettlement Watch

Archive for the ‘Refugee statistics’ Category

Obama looking to ‘welcome’ 213,000 humanitarian arrivals in FY17 with $2.2 billion budget

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 15, 2016

…..and that $2.2  billion is only for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS) portion of the costs!  It does not include the US State Department funding or the cost of security screening. Nor does it cover the cost of most welfare, subsidized housing, medical care and most of the cost of educating the children.  They aren’t saying yet how many Syrians Obama will be requesting.

While I was on my 30 day ‘listening tour’ that took me to 13 mid-western and western states, the Obama Administration held a press conference call about the stepped-up Syrian Muslim refugee flow in to the US.  Thanks to Christine for sending the transcript which I decided to post below in full.

Just so you know, all of the officials on the call are Obama appointees.  Remember them! These are the people who are changing the demographics and the character of your home towns.

Anne Richard and Robert Carey both revolved in to their government perches from a refugee resettlement contracting agency (the International Rescue Committee). Shin Inouye is a former Washington, DC spokesman for the ACLU.  And, for my friends in Montgomery County, MD, León Rodríguez was once your county attorney.

These Obama appointees are all hard core open (NO!) borders advocates, and if Hillary is elected they will likely be able to stay on and continue their work of changing America by changing the people!

And, if you are wondering, Obama has one more shot in September to make a determination about how many refugees will be admitted to the US in the next fiscal year.

We know what Obama is going to do, but what will Paul Ryan do?

It will be up to Speaker Paul Ryan and the REPUBLICANS to decide if the numbers Obama is requesting will be acceptable because it is Congress that will fund (or not fund!) the President’s final request!

This (below) is from a press conference call on August 5th. Those of you doing research around the country on what is happening where you live will find this useful.

BTW, I am struck by how little the reporters know about the program and so they largely wasted their questions.

See phone numbers at the end for the public affairs office of each government agency responsible for the refugee program.  If you are reporting via alternative media about what is happening where you live, try calling those numbers!  Call and ask questions even if you already know the answers!

 

Coordinator: 

Welcome and thank you for standing by. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode until the Question and Answer session of today’s conference. At that time you may press Star 1 on your phone to ask a question.

I would like to inform all parties that today’s conference is being recorded. If you have any objections you may disconnect at this time. I would now like to turn the conference over to Shin Inouye, USCIS. Thank you, you may begin.

Shin Inouye:   

inouyeshin

Inouye

Thank you (Sheila) and thank you all for joining us today to discuss the current state of Syrian refugees security screening and admissions. As a reminder this call is on the record and without embargo. On the call we have Assistant Secretary of State, The Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration, Anne C. Richard, US Citizenship and Immigration Services or USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, and Health and Human Services Director of Refugee Resettlement, Robert “(Bob)” Carey.

We’ll have our speakers offer remarks about their agency’s respective roles in the refugee process and then open up the call to your questions. Let me first turn it over to Assistant Secretary Richard.

Anne Richard:  

Thanks, this is Anne speaking. The United States has been a global leader in the resettlement of refugees. That’s why last year the President made a renewed commitment to help in some of the most vulnerable refugees in the world, pledging to increase the number of refugees we will accept from around the world to 85,000 from 70,000 per year over the last three years. As part of this commitment we also pledged to welcome at least 10,000 refugees fleeing the terrible conflict in Syria.

Anne Richard

Richard

To that end early in the fiscal year we began working to adjust the capacity of our refugee admissions program, to bring many more refugees to the United States. To welcome more refugees from Syria we worked with the Department of Homeland Security, with our intelligence community and with other relevant agencies to upgrade our capacities to conduct security screening. DHS increased the number of the DHS offices available to interview applicants so that more security screening interviews could take place for more applicants, resulting in more refugees approved for travel.

In Jordan, for example, between February and April of this year we worked with DHS to surge additional staff to Jordan where DHS offices conducted interviews for about 12,000 UNHCR referred refugee applicants. In Beirut, Lebanon we restarted interviews of refugees in February. These had stopped for a year because of space limitations in the embassy compound. In Turkey we added staff to the resettlement support center in Istanbul that covers refugee processing in Turkey and Lebanon and DHS sent additional officers to conduct interviews.

In Iraq we began processing refugee resettlement cases in Erbil in December 2015. Thanks to these efforts and through the coordinated efforts of the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, we can now say that we have 8,000 Syrian refugees so far this year and that we are very confident that we will welcome at least 10,000 refugees from Syria by the end of this fiscal year. Monthly totals have climbed from low numbers of refugees admitted in the first half of the year to higher numbers recently.

In May, June and July the impact of our investments in and the enhancements to the process began to be realized. Our expectation from the beginning was that the rate of Syrian refugee admissions would increase over time as referrals from UNHCR — the Human Refugee Agency — UNHCR increased as we added to the capacity to process more cases referred to us and as DHS sent more DHS officers to the field to conduct the necessary rigorous and exhaustive security screening.

Briefly and in closing we want to reiterate that this is just one line of multiple lines of effort that the US government is undertaking to help the victims of terrible conflicts and crisis around the world. I want to remind you all that President Obama will convene the leader’s summit on refugees on the margins of the 71st session of the UN General Assembly in September. This summit is about encouraging all countries to take action and do more now.

Wealthy governments are asked to make new and significant contributions relating to humanitarian financing and refugee resettlement or admissions – other forms of admission to their country. Countries that host refugees are asked to make new commitments related to refugee self-reliance and inclusion, with a specific focus on letting refugees work and allowing refugee children to go to school. The purpose of the summit is to recruit other countries to join with us and make a real difference in the world’s contributions towards helping refugees.

At this point I’d like to turn to my colleague, the head of USCIS, Leon Rodriguez.

Leon Rodriguez:  

Thank you Anne and thank you for your presentation. I too am gratified with the success that we’ve had in refugee admissions, particularly with respect to Syrian admissions. The process that we have applied to reach those admission levels is the same process that we have applied for many years – actually with a few enhancements that have further strengthened that process.

LeonRodriguez

Rodriguez

There are basically two critical components to the process and adjudicating, whether an individual is admitted to the United States as a refugee after that individual has been referred to us by the United Nations high commissioner and refugees and by the State Department. The first is to determine – this is what our officers do to determine whether that individual actually qualifies as a refugee – whether they meet the legal definition.

The legal definition that we use is derived from the United Nation’s convention on refugees, and that definition is used by all of the signatory countries to the convention, although in many cases each country interprets the conventions slightly differently. The second aspect and probably particularly critical for this discussion is we determined if — notwithstanding the fact that the individual meets the legal definition of refugee — if there is still some basis to deny that individual admission to the United States.

That can occur in one of two ways. In some cases we have – we exercise our discretion. For example if we have concerns about that individual’s credibility. In other cases we may have evidence that that individual falls under a specific category of inadmissibility. For example, if there is evidence that they are a known or suspected terrorist. To do that we used a number of tools. From my perspective the most critical of those tools is the refugee officer – is our highly trained, highly experienced staff that we deployed throughout the world to screen refugees.

Before they get there they have been extensively trained both in the legal tenants surrounding refugee law — the grounds inadmissibility that I discussed before — but also very critically in fraud detection and prevention, security protocols, interviewing techniques, credibility analysis.

They’ve also been briefed in country conditions and in regional conditions and again that briefing is often extensive, and the depth of that briefing grows as we spend more time in a particular refugee environment, be that the Syrian environment, the Iraqi environment, the Somalian environment, or as the case may be, the central American environment. The interviews that are conducted by those officers are frequently extensive – pro-credibility issues and pro-particular basis of inadmissibility.

In the specific cases of Syrians there are additional steps that are also taken. All of those cases or the majority of those cases, rather, are subject to something we call Syrian enhanced review, which provides us specific in-depth support both from our Refugee Affairs division and our Fraud Detection and National Security directorate to provide enhanced view of those cases before the interviews even occur overseas. This is intelligence-driven support – for example it yields specific lines of questioning that our officers are prepared to ask.

It also includes social media review of certain Syrian refugee applicants. Additionally and during the course of the interview an officer identifies areas of national security concern about a candidate, and that case moves into what we call the controlled application review and resolution process – essentially a hold process where further investigation and inquiry into that case occurs.

At the same time we have a number of law enforcement and intelligence resources that our officers utilize in order to determine whether there is any derogatory — and that’s a critical term — derogatory information about that individual. Those sources can come from State Department databases, databases of customs and border protection, the Department of Defense, but most critically from both the United States law enforcement and intelligence communities, including the FBI as well as a number of intelligence community partners as well.

One particularly important aspect there is a process that we call the intra-agency check which involves queries of a series of intelligence community holdings. That occurs not only prior to the interview of the individual but actually occurs on the recurrent basis during the entire process of that individual’s adjudication, and in many cases actually beyond the period of that individual’s admissions. So that if new derogatory information arises about that individual we are able to act on that derogatory individual – derogatory information at any time that that information may arise.

We have on an ongoing basis the implementing improvements to these processes – much of that is law enforcement sensitive or intelligence community protected. But those improvements have been occurring on an ongoing basis. I believe that this information is very critical because it really rebuts what is a widely held view that in fact we do not have resources against which to vet these individuals.

In fact literally hundreds of individuals from different countries, including hundreds of individuals from Syria, have had their admissions to the United States denied because of information that was found in these databases. Additionally, a number of other individuals have been denied admissions or have been placed on hold because we have determined – we have accessed that there are credibility concerns that have arisen during the interview process.

And that process is the same one that we conducted a year ago, two years ago and last week, and we will continue as we move through the process of screening refugees to apply those methodologies. Thank you.

Shin Inouye:     

Thank you Director Rodriguez. Next we’ll hear from Director Carey.

Robert Carey: 

bob carey

Carey

Okay thank you. (Bob) Carey here. We could go to the work of your Office of Refugee Resettlement, under the Refugee Act of 1980 Congress created within the Department of Health and Human Service and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and we are charged with providing refugees with resettlement assistance. This assistance includes employment training and placement, English language instruction, cash assistance and additional social services, all of which are designed to assist refugees in integrating into their new communities and to promote early self-sufficiency.

ORR carries out this work through an extensive public-private partnership network and funding to state governments and non-profit organizations across the US. In fiscal year 2016 ORR expects to serve upwards of 200,000 humanitarian migrants. So these humanitarian migrants include refugees, but also asylees, keeping Asian entrance on unaccompanied refugee minors, victims of torture and unaccompanied children.

Our work includes collaborations at the federal and state level with resettlement agencies, resettled refugees themselves and members of the communities that welcomed them. A central goal of the program is to ensure that states and municipalities have the best information available to help them prepare for incoming refugees. To this end each state has a state refugee coordinator, and often a state refugee health coordinator who oversees services and refugee benefits provisioned to eligible individuals in the given state.

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests include $2.2 billion for ORR programs and that represents the cost of maintaining services for additional refugees and other entrance and unaccompanied children primarily from Central America. The President’s budget request would support a total of 213,000 humanitarian arrivals including 100,000 refugees in 2017. Once a refugee arrives in the US they are eligible to access the same benefits as American citizens who are here legally including temporary aide to newly families, Medicaid, SSI, and SNAP.

When refugees do not meet eligibility requirements for these programs ORR provides time-limited refugee cash assistance and refugee medical assistance. Social services and targeted assistance funds are allocated to states based on a formula tied to the prior two years of refugee arrivals, and that accounts for refugees and other entrance movements to other states after their initial resettlement on their path to legal permanent residence and citizenship.

ORR also supports additional programs to refugees and integrating which include migrant enterprise development assistance for ethnic community organizations, agricultural partnerships and services for survivors of torture. Another critical service we provide is school impact program funding which provides approximately $15 million for activities that assists children in adjusting to school after the trauma of war flight and all too often interrupted education.

As an alternative to access and cash assistance refugees may also enroll in what is known as the Matching Grant program – that’s Intensive Case Management program conducted by private non-profit organizations which assists refugees in finding employment and in economic self-sufficiency – self-sufficiency within four to six months after their arrival in the US and which is funded with a combination of private and government funds. And at the end of the program last year 82% were self-sufficient at the end of 180 days. [This is a joke, refugees can still be receiving most forms of welfare, such as food stamps and housing help and still be labeled “self-sufficient.”—-ed]

In summary, the Office of Refugee Resettlement stands committed to welcoming integrating newcomers into the fabric of our society. We believe this goal benefits not only refugees and their families, but strengthens communities and our nation as a whole and refugee resettlement is a reflection of our core value of who we are as a country, providing protection to individuals fleeing persecution on the basis of their race, religion, political opinions or membership in a social group. So thank you.

Shin Inouye:   

Thank you Director Carey and thank you to all of our speakers. Operator if we can go ahead and open it up or if you could provide the instructions for how folks can ask questions.

Coordinator:

Thank you. We will now begin the Question and Answer session. If you would like to ask a question please press Star 1 to unmute your phone and record your name clearly. If you need to withdraw your question press Star 2. Again to ask a question please press Star 1.

Our first question comes from Julia Edwards with Reuters – your line is open.

Julia Edwards:      

Hi, thank you. I was wondering if you could quantify how many refugees or how refugees were not considered after the additional screening procedures that were put in place by Congress at the end of last year? Or was there anyone who was ruled out as a result of this additional screening measures being put in place?

Leon Rodriguez: 

I think that the screening measures were never actually voted into effect that you’re discussing, so when I talk about screening measures they’re basically the ones that we apply as our part of our ordinary process – that is joined between USCIS, State Department, the law enforcement intelligence community partners. And again what I would say is based on that screening – just speaking to the Syrian case, you know, hundreds – I wouldn’t be able to put a specific number on it now but hundreds have been denied.

There are even larger numbers of individuals who go on hold because concerns have been raised or – and also individuals who are denied on a credibility basis because our officers determined that there are concerns about the accounts that they’re given when we interview them.

Coordinator:       

Our next question comes from Julie Davis with the New York Times. Your line is open.

Julie Davis:  

Hi there. Well I was hoping you could be more specific about how many of the Syrian applicants had been denied because of the information that was found on the databases or put on hold because of credibility concerns. It sounds like you don’t have those numbers now. Would that be something you could get to us after the call potentially?

Leon Rodriguez:   

Yes we can see if we can get you those numbers. Again what I will share are those numbers are large. When we’re talking still about, you know, we’re talking about 8,000 who have been cleared for admission this year we’re still talking about a substantial number who have either been denied or held because of these types of concerns.

Julie Davis:      

Okay and also I’m wondering whether you can say, based on the up-ticks that you described, just in May, June, July – I assume August, you’re expecting will be the same if not larger in terms of refuge – Syrian refugees resettled. Do you expect that to continue rising into fiscal 2017, and do you have any estimate at all of how many Syrian refugees you may be looking at welcoming as a result of this surge in the next, you know, after the fiscal year ends?

Leon Rodriguez:

Actually I’m going to share a little bit more of an answer to your first question and I think I’m going to defer to my State Department colleagues. So our approval rates are 80%, denial rate is 7%, and the balance is hold – that kind of reflects the overall universe. So, you know, I can’t give you specific numbers that reflects about our clip of approvals denials and holds.

Julie Davis:     

Got it.

Leon Rodriguez:  

And Anne I’m wondering if you want to – I don’t know if you’re in a position to talk about next year or not…

Anne Richard:   

Well just to say the current pace of arrivals will continue through the end of this fiscal year so we may exceed 10,000 and for next year we will continue to welcome large numbers of Syrians, but it’s too soon to have a target figure established.

Coordinator:     

Thank you. And our next question comes from Jared Goyette with PRI. Your line is open.

Jared Goyette:  

Hi I was just wondering if you could provide any detail to the I-130 program and if that’s had any impact in terms of the numbers of, you know, the number of Syrian refugees coming in – that’s of course the family petition? Thank you.

Anne Richard:  

No we don’t have numbers for you for this call but we can follow-up on that after the call.

Jared Goyette:

Okay thanks.

Coordinator:   

The next question comes from Nick Ballasy with PJ Media News your line is open.

Nicholas Ballasy: 

Thanks for taking the question. My first – the first part of my question is among the applications for refugee status that have been denied, you said some of them were denied – was it because of national security or terrorism issues? And then the second part of my question is as you know, if you’re applying for legal status by marrying a US citizen or in a different category, you have to prove you have the financial support and you’re not a public charge and you also have to pay thousands of dollars in fees for those applications.

Why are refugees treated differently than people seeking legal status in the United States through the legal immigration process?

Leon Rodriguez:   

Sure, this is Leon Rodriguez and I’ll invite my colleagues to chime in as well. You know, the fact is that refugees are refugees because they’re often coming out of war-torn countries or countries devastated in some other way. Frequently individuals have been living away from their countries without any means of securing a livelihood, or in many cases when we’re talking about Syrians, of having their children educated. So more typically individuals do not have the economic wherewithal. It’s also – frankly it’s a statutory decision that was made. We do not have authority to charge any kind of fee for refugees – it’s not a legal authority that we have.

Nicholas Ballasy:  

And then the issue of the denied applications, was the reason for any of those denials national security or…

Leon Rodriguez: 

Yes.

Nicholas Ballasy:

…(test) and concerns?

Leon Rodriguez: 

Yes.

Shin Inouye:      

All right (Sheila) if you could move to the next question please?

Coordinator:   

Absolutely and as a reminder if you would like to ask a question you can press Star 1 on your phone and record your name when prompted. Our next question comes from Lauren Ashburn with EWTN. Your line is open.

Lauren Ashburn:   

Thank you very much and thank you for taking my call. The percentage of those Syrian refugees who have been let into the country – what percent are Muslims? Do you have that breakdown?

Anne Richard:     

Yes, most are Muslims over 99% are Muslims. [At least she is being honest! But, the reporter wasted her question because that information is readily available elsewhere.—ed]

Lauren Ashburn:  

And then what percent are of religious (execution) are fleeing (because they) say religious persecution?

Anne Richard:   

I don’t have that breakdown for you.

Lauren Ashburn:  

Okay and then you mentioned, Secretary Carey – you mentioned that 82% are self-sufficient at the end of 180 days and I was wondering how long do the rest of them stay on benefits? How long do you extend the benefits?

Robert Carey:    

The benefits access depends on the category. There are some individuals for whom, you know, refugee cash assistance can be extended for up to eight months for certain individuals, and then others may be eligible for mainstream benefits if they fit the qualifications.

Lauren Ashburn:   

Okay, thanks.

Coordinator:  

Our next question comes from (Esa Gomez) with ABC News. Your line is open.

(Esa Gomez):    

I was wondering out of the 8,000 of the admitted refugees how many of them were children?

Anne Richard:      

I should – we should have that number for you. Seventy eight percent were women and children and the number of children we’ll have to get you but let’s see  – nearly – let’s see, 4,576 were under 18 – just a little under half female and roughly half male of the children. [Does this really give us any comfort when we know it is the Somali “children” who grew up in America that have been the most radicalized of the Muslim migrants?—ed]

(Esa Gomez):   

Is that of the children or women and children?

Anne Richard:     

So the first number I gave you the 78% were women and children. And then the second that’s 78% out of 8,000. And then the number of children is – or under 18 year olds is 4,576 and they’re roughly half and half men and – girls and boys rather.

(Esa Gomez):       

Oh okay, thank you.

Coordinator: 

And again as a reminder you can press Star 1 on your phone and record your name if you have a question. One moment please for any additional questions. We are showing no further questions at this time. (Unintelligible)…

Shin Inouye: 

(Unintelligible) (a couple). All right, well thank you (Sheila). Thank you all for joining us. As a reminder this call is on the record and without embargo. If you have any additional questions here are the phone numbers for the respective public affairs offices for the participants on the call. The State Department is at 202-647-2492. Once again The State Department is 202-647-2492. USCIS is at 202-272-1200. Once again USCIS is at 202-272-1200. And HHS is at 202-401-9215. Once again HHS is at 202-401-9215. Thank you very much.

Coordinator:     

That does conclude today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may disconnect at this time.

This post is filed in our ‘where to find information’ category, here.

Posted in 2016 Presidential campaign, Colonization, Muslim refugees, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Taxpayer goodies, The Opposition, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 15 Comments »

Maryland Gov. Hogan says he is not voting for Trump; more refugees entering MD than during Dems control

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 18, 2016

Maryland Republicans were beside themselves with joy that in a blue, blue state they succeeded in electing a Republican governor in the fall of 2014.

The bloom is now off the rose as Governor Larry Hogan says point blank he will not vote for Donald Trump and doesn’t agree with most of what Trump says.  (By the way, Hogan owes some of his electoral success to help from NJ Governor Chris Christie an up front supporter of Trump, so who knows what is going on there!).

Larry Hogan

Looks like Hogan was all talk when he said he didn’t want Syrian refugees resettled in Maryland.

By saying what he did, he has now, for all intents and purposes, thumbed his nose at 248,000 Marylander Republicans who voted for Trump in the primary. See Blue Ridge Forum here (248,000 orphaned GOPers).

I don’t want to get too deep into the weeds of Maryland Republican politics, but long-time Republican observer and former staffer for Congressman Roscoe Bartlett said this (below) on her facebook page.

This would have been an excellent way for the Governor to respond to demands that he tell Marylanders where he stands in this fall’s election. My prediction is that Hogan has just guaranteed that he will be a one-termer.

Keep in mind that the man who wants the governor’s mansion two years from now is Congressman John Delaney, an uber-wealthy Democrat who is apparently already bored with Congress and has been hounding the Governor to say if he supports Trump. (Delaney wins this round!).

Here is the sensible thing Hogan should have said. Maybe it’s just as well he wasn’t smart enough to give a nuanced answer.

Sallie Taylor on facebook:

SCREAM! How hard would it be for Hogan to reply “I am certainly not going to be voting for the former Secretary of State who put all our safety at risk by setting up her own unsecured email system, who failed to protect her own people in Benghazi , who appears to have been selling government favors for contributions to the Clinton Foundation.” And then Hogan just needs to walk away. Unless he is joining O’Malley and is supporting Hillary Clinton for President then how he is answering makes perfect sense.

Enough of that…..

Since this is a blog about refugees, I decided to see how the numbers are looking during Governor Hogan’s Administration. Remember he was one of the 30 or so governors who declared that Obama shouldn’t resettle un-vetted Syrians in the state and then he went silent.

Maryland doesn’t get a huge number of refugees compared to states like Texas or Michigan, but a steady stream does arrive.

However, much to our surprise more entered in the year after Hogan was elected than in any one of Martin O’Malley’s years.

Editor: It is a good thing we checked these numbers yesterday because today that important data base maintained by the US State Dept. is not available.  We hope this is a temporary problem, but if by Monday it isn’t up and running, then we know the Obama Administration is blatantly blocking the public’s right to know who has been seeded into their towns. 

Yesterday I went back ten years in the data and found that in 2005, Maryland resettled 751 refugees with a gradual increase each year until 2015 when the number jumped to 1,453 (under the Hogan Admin).  In those last ten plus years, Maryland ‘welcomed’ 12,112 refugees.

In 2016, the state has, as of June 15th, received 137 Syrians  (35 in 2015 and 93 so far this year).  The Syrians were distributed to Baltimore, Ellicott City, Riverdale, and Silver Spring.

MD resettled Muslim refugees from Iraq, Burma, Afghanistan and Somalia among many others from around the world.

Here are the towns and cities where refugees were resettled this year (some got only a handful, others got large numbers with Baltimore and Silver Spring being the top destinations).

Arbutus

Baltimore

Catonsville

College Park

Dundalk

Ellicott City

Elkridge

Gaithersburg

Halethorpe

Middle River

Nottingham

Riverdale

Rockville

Silver Spring

Looking for fresh territory! Hagerstown?

Rest assured, the contractors are out scouting new sites in Maryland and may have their eyes on Hagerstown (again).

Back in April (when we were away for a few days) the Hagerstown Herald Mail reported that the local “interfaith” group invited Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (one of nine major resettlement contractors headquartered in Baltimore) to come and discuss bringing Syrians to Hagerstown.  See here.

Watch for it!  And, know that they don’t technically have to have an office in Hagerstown (as Virginia Council of Churches did in 2007 before the program was closed) because they can resettle within a hundred mile radius of an existing office.

See our archives on Baltimore refugees by clicking here.  Could the stress from forced multiculturalism be an important factor in why Baltimore is now a city out of control?

Posted in 2016 Presidential campaign, Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Muslim refugees, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee Resettlement Program in Maryland, Refugee statistics, Resettlement cities, Taxpayer goodies, The Opposition, Who is going where | Tagged: | 13 Comments »

Florida: Eleven refugees entered the state with active TB since 2013

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 31, 2016

This is the next in a series of stunning refugee health reports from Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.

We knew refugees were permitted to move to your towns and cities with latent Tuberculosis but had never heard that cases of active TB were arriving until Leahy began his series.

cuba-unloading-ship-1024x834

Most Americans are shocked to learn that we are still admitting tens of thousands of Cuban “refugees” each year with most going to Florida. Now to add insult to injury we learn that they are not screened for TB and some have arrived with an active form of the communicable disease. Photo: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/01/05/time-to-end-special-privileges-for-cuban-immigrants/

Do you remember a few years ago the media was going berserk because one guy with active TB flew on a plane somewhere and the news media was going crazy trying to piece together information on where he had been and with whom he sat on the plane.

Well, just think about this, eleven cases were walking around Florida’s mostly Cuban community with active TB in the last couple of years.

So where is the mainstream media now?

Here is Leahy again in a very detailed account of the situation:

Eleven refugees with active tuberculosis (TB) were among more than 111,000 refugees who arrived in Florida during the three years between 2013 and 2015, according to a report the Florida Department of Health recently sent to Breitbart News.

Their active TB status was determined in medical screenings completed within 90 days of their arrival in the Sunshine State.

This news comes barely a week after Breitbart News reported that four refugees with active TB were sent to Indiana in 2015.

[….]

The vast majority of these refugees who arrived in Florida between 2013 and 2015–104,000 of the 111,000– came from Cuba under the “wet-foot, dry-foot policy,” the 1995 “amendment to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act. . . [that] gives migrants from Cuba special treatment that no other group of refugees or immigrants receives… [and] puts Cubans who reach U.S. soil on a fast track to permanent residency,” as Dan Moffett reports.

Only a small percentage of these 104,000 Cuban refugees–an estimated total of 3,000–entered as “traditional arrival” refugees, the program through which approximately 70,000 refugees per year enter the United States from over 100 different countries.

If you are confused by the numbers, Leahy explains that the huge number of Cuban supposed “refugees” admitted to the US are given the same special treatment that regular refugees receive.  However, at least the regular refugees have some screening abroad while the Cubans do not.  They can literally walk around in your neighborhoods for weeks before they even get any health screening.

Continue reading here.

This is our 300th post in our ‘health issues’ category.  Some of Leahy’s earlier reports are archived there.

I wonder, are volunteers who work with refugees briefed by the resettlement contractor about what diseases, parasites etc. the refugees might be carrying?

Posted in Changing the way we live, Community destabilization, health issues, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Taxpayer goodies, Who is going where | Tagged: , , | 8 Comments »

Comment worth noting: reader wants map to show state per capita refugee arrivals

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 30, 2016

Reader TipTipTopKek asked the following in a comment to the post last night with the map of the US .  He/she wants to know which states receive the most refugees on a per capita basis.

I would love to see these raw numbers reconfigured in two different ways:

First, as a per capita number based on the total population of the State

Second, as a per capita number based on the NON-HISPANIC WHITE population of the State

My suspicion is that, generally speaking and with Wyoming as an obvious exception, the highest RAPEfugee flows have been into the WHITEST States.

Maybe some one of you is good with numbers, I’m not, however we have previously posted the map below which shows the distribution of refugees to states on a per capita basis, but we don’t know which states are the whitest. I’m guessing the Dakotas, Nebraska, Idaho and Vermont are examples of states with large white populations and they definitely are getting more than their share of refugees.  There is no doubt there is a method to the madness—the UN/US State Dept. is seeding diversity.

 

map-refugees-distorted

What is this you ask? It is a map distorted to show which states are disproportionately receiving refugees based on their overall populations for years 2009-2012.  The number in each state is the number of refugees resettled per existing residents of the state. http://www.humanosphere.org/basics/2014/02/map-day-refugees-accepted-us-states-population-adjusted/

 

Editor: All of our ‘comments worth noting’ are archived here.

Posted in Comments worth noting/guest posts, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Where to find information, Who is going where | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

Top resettlement states in last ten years

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 29, 2016

I was looking for something else and found this map. Don’t you just love that white hole in the middle—Wyoming!

As we have reported many times, the top states resettling refugees are Texas, California, New York, Florida and then Michigan, Illinois, Arizona and a couple of others vying for the #5 spot.

The map is for FY2006-FY2015:

 

map US top states

 

Posted in Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Where to find information | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

ORR Annual Reports to Congress are very useful

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 17, 2016

Someone asked me today where to find the number of refugees who were resettled in each state in the US over the years and it reminded me that we have many many new readers every day who are just beginning to try to get a handle on how the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program works.

Annual Report to Congress

Most recent Annual Report to Congress

Very useful documents are the Office of Refugee Resettlement Annual Reports to Congress*** which are full of all sorts of data, not just the statistics on how many refugees were resettled in your state, but they include data on welfare use, employment, housing, and medical assistance, among other things.

They also include reports from the VOLAGs (the federal contractors) and discussions of special problems that some refugee populations encounter here. And, of course there is information about the myriad grants these contractors receive each year.

I can’t say it enough, but knowledge is power.  If you want to begin to understand what is happening in your towns and cities, start by looking at one of these documents.

Click here for a list of available reports.

By the way, the Refugee Act of 1980 specifies that this report should be completed and sent to Congress by the end of January following the close of the fiscal year.  Thus, the 2015 Annual Report should be available, but they are behind in producing it.

So what else is new! At one point a few years ago, they were three years behind!

For new readers we have a category entitled ‘where to find information,’ and you might want to have a look at it from time to time.

P.S.  I just spent a few minutes examining Table 1 (of the Appendix) in the FY2009 Annual Report where it cataloged how many refugees and from what countries were resettled in each state between 1983 and 2009. Wow! Amazing!

***This is not to be confused with another report to Congress that accompanies the President’s proposal for the upcoming fiscal year.  That report also has much useful data but is not as comprehensive as the reports found here.

 

Posted in Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Where to find information | Tagged: , , , , | 12 Comments »

Top language of refugees entering the US since 2008 is still Arabic

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 17, 2016

We previously reported on data regarding top languages of refugees here in April of last year.

This is the latest from the US State Department’s Refugee Processing Center, here.  This is data for the period from 2008 up until April 30, 2016.

Remember, these are only the languages spoken by refugees, this does not include those spoken by other categories of legal immigrants or of illegal immigrants.

 

Screenshot (36)

[If the above isn’t clear enough, this is the list: Arabic, Nepali, Somali, Sgaw Karen, Spanish, Chaldean, Burmese, Armenian, Kiswahili, other.]

We notice that since we reported a year ago, Somali has moved up to number three.  Also Kayah (a language from Burma) is off the list and Kiswahili (African language) replaces it at number 9.  I’m guessing that is because the State Department is moving ahead quickly with its proposed resettlement to your towns of 50,000 from the DR Congo.

Pay attention new refugee resettlement towns and cities!

When contemplating becoming a “welcoming” refugee community, remember you, state and local taxpayers are responsible for providing interpreters (Bill Clinton Executive Order!) for just about anything from medical treatment, problems in the school system and in the criminal justice system, etc. etc. etc.

Posted in Changing the way we live, Muslim refugees, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Stealth Jihad, Taxpayer goodies, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 14 Comments »

North Dakota update: seems that very few elected officials have a clue about what ol’ Teddy and Joe created

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 9, 2016

Back in 1980 when Jimmy Carter signed the monster into law (after it was pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden) everyone jumped on board (every state but Wyoming!) and figured this was just one of those warm and fuzzy feel-good plans from Washington.

Ted and Joe

Thank Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden for being the ‘brains’ behind the bill that became the Refugee Act of 1980

It was put on auto-pilot (no serious review by Congress has happened in 35 years) until now when the once seemingly innocuous program has grown so large, so costly and fraught with security risks that the public is finally paying attention.

Here is the latest on North Dakota, a state with one of the highest per capita rates of refugee placement, and where elected officials are now trying to figure out what rights they have to slow it or get out altogether.

The story is here at Breitbart where reporter Michael Patrick Leahy tells us how the North Dakota Senator and former governor doesn’t understand how the program works.

Read the story.  Learn how much your state is on the hook for!

Now this…

Every “humanitarian arrival” costs the US taxpayer a bare minimum of $10,000 per person. Do our Washington elected officials even have a clue?

I want to use this opportunity of the Breitbart story to highlight a brief mention of the cost of the program reporter Leahy mentions near the end.  Here is what Leahy said:

Hoeven is not the only member of Congress who does not seem to understand how the federal refugee resettlement program works. In fact, hardly any members of Congress seem to have such an understanding. That may be the most obvious reason to explain why Congress continues to fund the VOLAGS who operate it to the tune of $1 billion a year.

Since a reader asked just this morning about the cost of the program (in light of the upcoming opportunity to testify), the best I can do is send you here to Obama’s proposed FY 2016 Report to Congress (from Sept. of 2015) on what the Administration said the program would cost the feds in this year (2016).  Go to Table VII and see that they estimated $1.19 billion total.  That includes $652 million for the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

However, when you go here to the Dept. of Health and Human Services FY2017 Budget Justification (begin on p. 244) you will see a very different story. Either the budget has dramatically increased (from 2016 to 2017) or Obama was downplaying the costs only 6 months ago.

Get this! Obama’s FY2017 budget includes (rounded number) $2.2 BILLION just for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) where they say they will care for 213,000 “humanitarian arrivals” including Obama’s 100,000 refugees he has been touting for next year.

The FY 2017 budget of $2,184,860,000 for this account represents the cost of maintaining current law and service requirements for additional refugees and other Entrants and unaccompanied children and for expanding assistance to domestic victms of trafficking. The funding levels for the Refugee and Entrant Assistance account in FY 2017, particularly with regard to Transitional and Medical Services, Social Services, Preventative Health, and Survivors of Torture programs.

The President’ Budget request would support a total of 213,000 humanitarian arrivals in FY 2017, including 100,000 refugees, consistent with the Administration’s commitment to admit at least this number of refugees in FY 2017. The FY 2017 base funding level for unaccompanied children represents an increase of $278,000,000, which is flat from the base resources available in FY 2016, including carryover.

I’m rotten at math, but doesn’t that amount to over $10,000 per refugee just for the ORR share.

That over $2 billion figure does not include the costs of the US State Department which pays contractors their per head fee and it doesn’t include the enormous security screening costs for the Dept. of Homeland Security for the large numbers arriving from Muslim countries.

And, it most certainly does not include the (surely!) billions in welfare payments, medical care and education for the children refugees receive.

 

Posted in Changing the way we live, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Taxpayer goodies, Where to find information | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Refugee kids get more welfare benefits than American poor kids

Posted by Ann Corcoran on April 25, 2016

MPI children reportThanks to all who sent this information from Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner:

America loves kids, but Uncle Sam has a favorite: children of refugees.

Among recipients of food stamps, welfare cash and Social Security payments, refugee children receive more in taxpayer-funded aid than children of citizens, according to a new report on federal spending from the pro-immigration Migration Policy Institute***.

Click here for more and to follow link to the report.  We know that refugees generally get more welfare than American citizens.  See stats in the most recent ORR Annual Report to Congress, here.

*** For regular readers, you may remember that it was the Migration Policy Institute which co-hosted a forum we attended last fall.  I am so interested to see that they would actually publicize information that is critical of the US refugee industry.  When Congress debated the bill that became the Refugee Act of 1980, members were told this was not a program to import poverty. Oopsy!

Posted in Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Taxpayer goodies | Tagged: | 15 Comments »

Somali flow to America is three decades old with no end in sight!

Posted by Ann Corcoran on April 21, 2016

Update: Thanks to two readers for sending this story from Minneapolis today.  Police are looking for five Somali men in a case of alleged sexual assault.

Leo Hohmann writing at World Net Daily has a very detailed accounting of the flow of Somali ‘refugees’ to America, please see it by clicking here.

And, just to set the record straight, it was the George W. Bush State Department that brought the most Somalis to America (so far).

See this very informative graphic below and ask yourselves why, more than 3 decades after THEIR civil war, is it America’s responsibility to continue rescuing them?

There are by some counts, a half a million Somalis waiting in a massive UN camp in Kenya for their turn to come to your town.

Why does this continue to be America’s problem?

Very cool graphic at World Net Daily:

graphic-for-somali-refugees

Posted in Africa, Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Muslim refugees, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Taxpayer goodies, Who is going where | Tagged: | 11 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,339 other followers

%d bloggers like this: