Month: April 2009

“Lutheran Church” taking the rap for bringing Somalis to Minneapolis

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

This NPR story is just mostly a rehash of a couple of on-going stories involving Somali refugees  numbering surely over 200,000* in the US by now.    It tells us once again that Muslim money transfer businesses have been raided by the FBI and that is linked to the missing Somali youths stories we have followed since November.    However, one line in this report demonstrates the woefully inadequate information the public has about refugee resettlement.

Federal agents served warrants on a handful of money transfer businesses around Minneapolis and eastern Missouri last week. People close to the investigation said the searches were related to the disappearance of about two dozen young Somali-American men and teenagers from the Twin Cities in the past two years.

The Somali community in Minneapolis is the largest in America. Some 70,000 Somalis have settled in Minnesota after they were sponsored by the Lutheran Church in the 1990s. To send cash to their impoverished relatives back home, Somalis typically use money transfer businesses. The FBI fanned out last week to a number of those operations, trying to follow a money trail that might give them an idea of who is behind the disappearance of the young men.

The implication here is that the Lutheran Church is entirely responsible for sponsoring Somali refugees and resettling them in Minneapolis.  In fact the United Nations and the US State Department (and now Homeland Security plays a role)  make the decisions about which refugees come to the US.   Then ten FEDERAL CONTRACTORS  (volags in refugee lingo) including Lutheran Immigration and Social Services divvy up the refugees and spread them out in the US—to your towns and cities.

These ten CONTRACTORS (funded by the State Department and the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Dept. of  Health and Human Services) compete for refugees by the head and seem to only have any accountablility to the US State Department  if they screw up in some way.  If one should screw up, another competing agency is ready to step in and take over the territory.

It has been our view all along that each refugee family should be sponsored by a church or civic group, for example, which is what this article implies, but it is not done that way.

* No one seems to know exactly how many Somalis live in the US now, but it has to be over 200,000 because the US State Department admitted 80,000 that we know of, others have come illegally and of course they have families with 5-6 kids or more.

Comment worth noting: answering Jake

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday we received a comment from Jake a refugee resettlement employee from Chicago—a comment which gives me an opportunity to explain why we are here, so for that I thank him.   Jake’s comment is posted here at the post I did as an update of the Somali/Swift & Co. controversy in Grand Island, NE.

Jake begins:

Acorcoran:
My name is Jake and I work at a resettlement agency in Chicago. I appreciate the effort you put into your site and the prolonged attention you give to details in the media and to changes in our culture. I can tell that you and other contributors care deeply about these issues. Many people involved in the resettlement process (especially at higher levels) could learn from some of the points that you raise.

I appreciate Jake’s compliment, but wonder Jake, do you think those “people involved in the resttlement process (especially at higher levels)” would ever correct what they are doing wrong if there wasn’t some entity like RRW to push for change (only a few major newspapers are even willing to dance around the politically correct issue of refugee resettlement and expose problems)?  We hear often from people within the refugee business who concur that there are problems at the top, but are they (you?) willing to speak out and demand some changes when your livelihood depends on those at “higher levels?” 

Jake continues:

At the same time, the attitude behind much of your language is upsetting to me because it’s racist and dehumanizing. In your efforts to keep tabs on and inform people policy and the agendas of different groups and political parties, you overlook what sits at the center of all that stuff: people. (Not just American people, either.)

I won’t get steamed about the “racist and dehumanizing” comment at the moment, but lets focus on the “overlook what sits at the center of all that stuff: people.”  Well, Jake, my contention is that it is you who overlook the people and “dehumanize” them— the local people who have a culture, who have feelings, who have rights.   Why do people in the refugee business not care for the local people, like this woman I just wrote about a few minutes ago here in Ohio?

As for the “racist” comment.  It has nothing to do with race, but you guys always have to throw that word in as if you will get us to cower in fear—if you read RRW regularly you would know that it has nothing to do with race.   As a matter of fact, if American blacks are upset by say Bosnian refugees being brought by your agency into their communities and competing with them for jobs and apartments, can I then call you a “racist” for supporting the white Bosnians to the detriment of poor African American citizens?     It has to do with culture!

Frankly, I don’t care if what we say is “upsetting to you.”   It’s time you faced the reality that not everyone agrees with your world view.

Jake:

I invite you to convince me otherwise, but I believe that 99.9 percent of refugees are people seek nothing more than to live a dignified life while maintaining their cultural identity. This is a common value that all humans share.

“….maintaining their cultural identity. This is a common value that all humans share.”  We agree. So, why is the poor American (no matter what color) told that they must sacrifice their cultural identity and bend to the demands, yes sometimes demands, of immigrant groups brought into their communities?  Why is the immigrant’s culture placed on some sort of higher level then the local people?   Is it just cool to be worldly?

Jake on Muslim accommodation:

In fact, you and your contributors prove this fact by your vigorous attention to immigration/refugee issues. The Somali factory workers who desire to practice prayer during Ramadan are doing the same thing you do when you warn people about refugee policies and issues. You value traditional American ideals and worry that multiculturalism is “changing the way we live.” Muslim refugees value their religion and culture and worry that they will not be able to hand those sacred things down to their children.

We are the first to say that Muslims have every right to practice their religion at home and at places of worship, but to demand that the entire workplace must be re-ordered to accommodate Islam is wrong.  It is part of the “stealth jihad.”   How about if I insisted an alter and crucifix should be placed at my secular place of employment, wouldn’t you be one of the first to scream bloody murder?   It is very simple, either one takes time off work for religious obligations or gets another job.   Imagine for a minute, that I should go to a Muslim country, hey how about Saudi Arabia, and ask to read my Bible in public, what do you think my chances are of going to jail for it?    People with your worldview would think me an ugly American for even considering such a thing—reading a Bible in public in a Muslim country.  Well, why should we tolerate demands for public religious accommodation?

Jake, with your “racist” comment above you have “villainized” and “stereotyped” us:

Just like you, they believe their way of life is in danger. Just like you, they take action to preserve it. You wouldn’t like it if people stereotyped and villainized you and called you a stealth jihadist for caring about your heritage. Please don’t do it to them.

Yes, they want to “preserve” their culture, but the difference is that I am not trying to “preserve” my culture in the midst of another country’s culture and expecting that country to change for me.    And, frankly, I happen to think our American culture is superior to most, all!, of the cultures that are coming to the US and if that were not so, they would be staying in their part of the world and trying to improve it instead of beating down the door to get here.

So, I do appreciate Jake’s comment and really don’t mean to sound so nasty in response, but we are here to make people think.  I know people in the refugee field believe they are doing good works and that sentiment is not unrecognized here, but we are here to show there are others who believe that refugee resettlement, as presently administered, may in fact be deterimental to America and at times to the very refugee populations themselves, and someone’s gotta say it!

Comment worth noting: Why are Iraqi refugees given more than the local poor American?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

That is the gist of a reader’s comment we posted yesterday here.  Msdreamgirlusa is commenting on a post from late last year about refugees going to Ohio and so I’m posting it here now so it won’t be lost at an old post you likely wouldn’t see.

Her comment demonstrates a point we have made over and over again, local citizens see an unfairness in the way refugees are treated when compared to the local less fortunate.   The refugees are definitely given more and they wonder why.  

Also, her comment demonstrates another point we tried to make in Hagerstown, MD nearly two years ago now.   If refugees are to be resettled in a community the local citizen must be fully informed.   Refugee resettlement agencies (volags, the federal contractors) and the government agencies at state and federal levels give the impression that they are so fearful of a local backlash that they keep the whole damn thing secret which only serves to get local citizens even angrier.   If the Refugee Resettlement program is good, then put all the facts out for public debate!

So, here is our Ohio reader’s comment.  

I live in Franklin County Ohio and here is my opinion of the Iraqi Refugees In Ohio , Why are the Iraqi Refugees allowed to come here , recieve double sometimes triple the benefits that should be entitled to American Citizens , they cause problems where ever they are placed , they comment that the USA attacked and Bomb Iraq and that we owe them .

I am an American Citizen ( Natural ) the area I live in has been overtaken by Iraqi Refugees which live like Uncivilized people and hit their children in an abusive manner , they fight amoung themselves constantly , they speak about how bad America is treating them , why do we have to suffer them and why do we have to live in poverty while they are getting paid to be here thru our welfare and medicaid services ? Our goverment needs to put a limit on how long they can be here and make them find jobs to support themselves , they are given Resident Status as soon as they arrive in the USA and obtain Social Security Cards and Employment I.D.’s yet they seek employment with wages paid under the table and still recieve welfare and medicaid benefits.

I think that Our Goverment needs to monitor them more closely . I think that they are being treated more than fair and given more in monies than most , they are able to purchase New Automobiles and New Laptops and still able to send monies back to their families in Iraq and other Arab Countries.

I am sure some of our readers don’t like what they have just read,  others of you are likely shaking your heads in agreement with her.   Bottomline, Msdreamgirlusa must be allowed a voice and that is what we provide.

Note to readers: aaaahhhh!

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

News is flying at me from all directions!   Writing Refugee Resettlement Watch could easily be a full time job for several people, but Judy and I try to squeeze it in around the rest of our lives—as a community service!    I guess you can tell I am overwhelmed at the moment and want to thank all of you who send us news and assure you that I read it and very often hope to post on whatever you send.  ‘Hope’ is the operative word there!   I have lists of potential posts that I never get to, but please keep sending news and we will do our best to bring it to our wider (worldwide!) audience.

Thanks too to our regular readers for your continued support and encouragement.

Get ready for “climate refugees!”

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

I told you about this incredible campaign back in December, but there is more today.  Participants in the global warming crusade (notice now that the climate is cooling, “climate change” is the operative phrase) are pushing for a redefinition of ‘refugees’ to accomodate their apocalyptic view that in a few short years we will have millions of people escaping “climate change” who need to be resettled in your community.

I don’t have the time or patience to analyze this lengthy article published at something called the International Relations and Security Network, so read the whole thing.    

The problem of defining ‘climate refugee.’

Albeit popular in the press, the term “climate refugee” enjoys no legal authority. The 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the core treaty of international refugee law. Article 1 defines a refugee as any person who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” The definition does not afford binding legal protection to environmentally displaced persons, and focuses instead on political refugees and refugees of violent conflict.

A 1967 Protocol later amended the 1951 Convention and removed geographic and time constraints, rendering the convention a more universal document. Climate refugees, however, remained outside the legal framework. The UN world recognizes this dissimilarity and employs a verbose working definition instead – “environmentally induced migrant.”

The result puts humanitarians and environmentalists compassionately at odds. Humanitarians argue their limited resources are already overstretched. Environmentalists note that climate change and consequently environmental displacement are byproducts of human-led industrialization. Sheltering those victimized by climate change is a moral and security imperative.

We will need new funding and resettlement schemes (no doubt!).

Eventually, to avoid the most adverse of scenarios, resettlement and funding schemes will be needed. Civil society is leading the charge. Due to their proximity to the Pacific islands, the governments of Australia and New Zealand have become early targets of pressure.

The right to resettlement, however, begs a fundamental question: How does the international community distinguish between victims of climate change and casualties of unsustainable development? Professor Biermann explains that although this distinction may be useful in the developed world, elsewhere it is unfitting. “It is difficult to say for developing countries […] you can’t tell the Egyptians its your problem that you settled in the Nile [Delta], because this what they have been doing for the last 5,000 years.

“[That] is why we make the distinction between climate refugees and other refugees – because of the moral link between causation and consequence. Rich industrialized countries, they have been responsible for the largest part of this problem.”

Refugees are not a blessing.  Really?   I thought diversity strengthened communities.

Any resettlement, nevertheless, will likely be onerous. Displaced populations may be forced to take up residence in foreign countries, straining cultural traditions and in certain cases the very existence of their national identities. Refugees, never mind their genesis, are rarely regarded as a blessing. They necessitate costly assistance and their presence – albeit through no fault of their own – frequently engenders political strife with local communities, all the more reason for drafting resettlement schemes early on.

As I said, get ready.