Refugee Resettlement Watch

Archive for the ‘Refugee statistics’ Category

City Journal: Refugees bring numerous health problems with them to your towns; more reporting needed

Posted by Ann Corcoran on October 20, 2016

LOL! But New York City dwellers need not worry too much because most refugees resettled in the state of New York go to other towns and cities.  New York is virtually always in the top five resettlement states in the nation.

This article at City Journal by Jonathan Leaf is a bit strange as one is initially cautioned about using fear mongering on the subject of refugee health, but when you read carefully writer Leaf then tells readers about some serious health concerns and he wraps up with this paragraph:

Regardless of their views of secularism, constitutionalism, or jihad, refugees entering the United States from the Middle East may be vulnerable to or carrying an array of potentially serious ailments. Thoughtful reporting on this aspect of the refugee debate is long overdue.

We have been doing thoughtful reporting on refugee health issues for nine years! For any serious student of refugee health, visit our ‘health issues’ category with 319 previous posts on the topic.


We are bringing in 50,000 from the DR Congo at this time. Communicable diseases found in Congolese refugees during domestic medical examinations in 6 states from 2010–2013 (n=2,355)* From the CDC:

Here (below) is more from City Journal.  I don’t see any mention of huge mental health treatment needed by refugees or any mention of who is paying for all the treatment (that would be you, the taxpayer).

Most of the critical comments in the press—and almost all of the hostile insinuations from our politicians—about the arrival of refugees from the Middle East have focused on the newcomers’ Islamic faith. The persistent question being asked is, “What are the implications of a growth in the numbers of Muslims in our country?” This might be a legitimate concern, but it’s obscuring immediate issues about the health of these refugees. That subject is either ignored or presented in hysterical terms.


For residents of New York City, afflictions affecting refugees are unlikely to have much immediate consequence. That’s because the federal agency coordinating refugee resettlement is bringing roughly 95 percent of refugees entering the state to locations outside the city. In addition, all refugees entering the country receive two medical screenings. One, which is intensive, is undertaken three to six months before arrival. A much briefer follow-up examination is done just before the refugee comes to our shores. [As we have said previously, having been screened does not mean they are screened out and denied entry!—ed]


Many refugees now arriving in the United States are affected by potentially serious communicable ailments. Indeed, since at least 2001, health authorities in Minnesota have known that more than one-third of those in the state with active tuberculosis cases were Somali immigrants. This problem has existed among many other immigrant groups as well, according to a study published by the National Institutes of Health, including patients from “Ethiopia, Laos, Mexico, Vietnam, Mexico, Liberia and India.” Thus, by 2014, 73 percent of tuberculosis cases in Minnesota affected the foreign-born, and approximately two-thirds of TB cases nationally are found among immigrants.


The infected may develop the disease later or act as carriers of the bacillus.

Measles has become endemic in Syria, and Syrians show high rates of infection with highly communicable hepatitis A. Refugees wishing to come to the United States must demonstrate that they have been immunized for these diseases.

Of greater concern is the incidence of parasitic infections among refugees.

On this last point, I agree with author Leaf that the parasitic infections are not being given much attention.  Indeed that young Congolese boy who died at O’Hare may well have died from an E-coli infection as a result of severe parasite destruction of his intestines.  (Google the story because the autopsy has been released.)

Click here to read more.

One story I didn’t get to this week, is Michael Patrick Leahy’s latest on Tuberculosis (Ticking Time Bomb) in the immigrant/refugee community. Leahy has obviously made it his mission to put the spotlight on what Leaf describes as a legitimate (and under-reported) concern.

Warning! Not only should you be concerned for your personal health and your family members’ health who must come in contact with refugees newly arrived in America, but you should be concerned for your pocket books! Obamacare does not have money trees growing in Washington no matter what the Democrats might want you to believe!

Posted in health issues, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics | Tagged: , | 14 Comments »

As we move Africa to America, where are all the refugees from the DR Congo being placed?

Posted by Ann Corcoran on October 7, 2016

Since I was just telling you that we (the Department of State) jumps when the UN says ‘jump!’  I thought it might be a good time to show you the numbers of refugees we are now taking from the DR Congo after Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, Anne Richard (formerly a VP at federal resettlement contractor International Rescue Committee) agreed here in 2013 to take 50,000 refugees from the DR Congo off the UN’s hands.


Civil wars in Africa produce refugees that the UN determines must be moved to the West—especially to the US. Once we get the 50,000 Congolese placed in your towns, watch for the big lobbying push for large numbers from South Sudan.

By the way, the Republicans did this too when the UN wanted to clean out its Bhutanese camps on the border of Nepal and then Bush Administration Asst. Secretary Ellen Sauerbrey agreed to invite 60,000 Bhutanese to the US over a five year period—they are still coming!

Here in 2014 we learned the Bhutanese numbers to the US were up to 80,000. But, surprise! Some of them want to go home.

Since fiscal year 2012, we have placed 33,212 from the DR Congo in all but five states (see map below).

The vast majority are Christians of some sort, but there are 1,240 Muslims in the bunch.  In FY2012 we resettled 1,863, but by FY2016 we took 16,370 in one year. Expect 2017 to be even higher as the drive is on to get as many refugees in to the US as possible before Obama leaves office.

Our interest in reporting the Congolese numbers was stimulated by the mysterious death this week of an 8-year-old Congolese boy at O’Hare Airport. His family was bound for Texas.

These are very poor people, mostly with limited educations, who will need a couple of generations of care by the US taxpayer before they can return anything to the US economy.

Early reports are that the women are especially traumatized and will need costly mental health treatment.

Here is where the Congolese (DR Congo) refugees have been placed between FY2012 and FY2016 (inclusive). Map from the Refugee Processing Center. Hawaii got zero (didn’t fit on the map), but it rarely gets any anyway.






Posted in Africa, Changing the way we live, Christian refugees, Colonization, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Where to find information, Who is going where | Tagged: , | 13 Comments »

Feds tickled, just short of 85,000 refugee ceiling for FY 2016 achieved, more “clients” on the way this week

Posted by Ann Corcoran on October 3, 2016

Voice of America has a wrap-up article for the FY16 UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program (saves us looking up the numbers). What tickled me was the US Conference of Catholic Bishops head lobbyist referring to refugees as their “clients.” We’ve been telling you that this is a business—big business—a several $ billion a year business.

Voice of America:

WASHINGTON —The United States narrowly missed its refugee cap for the fiscal year, closing out 12 months of political turbulence over admissions policies just five people short of the administration’s target of 85,000.

Special Event: on “Common ground for the common good” (to mark the concluding day of the World Interfaith Harmony Week (1–7 February 2012), as proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 65/5 (A/RES/65/5)) (organized by the Office of the President of the General Assembly, in cooperation with the NGO Community at the United Nations Bill Canny - Catholic RElief Services

Bill Caney (at the UN) is the head honcho for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here he confirms for us what we knew—refugees are “clients” because this is a business, a lucrative one! The USCCB is paid by the head for each refugee it resettles, so this has been a good year financially.

State Department data as of midnight October 1, the start of the 2017 fiscal year and the reset point for the government’s financial calendar, is the closest the refugee program has come to meeting the presidentially established limit in 24 years. [You knew they would bring them in here fast and not thoroughly vetted because Obama had to speed up his seeding plan—ed]

Among the largest groups of refugees this year were more than 12,500 Syrians, following a self-declared goal by the administration last September to admit at least 10,000 people fleeing civil war and Islamic State violence there.

Refugee Arrivals to the U.S. for FY2016

Dem. Rep. Congo: 16,370
Syria: 12,587
Myanmar: 12,347
Iraq: 9,880
Somalia: 9,020
Bhutan: 5,817
Iran: 3,750
Afghanistan: 2,737
Ukraine: 2,543

Refugee and resettlement officials told VOA last week that travel for some refugees who were scheduled to arrive by the end of September was postponed because the limit had been met. A State Department spokesperson did not confirm how many refugees were affected, but said that those who were delayed would be included in the coming fiscal year, which begins October 1.  [See our post of a week ago about the “ceiling” each year—ed]

Our additional “clients” will be arriving shortly says USCCB honcho!

“We understand that some clients may be held back these days and booked immediately in October. Thus, we expect no effect on clients,” said Bill Canny, who heads migration and refugee services for one of the country’s longest-serving resettlement agencies, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

More resettlement cities have been chosen….


Anne Richard, Asst. Sec. of State for PRM and a former VP at a federal contractor (International Rescue Committee) is delighted to report that they have secretly chosen more towns in which to place refugees (they have 350 towns already) she says.

The article also says that the largest category for FY17 (for the first time) will be the Near East and South Asia category.  We will be taking 40,000 of those.  (Near East and South Asia includes: Afghanistan, Bhutan/Nepal, Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Syria.)

Anne Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, reported to VOA on the growing number of cities that will ‘welcome’ refugees!  We knew that!***

Richard also said the number of cities where refugees are resettled in the U.S. is “likely to grow” in the coming months. Programs are already in place in roughly 350 cities in nearly every state.

The refugee industry’s lobbying arm weighed in with this:

Naomi Steinberg, director of Refugee Council USA, an advocacy group for 22 NGOs that work in refugee resettlement, said that what stood out for her after what she called “a difficult year of nasty political rhetoric” is that the U.S. continued a “proud tradition” of welcoming those fleeing persecution.

We know that as loud as those anti-refugee voices are, that they are still in the minority,” said Steinberg.

Please get your testimony off to Senator Sessions today or at the latest tomorrow!  Let Sessions know that Ms. Steinberg is blowing smoke!

***These are the new towns/cities we have learned about so far (we have heard that there are 47 new ones!). The selection process is mostly done quietly and out of public view.

Asheville, NC

Rutland, VT

Reno, NV

Ithaca, NY

Missoula, MT

Aberdeen, SD

Charleston, WV

Fayetteville, AR

Blacksburg, VA

Pittsfield, MA

Northhampton, MA

Flint, Michigan

Bloomington, IN


Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Muslim refugees, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Resettlement cities, The Opposition | Tagged: , , | 9 Comments »

The report to Congress that accompanies the Presidential determination is always useful

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 14, 2016

Yesterday the Dept. of State delivered Obama’s final ‘determination’ about refugee numbers for the upcoming fiscal year to Congress.  For all of you sleuths out there in ‘pockets of resistance’ the document that goes along with the determination is always a very useful source of information.

For example on page 60 the State Department predicts that Obama’s 10,000 Syrian Muslims by September 30th, 2016 will actually be 13,000.

Also, be sure to go to near the end (p.69) to see how they are estimating a much lower cost than would be expected for 110,000 refugees.  Are they trying to fool the Judiciary Committees in to thinking it is all less costly while the Appropriations Committees know the truth (do they talk to each other?).

Click here to see the full (very useful) document (if you find anything juicy let me know!):



Posted in Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 17 Comments »

The big lie! Refugees are being vetted

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 10, 2016

We hear Ad nauseam that Syrian refugees entering the US now by the thousands are being vetted in a process that has been shrunk from the original 18-24 months down to 3 months.   It is a lie, they can’t be vetted and truth-be-told neither can the Somalis, the Burmese Rohingya, the Afghans, the Sudanese, the Ethiopians and a good many of the Iraqis.

Forget the most egregious case, the Syrians, for a minute.

How do you find data on Somalis who have wandered all over the world, some on boats to Europe (to Malta!***) where we then pick them up and magically transform then into refugees for your town?


Vetting Rohingya boat people in Malaysia? Not a chance! Malaysia is a safe Muslim nation, why can’t they be granted asylum in Malaysia? Why has the Obama Administration admitted thousands to your neighborhoods? And, where are the Republicans in Congress?

The Burmese Rohingya are leaving Burma and Bangladesh on boats headed for places like Malaysia where we pick them up and Catholic Charities delivers them to your towns.

We are picking up Afghans and other Middle Easterners in, of all places, Austria in Europe.

Who are these men? Do we query the government of Afghanistan for background data on Mohammed who has ‘made his way’ to Vienna? These migrants are basically other countries’ illegal aliens that we take off their hands and put on welfare in America!

Here is a good description from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (hat tip: Paul) which talks about the use of ‘vetting jargon’ to lull the American public into complacency about their new neighbors.

From FAIR (emphasis is mine):

“Vetting” is a term rarely used in everyday English. Nevertheless, it has appeared regularly in recent coverage of the Syrian refugee crisis and the mass movement of Middle-Eastern migrants into Europe. Media outlets and government officials have repeatedly discussed vetting as if it were some magical process that grants access to otherwise inaccessible information. But what does vetting really mean?

Simply put, vetting means conducting a background check on someone. If you have ever applied for a credit card or renewed a drivers’ license, you have been vetted. Vetting may consist of conversations with references, as when applying for a job; or it may consist of a review of information found in computerized databases, as when applying for a home loan.


In the United States, we regularly engage in business and governmental transactions where we furnish personal information. That data is captured and stored in various databases. When we apply for a drivers’ license the DMV captures our names, photographs, addresses and biographical details. In some cases, our fingerprints are also captured.

Successful vetting is dependent upon access to information that is reliable and verifiable. Therefore, it is relatively easy to vet people who live in the United States. As they go about their daily business, their information is regularly captured and updated – and can be checked against multiple government or commercial databases. It is also relatively easy to vet people who come to America from countries where businesses and government agencies are operated in a manner similar to the United States – as long as their governments are willing to share information with the United States.


Problems arise when attempting to vet people who come from countries where there are few reliable public records or countries that are unwilling to share information.


Prior to its civil war, Syria did not share significant amounts of background information on its citizens with the United States. Even if Syria were now willing to share its information, the Syrian civil war has caused the destruction of many government records and very little reliable, verifiable information is currently being compiled either by government or non-governmental organizations operating within the country. As a result, Syrian passports, birth certificates, drivers’ licenses and other government documents cannot be adequately verified.


Although USCIS claims that all Syrian applicants for refugee status are being thoroughly vetted, this is simply untrue.


Hiding behind jargon connected with the background check process will not conceal the shortcomings of that process. The American public has a right to expect that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will not admit refugees, and other seekers of immigration benefits, to the United States until it is reasonably certain that they pose no threat to those currently residing here. Failing to deny admission to those who have not, or cannot, be completely and thoroughly vetted constitutes a complete abdication of DHS’s responsibilities to secure the borders of the United States and ensure the safety of the American people.

It isn’t just the Syrians!

Back to the Freedom Caucus and their phony-baloney plan to attach a bill to the ‘Continuing Resolution’ requiring the Obama Administration guarantee Syrians are being vetted, I say, what about the Somalis, the Burmese Rohingya, the Afghans, the Ethiopians, the Iraqis, the Sudanese etc.  They aren’t being thoroughly vetted either!

I checked the US Department of State’s data base for Muslim refugees arriving in the US for the first 11 months of the 2016 fiscal year (that is as of Sept. 1, 10 days ago) and here are some of the Muslim refugee numbers as of that date.

Syria: 10,600

Somalia: 7,967 (why are we still bringing in Somalis, it has been 30 years, does it ever end?)

Iraq: 6,840

Burma: 2,794 (they now have the Rohingya! flow in motion, look for 30 more years of this!)

Afghanistan: 2,128

Sudan: 997

Ethiopia: 456

(I didn’t do all of the Muslim countries)

Get this! We are constantly told that the refugees from DR Congo are all persecuted Christians, but this year alone we admitted 422 Muslims from the DR Congo!  In 2013 we promised the United Nations we would admit 50,000 total refugees from DR Congo over 5 years.

Without a doubt, these migrants fleeing war and failed Middle Eastern and African countries cannot be vetted!


***Someday I hope a real investigative reporter digs in to the illegal process the Bush Administration put into place where we take some illegal alien Africans who make it to Malta and transform them into refugees and bring them to the US. We have a massive archive on Malta here at RRW for your reading pleasure.

Posted in Changing the way we live, diversity's dark side, Muslim refugees, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Stealth Jihad, Taxpayer goodies | Tagged: | 13 Comments »

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!



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:   



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


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.



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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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: 


Nicholas Ballasy:

…(test) and concerns?

Leon Rodriguez: 


Shin Inouye:      

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


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.


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.


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.


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).




College Park


Ellicott City




Middle River




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.


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:

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.



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.


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 »

%d bloggers like this: