Month: February 2009

Refugees living in substandard housing in Syracuse must find another place to live

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

One more case in a growing number of cases of recent refugees to the US living in substandard housing.

Makagbeh Konneh, a refugee from Liberia, shares the two-family apartment building with her five children. She lives in the downstairs apartment with four of her five children.

Her oldest son, Sekou Bility, 31, lives in the upstairs apartment. Sekou, who works at a local nursing home, was planning to move before the city condemned the building. He got tired of the landlord ignoring his concerns about the lack of heat in the apartment.

There are so many people living in substandard housing. Many of those homes are in the city’s poorest neighborhoods–North, South, West and Near East sides.

Since this family has been here for awhile, it is not clear whether Catholic Charities placed them in unsafe housing initially, but I was glad to see that someone representing the agency is still helping them.

In Makagbeh’s case, I got a call from Brian Hodgens. Brian volunteered to help the family adjust to life in America after Catholic Charities settled them here in 2005. He’s stayed with the family, helping deal with their landlord problems and other challenges.

The same day Brian called, I got two calls from people who worked with refugees from Bhutan. They were concerned that some landlords were taking advantage of refugees because they don’t speak English and don’t understand the system.

Although the Liberian family has been evicted, they have something going for them, besides an American to help them, and that is  they have a job.   Refugees in Boise, ID that I’ll tell you about shortly, are about to be evicted and cannot find jobs.

The end of Malta? Somali illegal aliens overruning tiny Malta

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

We have been writing about Malta since the very first month, July 2007, that we began writing this blog.    Malta is a tiny island nation in the Mediterranean Sea that is being overrun by African illegal aliens. 

I wouldn’t have found this article at all except that a commenter, George Xuereb, has linked to us and concludes his comment by saying:

I THINK THIS REALLY IS THE END OF MALTA

From the Times of Malta (the story is short but the comments are lengthy and angry):

A group of 227 immigrants have arrived in Birzebbugia on a large boat packed to the brim.

[…..]

It was noted that the illegal immigrants lacked life-jackets whilst their overall state of health was generally good.

It is the second big group to arrive in Malta this month, after 262 arrived on Feb 1.

Two groups of some 150 arrived in December and January.

I have maintained that the US exacerbates the problem in Malta because surely word has reached deep into Africa that the US is taking some of these illegal aliens as refugees to America, thanks to former Ambassador ‘tea party Molly.’

Oh, and be sure and watch the film clip with yesterdays story in the Times of Malta .   Camp of Saints anyone?

A state is permitted to withdraw from the Refugee Resettlement Program

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

For as long as we have been writing RRW, a year and a half now, I’ve wondered how it is that no refugees are resettled in Wyoming.   I had heard the state had “opted out” of the program but I could never figure out how this was done.

Today a kind reader sent me this section from the Code of Federal Regulations that answers my guestion!   A state is permitted to withdraw from the Refugee Resettlement Program.

The following is from Section 400.301, Withdrawal from the Refugee Program from 45 CFR.   The “Director” is the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services.

(a) In the event that a State decides to cease participation in the refugee program, the State must provide 120 days advance notice to the Director before withdrawing from the program.

(b) To participate in the refugee program, a State is expected to operate all components of the refugee program, including refugee cash and medical assistance, social services, preventive health, and an unaccompanied minors program if appropriate. A State is also expected to play a coordinating role in the provision of assistance and services in accordance with §400.5(b). In the event that a State wishes to retain responsibility for only part of the refugee program, it must obtain prior approval from the Director of ORR. Such approval will be granted if it is in the best interest of the Government.

(c) When a State withdraws from all or part of the refugee program, the Director may authorize a replacement designee or designees to administer the provision of assistance and services, as appropriate, to refugees in that State. A replacement designee must adhere to the same regulations under this part that apply to a State-administered program, with the exception of the following provisions: 45 CFR 400.5(d), 400.7, 400.51(b)(2)(i), 400.58(c), 400.94(a), 400.94(b), 400.94(c), and subpart L. Replacement designees must also adhere to the Subpart L regulations regarding formula allocation grants for targeted assistance, if the State authorized the replacement designee appointed by the Director to act as its agent in applying for and receiving targeted assistance funds. Certain provisions are excepted because they apply only to States and become moot when a State withdraws from participation in the refugee program and is replaced by another entity. States would continue to be responsible for administering the other excepted provisions because these provisions refer to the administration of other State-run public assistance programs.

[60 FR 33604, June 28, 1995, as amended at 65 FR 15450, Mar. 22, 2000]

Based on that Section c, it looks like they aren’t going to let any state out easily.

For the entire Code of Federal Regulations for Refugee Resettlement, go here.  It is a treasure trove of information.

An afterthought:  I don’t know how many times over the last year and a half we have heard officials at state or local level say there is nothing they can do about refugees coming to a particular community—it’s all the federal governments doing they say.   Well this puts a lie to that notion, a state can say NO and it looks like a state can say, slow down the numbers!

Media failure: so what about that beheading?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Update Feb. 20th:   Atlas Shrugs has an incredible update on this NY case and an extensive chronicle of other women who have been victims of honor killings here.

That story about the “moderate” Muslim who beheaded his wife, which we posted on here and here, has gotten less media coverage than you might think it deserves. Mark Steyn has a typically trenchant commentary under the wonderful headline Headless Body in Legless Story. Read the whole thing; it’s not very long.  Here’s the conclusion:

From NBC Nightly News, December 9th 2004:

[REPORTER RON] ALLEN: It [the TV station of the “moderate” Muslims] is the brainchild of Aasiya Zubair, an architect, and her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, a banker, who are disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV, especially since 9/11.

Ms. AASIYA ZUBAIR: I did not want my kids growing up to watch Muslims being portrayed as terrorists.

No, indeed. Instead, it’s their father who turned out to be the terrorist — no different from the London School of Economics-educated British subject behind the beheading of Daniel Pearl.

That’s what makes this a story rather than one family’s tragedy. If you’re not intrigued by the apparent fraud at the heart of this man’s life and work — a fraud in which the U.S. media cheerfully colluded — you lack the elementary curiosity necessary to be a journalist.

Just so.

Addendum: Robert Spencer connects the dots between Islam and the beheading here.

Addendum 2, 2/19: Commenter Mark provides this link to show that the chimp who attacked a woman got more news stories than the beheading of a Muslim woman by her husband.

Latest ruling: U.S. does not have to accept Uighur Gitmo detainees

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Update Feb. 19th:  China opposes any country taking the Uighurs, they are Chinese terrorists and they want them back.

We’ve been following the case of the 17 Uighurs, Chinese Muslims who are among the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.  Last fall one court ordered them released into the United States and another one blocked their release. This is the issue, as described by the Washington Post last October:

The men, a small band of Chinese Muslims who have been held for nearly seven years, are no longer considered enemy combatants by the U.S. government, but they are caught in a well-documented diplomatic bind. Unlike other captives, they cannot be sent to their home country because Beijing considers them terrorists, and they might be tortured. The government released five of the detainees, known as Uighurs (pronounced “WEE-gurz”), to Albania in 2006, but no other country wants to risk offending China by accepting the others.

Andy McCarthy reports the latest at National Review’s Corner:

The majority opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing Judge Ricardo Urbina’s lawless order that 17 Uighur detainees be released in the United States, is emphatic. A sampling:

Justice Frankfurter summarized the law as it continues to this day:  “Ever since national States have come into being, the right of the people to enjoy the hospitality of a State of which they are not citizens has been a matter of political determination by each State” – a matter “wholly outside the concern and competence of the Judiciary.”

The case will now go to the Supreme Court, where it is uncertain whether a majority will agree with the previous court that federal judges do have the power to order detainees released into the U.S.