Rtheyserious posted this as a comment to my post of this morning  in which I said that we are seeking suggestions for reforming the Refugee Resettlement program, but I am posting it separately here as well so as to keep a consistent format.  By the way, feel free to send additional suggestions, just keep each one brief.

Strict guidelines for assimilation must be introduced.

Each refugee must be sponsored by a non-immigrant (natural citizen) family. Non-immigrant meaning the head of household and spouse are natural born citizens – at minimum, second generation.

The non-immigrant sponsor family must be tested just as any naturalized citizen testing for citizenship. If the sponsor family cannot pass the US citizenship test, then they are not suitable for guidance on assimilation to American societal expectations.

Only accept as many refugees as there are responsible vetted sponsor families available.

The sponsor family is to be responsible for meeting the needs of the refugee for no more than two years. If the refugee is not gainfully employed and communicating in English sufficiently after this period, then the refugee must be fast tracked to meet the minimum independence – speaking/reading basic english – capable of banking, driving. If after six additional months of intense training the refugee remains un-employed &/or incapable of communicating sufficiently in english – he must seek and secure another American sponsor family or repatriate to country of origin. The original family that sponsored this refugee will no longer qualify for additional sponsorship.

In my post earlier today about the need to reform Refugee Resettlement I said I would post reform suggestions from readers.  This is the first of those, with hopefully more to come.     Note:  I’ll post these just as they come in.

From an anonymous reader:

I saw your comments on the internet you needed ideas

The families with childrens should not be resettled until their childrens finish school as the resettlment is disturbing their education

you should consider small families first

father and son

or mother and son only

father and daughter

or mother and daughter

or father mother and son

and similar

every small family should be put with another family in the same flat or house

one disabled asylum should be put with one or two able asylum in the same house or flat

asylum should be given a voucher instead of money with their names on it

that no one from the ones who running the programs will cheat with stamp for food

make appeal on the intenet for donation specially for the sick and the disabled

encourage people to take their belonging with them such as pillows, blankets, other necessary things that you do not have to provide them

allow people to take money with them when they are travelling to America to help them with their own expenses or buying a ticket

people can buy a health insurance for a year if they can afford

appeal to any country who have plenty of accommodations to take asylum seekers at least temporarily until you find them the accommodations needed instead of waiting in the Middle East

a single asylum seekers should be put in one room with a family or with another asylum seeker until finding them a suitable accommodation

voting about asylum is a bad idea it would not be fair

there are plenty of people who wil be happy to give accommodations to asylum seeker if they were desperate

all countries should share to give all asylum seekers home no one should be discriminated against

Update May 19th:  Suggestion #4:  get rid of the program altogether.

Update May 6th:  The third suggestion is here.

Update:  First reform suggestion is here.  The second is here.

We have said many times over the last two years that the Refugee Resettlement program must be reformed and indeed note it is one of the three items we have listed in our mission statement at the right of this page.   Recent events, unhappy Iraqi refugees, the sour economy, refugee resettlement offices closing, conflicts with Somalis in some towns, all point to the need to discuss reform more seriously.

Mr. Parker from Atlanta commented yesterday in response to the post in which I discussed his long comment of last week  here and it gave me the idea of inviting readers to give us your reform ideas.  I’ll start with one I’ve mentioned before and it seeks to answer Mr. Parker’s statement yesterday.

If one was to allow towns to vote as to whether to accept refugees, most would decline as Springfield did and there was uproar in Lewiston.

One of my reform ideas, that I have mentioned previously, is that there should be a Social and Economic Impact Study done in advance of resettling refugees in a particular town or city.  The Study would be updated periodically to account for changes like the closing of an important employer or a decline in available housing.   Incidentally there is nothing one can do about secondary migration of refugees such as those who went to Lewiston, this would only apply to new resettlements.

In the 1970’s Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which required that any major federal action (federal money spent) in a location could trigger an Environmental Impact Study (EIS).  The important thing about the EIS process is that it required public hearings. 

In my mind that—public discussion— is one of the most significant reforms needed in the Refugee program.  When the Virginia Council of Churches very quietly began resettling refugees in our rural Maryland county a couple of years ago, I initially just wanted to know what the governmental  process was.   The way VCC and our local paper acted you would think I wanted to know about some important state secret.  Here is what I said at the time.

An EIS-like process and public hearings about refugee resettlement would serve to answer in advance citizens questions and concerns and might even head off problems down the road.  Frankly the way the program works now, volags (the federal contractors) just pour refugees into a community until something blows up—like housing dries up, or jobs are not available.  It is a very foolish system.  Wouldn’t it just be good government to plan in advance by considering all the factors involved—social and economic?

Mr. Parker’s statement above seems to condone sneaking stuff by people in order for one group (advocates of refugee resettlement) to shove what they want down others’ throats.   In fact it then makes it even harder for refugees to be accepted in a community. 

Citizens have the right to know what higher levels of government (and in this case unaccountable non-profit groups) have planned for their community.  (Transparancy in Obama-lingo!).  I can’t say whether a town or city would flat out say ‘no’ to refugees being resettled there, perhaps it would only end up with a limitation on how many families could be safely and economically resettled in a particular place,  but I will say that the secrecy that surrounds this program is one of its most inflammatory features. 

If the Federal Government thinks this is a good program then they should damn well defend it in the open— in public.  Isn’t that how government is supposed to work?  Each side presents its case and the decision made in an open and democratic process prevails?

This concept, of a Social and Economic Impact study is just one of the many ideas I have for reform.  I invite you to comment on the idea I’ve just presented, or send us your own.     But, limit it to one concept at a time.   Send your reform suggestion as a comment to this post, and tell me if you want it featured as a stand-alone post.  Do it anonymously (with a pen name) if you wish, or e-mail me your reform idea here:   Ann@vigilantfreedom.com and I will publish it as a stand-alone post.

I won’t publish your name (except if you wish it to be posted under a pen-name) or your e-mail address or even location, just your idea for reform.  But, keep it one item at a time and try to stay under 600 words (you will have an opportunity to say more in response to the comments to your post) for each subject ;  send as many reform ideas as you wish.

Note we have a Reforms needed category and that is where all of your suggestions will be archived.  And, maybe someday someone in government will pay attention to them!