Refugee Resettlement Watch

Archive for the ‘Where to find information’ Category

97% of Syrian refugees admitted to US in 2015 are Muslims

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 3, 2015

We have been reporting from time to time the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the US.  You know that the resettlement contractors and the Senate Jihad Caucus are looking for the US to resettle 65,000 before Obama leaves office.

ted-cruz

Ted Cruz fans! It is time to ask your man where he stands on refugees. Texas is the number one resettlement state in the Nation and is receiving the most Syrian Muslims at this time. Where is he?

Using US State Department figures going back to January 1, 2012 we see that 1,487 Syrians have been admitted as of September 1 (a few days ago) and the vast majority (95%) are Muslims—Sunni Muslims.  However, if one only looks at the calendar year 2015, the percentage of Muslims jumps to 97%!  That is because the UN is telling us which refugees to take!

By the way there are 40-some Christians in that number and 1 Yazidi (and a few other religions, or no religion).

The 1,487 have been distributed to 36 states.

The top ten states receiving mostly Sunni Muslim Syrians since 1/1/2012 are as follows:

Texas (173)

California (162)

Michigan (146)

Illinois (120)

Arizona (107)

Florida (92)

Pennsylvania (76)

New Jersey (63)

Massachusetts (58)

Kentucky (55)

I’ll bet that one criteria used to determine where they have been sent is the number of mosques in the state.

Don’t forget that back in February the FBI testified before the House Homeland Security Committee that they could not adequately screen the Syrians for security.

For those readers just joining us today—PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!

Watch for it!  This month Obama will be announcing how many Syrians he wants admitted to the US in 2016!  I’ll be watching what those Senators running for the Republican nomination for President will say as their states will be getting the bulk of the Syrians. Ted Cruz (TX), Rand Paul (KY), Chris Christie (NJ) and Marco Rubio (FL)—where are you?

Posted in 2016 Presidential campaign, Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Muslim refugees, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 5 Comments »

States with large number of mosques correlates with top refugee resettlement states

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 2, 2015

A reader, Dick, sent us this map (below) of the US which shows the number of mosques located in each state.   There is a maybe not-so-surprising correlation to the top states receiving refugees.

By the way, as I noted in my little book, mosque construction is a way to stake-out territory often in advance of the arrival of any large population of worshipers of Allah.  The mosque actually serves as the magnet for further migration to that location (the Hijra).  Mohammed instructed his followers to migrate, to spread Islam, not just from country to country, but also from town to town and neighborhood to neighborhood.

Mosques in America

 

Here are the Top Five States (for 2014(in descending order) for refugee resettlement and in parenthesis is its position on the Mosque map.  Coincidence?

Texas (#3 in number of mosques)

California (#1)

New York (#2)

Michigan (#6)

Florida (#5)

Ohio surprise!

Find out how many refugees your state has received this fiscal year (as of July 31st), here.  Wow!  It looks like OHIO has moved into the #6 spot—gee! I wonder why?  Do they really think they will get all of those new registered voters signed up in time for the 2016 election?  Ohio is pretty high up on the mosque map too!

Remember readers that the numbers depicted on this map only represent refugees brought to your state by the resettlement contractors.  The numbers do not include those moving in to your state as ‘secondary migrants’ (refugees resettled elsewhere who decide to move to your state).  They do not include asylum seekers or successful asylum seekers (called asylees) or the ‘unaccompanied alien children.’

For our Virginia readers, I see the number of mosques (map above) for the state is not clear.  The number is 88.

Posted in 2016 Presidential campaign, Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Muslim refugees, Refugee Resettlement Program, Stealth Jihad, Where to find information, Who is going where, Your State | Tagged: , | 8 Comments »

President to decide on refugee quota for FY2016 NOW! Will Congress lift a finger to protect America?

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 1, 2015

It is September and as we speak, the Obama Administration (US State Department) is putting its final touches on their annual Determination Letter and accompanying report to Congress.

Obama shushing

Don’t tell Congress and let’s slip this by them again—maybe this time with 65,000 Syrians!

The new fiscal year begins on October 1 and by the 30th of this month Obama will send to Congress for “consultation” a document which states how many refugees and from what regions of the world we will be “welcoming” refugees to America.

This so-called “consultation” with Congress is a legal requirement. However, it is common knowledge that the House and Senate Committees responsible for analyzing this information have in the past been silent.

In fact, Ken Tota (who recently served as the interim director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement) was overheard saying that “in his entire almost 30-year career, Congress has never questioned the numbers.”

State Department scoping meetings

For our many new readers, this year there was no US State Department hearing on the “size and scope” of the refugee program (or, LOL! they kept it very secret!).  We can only assume that was because in the three previous years they heard testimony that they didn’t like from citizens that were concerned about the program.  Here is one post of dozens on the topic.  Readers of RRW had flooded the State Department with negative testimony about the program.  In fact, we testified that there should be a moratorium on the program.  See my 2014 testimony here.

I mention this because the Presidential Determination being prepared now is the culmination of the annual process that began with those late spring ‘hearings’ (and again there was no public opportunity to comment this year that we were aware of).

Also, regular readers know that we have been discussing, and attempting to obtain, R & P abstracts the subcontractors located around the country prepare for Washington—those are part of the process as well. Just as taxpaying citizens had no opportunity to testify to the State Department this year, taxpaying citizens have no input in the abstract preparation process either.

Presumably one final check in the system to protect America is the “consultation” with Congress in September of each year.

However, if this year is like all others, our elected representatives in Washington will not lift a finger to question the size and scope of this year’s proposed refugee quota!

And, this could be the year that plans to resettle tens of thousands of Syrians will be announced!

Click here for last year’s Presidential Determination, and here for the lengthy report which was sent to Congress on September 18th last year.  The report begins:

This Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2015: Report to the Congress is submitted in compliance with Sections 207(d)(1) and (e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Act requires that before the start of the fiscal year and, to the extent possible, at least two weeks prior to consultations on refugee admissions, members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives be provided with the following information….

Note that the report goes to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.  Chairmen of the full committees are Bob Goodlatte and Chuck Grassley respectively.  Subcommittee Chairmen responsible for Refugee Resettlement are Trey Gowdy and Jeff Sessions.

Will those chairmen help protect America this year by holding hearings when the Presidential Determination for FY2016 arrives on the Hill which by law should be in about two weeks!  Or, will they (yet again!) simply rubber stamp what Obama wants?

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Muslim refugees, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Stealth Jihad, Taxpayer goodies, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 11 Comments »

Learn more about refugee resettlement in your state

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 31, 2015

For new readers……

 

bob_carey_large_photo_1

Revolving door and one big happy family! This is Bob Carey, the new director of the ORR. He was previously a VP at the International Rescue Committee. And, what a coincidence, over at the State Department, the Asst. Secretary of State for PRM, Anne Richard, was also a VP at the International Rescue Committee. Gee! Do you think federal contractor, the IRC headed by Brit David Miliband, might have a bit of an inside track to the federal agencies that feed them?

The US Refugee Resettlement Program is administered by two different agencies of the federal government.  The US State Department admits refugees and contracts with the nine major federal resettlement contractors (they call them VOLAGS short for Voluntary Agencies which they definitely are not!) to distribute them.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Dept. of Health and Human  Services is responsible for making sure that myriad grants get out to the contractors and their subcontractors and to manage much of the other day-to-day operation being dictated from Washington.

The ORR has produced a handy map.  When you click on your state, contact information pops up for the bureaucrats who are responsible in your state.

You will see some states are Wilson-Fish states which means they are run pretty much with no state government involvement.  Go here to learn more about Wilson-Fish.

To find which federal resettlement subcontractors have offices near you, go here.

Regarding my reference to David Miliband in the photo caption—Miliband is the first resettlement contractor head honcho to push for Obama to admit 65,000 Syrians before his term ends.

September is an important month in the resettlement process, first because the feds and their contractors are scrambling to bring in as many refugees as possible in hopes of meeting the 70,000 refugee target that Obama set last year.

And, because Obama, by the end of September, will submit his Annual Determination Letter (this one for 2015) to Congress (where it has been rubber-stamped each year) in which he will lay out the goal for FY2016 which begins on October 1.  Watch for a huge jump in the number of Syrians to be admitted and distributed to your towns in the coming fiscal year.

We will be watching to see if any Member of Congress or US Senator says anything about Obama’s picks for 2016.

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies, Where to find information | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

Cool map tells us which immigrant ethnic group holds demographic dominance in each state

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 19, 2015

A reader, Phillip, sent us this very interesting map.  It is a little annoying to have to figure out in some cases which flag is depicted on certain states, but it is nonetheless informative.  States with dominant populations of Burmese, Bhutanese, Somali, Cuban, Ethiopian, Iraqi or Vietnamese got that way through the Refugee Admissions Program since they are all major refugee-sending countries.

Somalis are dominant in Minnesota and Maine; Iraqis in Tennessee, Michigan and Idaho.

We don’t take many refugees from the Philippines, China, Dominican Republic, India or of course Canada.  They get in here through other means.  However, the Chinese are the largest group of asylum seekers who successfully get in.

The map makers excluded Mexico (don’t know why).  And, I would have guessed the Salvadorans would dominate Maryland.

Here is where Phillip got the map, I don’t have time to examine it further, but you might.

flag map of US

Posted in Colonization, Refugee Resettlement Program, Where to find information, Who is going where | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

Idaho: Editorial confirms refugee contractors “bidding for bodies”

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 14, 2015

That phrase is a favorite one of a longtime critic of the refugee resettlement process as it is now administered in the US—bidding for bodies.  Catchy isn’t it!

refugeeCenter2_L

CSI Refugee Programs is a subcontractor of the Arlington, VA-based US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) which is 99% funded by taxpayer dollars. It is headed by Lavinia Limon who was Bill Clinton’s director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Photo: http://refugeecenter.csi.edu/

Yesterday we were alerted to yet another editorial*** at MagicValley.com which has heretofore demonstrated a bias in favor of more refugees for Twin Falls.   The editorial basically asks, what is the big deal with the R & P Abstract?

Before I get to the editorial, here is a little background.  Each year the resettlement contractor working in your town or city prepares a report (a proposal of sorts) called an Abstract that is used to get its federal funding.  It says how many refugees your town (in their opinion) can accommodate and from what regions of the world they might come.   It also contains a text portion that explains why your town would be ideal—describing what “services” you have available.

We contend that citizens are entitled to this document in advance of it being sent to Washington for funding and that you should have some say about the “capacity” of your town to ‘welcome’ more third worlders.   However, it has been extremely difficult to even get copies of those from this year (FY2015) which ends in just about 7 weeks.  Indeed the citizens of Twin Falls were only able to get the 2014 document through a public information request.  The paper also needed to obtain one through the same means (they confirm in the editorial).  You can be sure the subcontractor, CSI Refugee Center, wasn’t handing them out without legal pressure!

Contractors:  Do not give out the Abstracts!

Thanks to inside sources we learned recently that the subcontractors working in these cities had been instructed (by their primary contractor) to NOT give any Abstracts out to citizens who called looking for them.

So, if the Abstracts are so ho-hum and uninformative as this editorial implies, why the secrecy?

Unfortunately, you may not be able to use a public information request (as did the citizens of Twin Falls) to get yours because some of the subcontractors are non-profits completely on their own (other than receiving $$$ from Washington).  I’m guessing this one in Twin Falls was obtainable because CSI (the subcontractor) is intimately/financially entwined with the College of Southern Idaho—a state college.

Long story to get to my main point today!

Look at this paragraph in MagicValley’s editorial:

The group filed a public records request seeking the CSI abstract being prepared for next year – and was denied. Not because CSI is trying to cover something up, but because the document is still being processed, and disclosing it now would amount to sharing trade secrets, since each refugee center around the country competes for resources through the federal resettling program.

Trade secrets!    Can you have trade secrets from the taxpayer?

What the heck!  This isn’t a private business that needs to understandably protect itself in a contract bidding process.  This is a non-profit group competing with another non-profit group for YOUR money—the “resources” of the federal treasury!

These contractors and subcontractors are paid by the head (by you!) to resettle refugees—they are indeed bidding for bodies and here we get confirmation that you can’t know what they plan for your town while you pay for the whole thing!

We, in Twin Falls, have amenities to offer including a TB Clinic!

And, although the great minds at MagicValley.com want to downplay (sneer at) your interest in the Abstract, I found it pretty informative and I don’t even live there.  For example, read the text and see what Twin Falls is offering in the bidding war with other subcontractors/contractors around the US.

Here, for instance, I learned this:  CSI promotes the fact that Twin Falls has a cracker-jack medical system including a Tuberculosis Clinic!  Wow! So that means Twin Falls can take a bunch of the refugees entering the US with TB (yes, they are permitted entry!) while some other town can’t.

Twin Falls is home to an adult tertiary care hospital, a tuberculosis clinic, a renal dialysis clinic, and a dental clinic. Clients can also access transplant and rehabilitation services.

Guess who pays for all of that medical care for refugees?

Every bit of this is about money (humanitarian mumbo-jumbo is the cover).  Now the trick will be to figure out who in Idaho benefits the most!

For more on Twin Falls, click here, and to make contact with those who have formed a ‘Pocket of Resistance (POR)’ in Twin Falls, go here.

*** In a previous editorial they called me a “thief!”

Endnote:  I have another post in the works on Idaho for today besides this one and my previous one about the conviction of Idaho’s refugee terrorist, so come back later!

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Pockets of Resistance, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies, Where to find information, Who is going where | Tagged: , | 8 Comments »

Barnett: “[F]og of ignorance and misinformation around this program” is media’s fault

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 13, 2015

Editor:  From time to time we post guest columns and other notable comments from readers.  This one is from someone who knows the US Refugee Admissions Program better than anyone else on the outside (LOL! maybe better than some on the inside!).

Don Barnett has been following the refugee industry for over 25 years and is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.  I’m happy to call him a longtime colleague and friend.

Below, Mr. Barnett addresses some of the ridiculous ‘studies’ being promoted around the US which posit that resettling impoverished third worlders will bring economic boom times to states losing population, or that refugee-run ‘businesses’ can rescue financially strapped cities.

 

The refugee resettlement program is perhaps the federal government’s most advanced case of politicized, Orwellian speech.

Are refugees too dependent on government hand-outs? Simply re-define the term “self-sufficiency” so that those dependent on government hand-outs are declared officially “self-sufficient”. According to the feds, a refugee can be on every welfare program except TANF and still be considered “self-sufficient”.   Thus the media dutifully report the absurd claims of the refugee contractors about refugee “self-sufficiency” for individuals who may be in public housing, receiving Food Stamps, cash assistance from SSI and on Medicaid.

So much ignorance abounds that a “task force” recently formed to study the possibility of introducing refugee resettlement in Wyoming allowed itself to be assured by U. of Wyoming College of professor and immigration law specialist, Noah Novogrodsky, that the  federal Office of Refugee Resettlement and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees ‘pay 100 percent of the costs of refugee resettlement for many years. It’s not like we’re going to get stuck with an unfunded mandate’.

Of course it is a massive unfunded obligation placed upon states and localities by a federal program. Most refugees are placed into one or more public assistance programs by the refugee resettlement contractors. In recent weeks Congressional Research Services provided data about welfare usage among refugees.  Among refugees who had arrived in a recent 5-year period, 56 percent were receiving Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance, 74.2 percent were on food stamps, and 22.8 percent were in public housing. 47.1 percent were on some form of cash assistance. (1)

State tax payers fund a portion of some federal programs such as Medicaid.  When the 1980 act was passed the federal government promised to  reimburse states for their cost share of refugee usage of SSI, AFDC (today TANF) and Medicaid at 100% for 3 full years.  Even 3 years of coverage was acknowledged to be inadequate, but was better than nothing.  By 1991 the states were getting nothing: all reimbursements for state refugee costs were eliminated.

Newspeak and Newthought permeate the cottage industry of studies “proving” the net positive economic benefits of refugee resettlement. A look at 2 past studies shows just how willing the media is to be spoon fed information rather than seeking, finding and questioning.

According to Tennessee’s state refugee coordinator –  an employee of Catholic Charities, the state’s largest refugee resettlement contractor –  a “comprehensive” study by the Tennessee legislature “found …that refugees pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits — in fact, twice as much.”

The 2013 study made no such finding.  In assessing the cost of publicly funded benefits for refugees, the study looked at just 2 programs – public education (including ELL) and Tenncare (Tennessee’s version of Medicaid). It ignored a whole range of programs which refugees use and which Tennessee tax payers fund both with state tax dollars and as federal tax payers.

The study assumed that refugees were using Medicaid at the same rate as  average Tennesseans even though up to 59% of refugees have been placed into Medicaid upon arrival in recent years.

Also, the report assumed refugees pay state taxes at the same rate as average Tennesseans while federal studies find very high usage of welfare, high unemployment and low wages among those refugees with jobs.

The study authors themselves concluded “The information necessary to complete a comprehensive study on the possible cost shifting from the federal government to the state for the resettlement of refugees is not available.” Nevertheless, The Tennessean and other media reported more or less as fact the “take away” that refugees bring in twice as much in taxes as they use in benefits.

The study’s outcome – more accurately, lack of outcome  – was likely foreordained by a Chamber of Commerce/left wing  coalition that had hijacked other supposedly objective fiscal reviews of state operations.

Another study of refugee economic impact sponsored by an amorphous, shape-shifting Chamber of Commerce/left wing coalition calling itself The Refugee Services Collaborative of Cleveland got more traction than the embarrassing Tennessee study. It found, according to an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, that “Three resettlement agencies spend about $4.8 million a year helping refugees to start new lives in the Cleveland area. From that investment of mostly federal dollars comes an annual economic impact of nearly $50 million.”

Now the tax dollars invested are paying back 10 to 1!

The study looked at 3 areas where refugees make an economic contribution in the Cleveland area: refugee service organizations, refugee-owned businesses and household spending of refugee families.

Speaking of refugee service organizations, the study notes that the “preponderance of funding for these organizations is derived from federal sources”. That is not a negative finding for the authors of the study; after all it still represents a net inflow of money into the Cleveland area and employment for 95. I assume most of the employees are refugees or immigrants, but the study does not say. An interesting question for a study is why an area which in the year of the study resettled 598 refugees and resettled less than 400 per year in the previous 12 years needs 95 federal taxpayer funded employees focused exclusively on serving refugees.

The next category of economic contribution comes from refugee-owned businesses of which the study reports: “The Chmura survey indicated that over the last ten years, at least 38 businesses were started by refugees in the Cleveland area with a total of 141 employees (including owners). In addition, it is estimated that almost all of those employed by refugee-owned businesses are refugees themselves. Though the survey did not gather information of the types of businesses that were started, estimates were made based upon studies conducted elsewhere. The assumed mix of industries for the refugee-owned businesses includes the following: restaurants, retail, health and beauty, transportation and automotive services, and child care.” (my emphasis)

In other words, over a period of 10 years just 141 refugees found employment in 38 refugee-started businesses – average size less than 4 employees.  The job-creation miracle yielded 141 jobs for the 4,000 or so who were resettled in the area at that time.  And we have no idea what the businesses are – foodcarts, in-home day care centers, one man and a lawn mower, consultants on how to work the system? It is more than amazing that having located and counted all the businesses opened by refugees they didn’t ask “oh, by the way, just what does your business do?”

The third category of economic vitality is household spending of refugee families.

Offering no real supporting evidence the study assumes Cleveland area refugees use welfare at less than the national average for refugees. (See above for an idea of welfare usage for refugees nationally.)  It doesn’t matter anyway: a dollar provided by the federal taxpayer via a welfare program is a net plus in this study as it is assumed that this dollar will be spent in a Cleveland business.

The study is filled with findings such as “refugee services will purchase goods and services from other local businesses to support their organizations” and there are “benefits to local consumer-oriented businesses (such as retail and restaurants) that make sales to workers of the refugee services”.

Remember “refugee services” purchase goods and pay salaries with federal taxpayer dollars. But the dollars keep going round and round with positive ‘direct impacts’, ‘indirect impact’ and ‘induced impacts’. (No mention is made that some of these dollars are going directly back to the home country.)

The fog of ignorance and misinformation around this program is largely thanks to the inattention, if not active collusion of the media.

The facts are out there if the media would but investigate and report them.  Until that happens we will ever be in the twilight zone when it comes to this topic.

Readers and members of the media (who truly want to get the facts) may reach Barnett at this e-mail address:

dabarnett@bellsouth.net

This post is archived in our category entitled: Comments worth noting/guest posts.

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Comments worth noting/guest posts, Community destabilization, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Where to find information | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

NEO Philanthropy launders millions of dollars to promote “social change” by changing the people

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 8, 2015

This is another in our series we call—know the opposition.

Michele_Lord_7_FAWeb2

Michele Lord, co-President of NEO Philanthropy, working from New York City, funneling big money to change your towns and cities.

A reader recently sent me a Form 990 here for something called NEO Philanthropy which includes a list of dozens and dozens of NO borders groups and immigrant and refugee promoting groups they fund.

As a matter of fact, you should use the list starting on page 35 of the Form 990 as a guide to figure out who organizes against you, American citizens, in your communities.

We bring you this information so that you know, as you build your ‘pockets of resistance,’ that the other side, working with Obama, is rolling in millions of dollars of laundered money to work against you, to change your towns and to change the electorate.  But, do not be discouraged! Take heart and understand you are the David working against their Goliath. (We know how that story ended!)

Use this information to understand who they are.

Why launder money through an organization like this?

There are large private donors who do not want their names associated with groups on this list, so they send their millions to NEO Philanthropy which then doles it out.

We recognize some of the ‘social change’ groups listed on their many pages of groups they fund.  And, by the way, there are groups associated with education and gay rights as well.

Here are just a few we are familiar with (the dollars in parenthesis are for this one year–2013!):

Arab Community Center ($100,000)

Casa de Maryland ($270,000)

Center for American Progress ($175,000)

Colorado Immigrant Rights ($360,725)

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights ($290,000)

Mass. Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition ($210,000)

La Raza ($275,000)

National Immigration Forum ($85,000)

Sojourners ($150,000)

Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition ($469,000)

Welcoming America ($89,000)

The list goes on and on (here).  You might find one in your city or state that you had no idea was even there!

Below is more about NEO from the mouth of its co-President, Michele Lord.

Oh, and one more thing, one branch of NEO is the Four Freedoms Fund originally started by George Soros, see here.

From Skaggscreative (whatever that is!):

Michele Lord
Co-President, NEO Philanthropy

Michele Lord is one of the two presidents of NEO Philanthropy (her co-president is Berta Colón), an innovative non-profit that advances social change. Together, Lord and Colón have created an organization that offers a range of services—organizing collaborative funds and spearheading donor advised funds, to name two—that help donors make visible and lasting change in the social justice space. The goal, Lord says, “is to meet people where they are, and maybe by going there, and going a little deeper there, they may be interested in doing something else. That’s how we see our value-add. It’s a much deeper conversation.” To continue plumbing the depths, read on!

When I first heard of your organization, you were being rebranded. What prompted that change?

The organization has been around for 30 years. Before I came on fourteen years ago, it had a reputation of being a fiscal sponsor. It didn’t have any staff. It didn’t have any budget. We were the backroom for lots of organizations that didn’t have their own 501(c)(3). [Groups that did not want to report to the IRS!—ed]

What do you mean when you say backroom?

We provided financial support, management support and legal support. A lot of groups didn’t want to get their own 501(c)(3). So they couldn’t get foundation dollars. We were able to do it for them. We did their HR as needed, their accounting, all of that. We were known as Public Interest Projects then. I had been working for a very wealthy family in their family office, and I’d become very interested in the whole collaborative idea, of foundations coming together and capitalizing a fund, so that they could do their grantmaking together around a particular strategy. When I came on board, I was very interested in creating a model that would do it differently and better than where I was. We started with one collaborative fund, and now we’ve done over twelve of them. We still work as a fiscal sponsor, and we also do donor advised funds.

So that shift in focus is what inspired you to change the name?

The name Public Interest Projects was essentially picked out of a hat. The original founder, Donald Ross, wanted the organization to be under the radar so that people wouldn’t necessarily know what it did. Before I came, we were always in the back, never in the front. Once we started developing our work, the name became confusing to people. It didn’t say who we were, and it didn’t say anything about our values.

Continue reading here.

To see others in our latest series about those working to change your towns and cities by colonizing them with immigrants and refugees, visit our category The Opposition here.

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Pockets of Resistance, Refugee Resettlement Program, The Opposition, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 10 Comments »

24-country poll: Majority say immigration has had negative impact on their country

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 7, 2015

US Presidential candidates!  Pay attention!

From IPSOS:

Toronto, Canada – A new Ipsos global poll finds that fully half (50%) of those citizens surveyed in 24 countries say there are too many immigrants in their country—and almost as many (46%) agree that immigration is causing their country to change in ways they don’t like.

Globe with immigrants

Like it or not (mostly NOT!), here they come!

Against a backdrop where 81% of citizens indicate that over the last five years migrants have increased in their country (and just 30% say immigrants make their country a more interesting place to live) only one in five (21%) citizens surveyed say immigration has had a positive impact on their country; only three in 10 (28%) say immigration has been good for their economy.

Further, half (50%) say immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in their country.

And almost half (45%) of global respondents believe immigrants have made it more difficult for their own people to get jobs in their country (and just 41% say priority should be given to immigrants with higher education and qualifications to fill shortages in professions.)

Here are the averages for each of the questions and the percentage of Americans feeling the same way (go have a look at your country!):

 

81% of citizens indicate that over the last five years migrants have increased in their country…

US 69%

Half (50%) say there are too many immigrants in their country…

US 49% (More education needed as not enough Americans know how high the numbers are!)

And almost as many (46%) agree that immigration is causing their country to change in ways they don’t like…

US 43% (This number doesn’t jive with the following areas in the survey.  They must have asked it first!)

Only one in five (21%) say immigration has had a positive impact…

US 25%  (So this means 75% of US respondents must be saying immigration has a negative impact!)

Only three in 10 (28%) say immigration has been good for the economy of their country…

US 30%    (Tell Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers!)

And half (50%) say immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in their country…

US 58%

Almost half (45%) say immigrants in their country have made it more difficult for their own people to get jobs…

US 48%

Four in 10 (41%) believe priority should be given to immigrants with higher education and qualifications to fill professions shortages…

US 35%

Only three in 10 (30%) say immigrants make their country a more interesting place to live…

US 41%

Go here for lots more numbers!  Fascinating stuff!

The politicians in places like Italy, France, Germany and Belgium better darn well pay attention!  And, LOL! I laughed to see that the Saudis, the Chinese and the Japanese weren’t particularly stressed by immigration—-of course not!  They hardly take in any immigrants!

Posted in 2016 Presidential campaign, Changing the way we live, Colonization, Europe, Other Immigration, Refugee Resettlement Program, Where to find information | Tagged: | 9 Comments »

Obama could use supposedly temporary ‘humanitarian’ parole to get more Syrians admitted to US

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 6, 2015

I expect this dreadful news is because the UN/US State Department (and the resettlement contractors) are hopping mad at the slow screening process for those who have been submitted for consideration as permanent refugees.  I see parole as a way around serious security screening.

By the way, the percentage of Syrians entering as refugees (so far) still stands at about 94% Muslim for those being placed all over the country.  We are not saving the Christians in any big way!

Senator Dianne Feinstein

As a leading member of the Jihad Caucus, Senator Dianne Feinstein is happy to bring California more immigrants—Syrian Muslims this time!

Here is the latest news about possible parole for Syrians, from Breitbart (hat tip: Rosemary):

The Obama administration says it may reconsider the use of parole for certain Syrian nationals in addition to its Syrian refugee resettlement effort.

In written responses to Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans obtained by Breitbart News, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reveal that the U.S.’s effort to resettle thousands of Syrian refugees might not be the only process it will use to bring displaced Syrians to the U.S.

“At the request of more than 70 members of Congress in 2013, USCIS considered whether to establish a parole program for Syrians in Syria but decided that establishing such a program was not warranted. However, as the situation continues to evolve and USCIS continues to engage with stakeholders, USCIS may reconsider the use of parole for certain Syrian nationals,” USCIS wrote in its response to the subcommittee’s question probing whether USCIS is considering a parole program for Syrians.

The State Department has estimated that by the end of FY 2015 the U.S. will have admitted between 1,000-2,000 Syrian refugees. Parole for Syrians, if used, would supplement the refugee resettlement effort.

Parole is an immigration benefit that is intended to be imparted on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefit” for those foreigners who would otherwise be ineligible for entry. It is intended to be a temporary admission, and parolees are expected to depart the U.S. once the reasons for their parole have ended.

More here….

Remember readers that the contractors started out pushing for 12,000-15,000 for this year, and now they and the Jihad Caucus in the Senate would like to see 65,000 as Obama’s parting gift to America.

So where are we?

Fiscal year 2015 ends in just short of 8 weeks (on September 30th) and in the calendar year of 2015 we have admitted 878.  Since the first of January 2012 (the year I arbitrarily chose as the beginning of the present Syrian conflict) we have admitted 1,213 Syrian refugees.   (See Refugee Processing Center data base, here)

Of those, 1,138 practice some form of Islam giving Muslims a 94% share of the total Syrians admitted so far.  I don’t expect that percentage to change much as long as we are taking the refugees chosen for us from UN camps.

Here are the top ten states receiving mostly Muslim Syrians so far as of August 1, 2015 (go here for our previous accounting). Red number is the number resettled as of the beginning of July.

Texas (146)    (137)

California (139)    (133)

Illinois (106)   (93)

Michigan (81)   (59)

Arizona (79)    (73)

Florida (70)    (60)

Pennsylvania (65)   (65)

New Jersey (58)   (39)

Massachusetts (47)   (44)

Tied for tenth place:

Kentucky (42)   (not recorded because not in the top ten in July)

North Carolina (42)   (42)

Go here to see the 14 Senators that comprise the Jihad Caucus pushing Obama to admit more Syrians.

I really think it would be only fair if all the Syrians were sent to the home states of the fourteen, don’t you?

However, ten of the 14 are not even getting Syrians in any large numbers, but four are getting their wish and their states are in the top ten:

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)  Yippee I’m getting Syrian Muslims!

Dick Durban (D-IL) The leader of the pack is getting his share! Dropping them in Chicago because diversity will bring strength to that city!

Ed Markey (D-MA) I wonder how many will go to Markey’s home town.

Robert Menendez (D-NJ) The guy worried about the Iranians will have some Syrian Muslims in his home state.

 

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, diversity's dark side, Muslim refugees, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Where to find information, Who is going where | Tagged: , | 8 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,124 other followers

%d bloggers like this: