Month: May 2009

Refugee Resettlement program reform desperately needed

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

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!

IRC Boston office closure decision is revealing

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

I first told you about this two days ago—the International Rescue Committee has announced it will close its Boston office because they don’t have enough money in their $200 million plus annual income to take care of refugees there after 3 decades of doing so.    From the Boston Business Journal:

IRC officials said their work in Boston was crippled by a combination of factors: the area’s high cost of housing, federal funding limits set too low to make ends meet, fewer refugees assigned to start their lives in Boston and dwindling philanthropic support. Headquartered in New York, IRC will continue its refugee resettlement programs in other cities across the country.

[….]

While federal funding comprises the lion’s share of the IRC’s budget, private contributions make up the difference and those plummeted over the past six years in Boston, dropping to approximately $25,000 in 2008 from $207,000 in 2003.

Although they are supposed to be public-private partnerships, these corporate humanitarian organizations, like the IRC, have become almost completely dependent on taxpayer funding to resettle refugees.  This reference above to fewer refugees being assigned to Boston means that since these agencies are paid by the head (by you!), their coffers are diminished when each has less refugees to resettle.  On top of that, it is human nature that when people realize the government is the charity, then there is less private charity given.

What?  Housing costs are through the roof in the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts!   Senator Ted, send them to Hyannisport, Kennedy can’t afford to keep refugees in his state!  I wonder how many refugees Kennedy could care for with his personal wealth?  Or, how about Rep. Barney, the housing king, Frank, no room at his home either?

The closure of the IRC is starkly symbolic of Boston’s struggle to maintain a strong refugee population while balancing housing costs that remain among the highest in the country despite the spiraling economy.

And here it is, an unbelievable revelation that the presence of refugees have a political impact.  This can’t be, I thought this was all about helping the downtrodden.

The factors leading to the IRC’s decision to leave Boston are perhaps more significant even than the closure itself. With a steady decline in the number of refugees resettling in Boston there is a potential corresponding decline in population statewide [What, a decline in Democratic voters?], a number factored into decisions about the composition and size of Massachusetts’ Congressional delegation and certain types of federal funding.

And again, for all of you wondering how refugees come to live in your city, it is just as I said on previous occasions, these corporate humanitarian organizations decide if and when your city is “welcoming.”   The State Department only jumps in when problems arise, otherwise completely unaccountable NGO’s are choosing your community for resettling refugees.

Where to resettle refugees, one city or state versus another, is a decision that rests at the federal level, reviewed weekly by the U.S. State Department and a group of national aid organization that provide services for refugees. These national organizations, in turn, assign cases to local affiliates based on several factors, including housing cost and employment. The IRC, for example, assigned refugee cases to its Boston-based office, while the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops assigns cases to Catholic Charities in Boston.

Based on this information, Catholic Charities might soon have to cut its refugee resettlement program.

As the IRC closure demonstrates, Boston has lost its appeal in recent years, most acutely since 9/11 [what the heck does 9/11 have to do with Boston’s appeal to refugees?] and particularly for refugees who have no relatives in the area. Catholic Charities managed 450 refugee resettlement cases at a time in Boston during the 1990s; today, its caseload is 127, said Marjean Perhot, the operation’s director of refugee and immigration services.

Boston, don’t give up yet!  More refugees may still come your way if your state refugee coordinator* has his way.   Afterall,  he needs to assure refugees keep coming because the feds (the federal taxpayers) pay for his office too!

Chacon (Richard Chacon, executive director of the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants) said he is lobbying hard on the national level to keep refugees coming to Boston, and said he hopes to see the IRC return to the city someday.

* Contact information for Mr. Chacon and all other state coordinators can be found here.  See Massachusetts and note how much federal money Mr. Chacon’s office receives.   Scroll up or down for your state.

Taxpayer-funded stimulus money going to keep refugee resettlement moving along in Arizona

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Your tax dollars:

Obama stimulus funds are being made available to VISTA so they can employ cadres of workers to help in refugee resettlement among other things.   From the Arizona Republic:

The cavalry has arrived just in time, at least for some financially strapped non-profit and government agencies.

They’re not on horseback, but the cadre of paid Volunteers In Service To America workers could not have come at a better time. The workers are paid a stipend funded by the federal economic-stimulus package to work with youth programs in Phoenix; help the Mesa United Way raise funds; teach refugees life skills; and assist Goodyear as it cracks down on neighborhood blight.

[….] 

For agencies with little funding for employees, the VISTA program has been a godsend, said the Rev. Donna Buckles, a VISTA program supervisor for Refugee Resettlement of Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest. 

[….]

The state Department of Economic Security intends to hire 20 VISTA workers to assist with refugee-resettlement projects this fall. One project includes training refugees in child care so others can go to work; another involves canning foods that would normally be thrown away.

Hurry, one and all—get your free government money!

Iranian refugee camp in Iraq in jeopardy

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Here is a story I want to bring to your attention, but am not sure what to say about it other than keep an eye on it.   From the Washington Times yesterday.

Trouble is brewing at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where 3,500 members of the main Iranian opposition group the PMOI – the People’s Mujahideen of Iran – are based.

At Iran’s request, the Iraqi authorities, who took over protection of Ashraf from American troops in January, are now preventing medicine and fuel from reaching the inhabitants. Parts of Ashraf, including a dormitory for several hundred women, have been besieged since mid-March, and unarmed residents have been subjected to violence. Most journalists and Iraqi doctors are not allowed entry – neither are relatives of the PMOI nor women of any nationality.

These draconian measures were put into force by Iraq’s National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, a key ally of Iran, who says he wants to drive PMOI members out of Iraq. They also come two months after the European Union removed the PMOI from its terrorist list. Britain de-proscribed the group in 2008 after the Court of Appeal found that all the evidence showed it was “perverse” to classify the group as a terrorist organization.

The group remains on the U.S. blacklist, but in 2004 Washington recognized all PMOI members in Ashraf as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, after determining that none of them could be charged with any crime under U.S. law. Under international law, an attempt to forcefully displace the population even inside Iraq would be tantamount to a war crime.

Americans have been protecting this camp and I asked in March if these Iranians are killed when we pull-out of Iraq will Obama be blamed?

Bhutanese join the ranks of the unemployed in Idaho

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

For our regular readers there is really nothing new here, except maybe that this article is not about unemployed Iraqis who want to go home, but about a Bhutanese family (five of the soon to be 60,000 Bhutanese arriving in the US) trying to make it in Boise.

BOISE, Idaho – For 17 years, Dilli Ram Gautam was homeless, living in a Nepalese refugee camp.

Now, just 9 months after Gautam and his family moved into an apartment, he’s just a few weeks away from homelessness again – but this time in a strange town, strange state, and strange country.

Idaho officials say it’s never been harder, economically speaking, to be a refugee.

“There is a lot of stress. My wife and I worry about it, my children worry about it,” he said. “We thought before coming to the U.S. that our life would be better here – and the living condition is good, clean. The problem is that we have been homeless for 17 years, and we are afraid we will be homeless here as well.”

In Idaho, refugees are eligible for cash assistance for 8 months, said Wendy Morgan, spokeswoman for the Idaho Office of Refugees.

In fiscal year 2007, 92 percent of all refugee families in the state were employed before those benefits ran out, Morgan said. In 2008, that number dropped to 72 percent.

And in the first half of 2009, just 25 percent were able to find employment before their benefits ran out, Morgan said.

Note that the International Rescue Committee that closed a financially-strapped and decades-old office in Boston just this week, has opened an office in Boise recently.

The International Rescue Committee opened its Boise office three years ago.

I wish I better understood this territorial competition among the Top Ten federal refugee resettlement contractors*.  Do they search out cities that appear “welcoming” and open offices even though there are already competitors resettling refugees in the same locale?   We observed this very blatantly happening in Ft. Wayne, IN , so I’ve been wondering about the turf wars ever since.

Oh well, no matter, even if there are no jobs and refugees are worried about being homeless the US State Department is going to keep them flowing to your town or city.

Since October 2008, more than 600 refugees have arrived in Idaho, Morgan said. The Idaho Office of Refugees expects that number to reach 1,100 by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, and predicts that another 1,100 refugees could arrive in the state in 2010.

I’ve written often about Boise, here is a post from back in February where officials there were worried there might soon be tent cities in Idaho.

* It is such a misnomer to call these groups volags, short for voluntary organization, because they are not voluntary when they are being paid by the taxpayer for their services.