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!