Do it for Allah! Somalis being kept from assimilating by radical Islamists

I have a pair of stories today about Minnesota Somalis that suggest it is radical Islamic teaching that is keeping Somalis from fully integrating into American life, and indeed may be behind the recent rash of Somali former refugees leaving the US for terrorist training in Somalia.

The first is written by Brendan Goldman and published by Pajamas Media,  and it begins:

The mainstream media has publicized a few cases of Somali-American youth that have returned to their homeland to fight for Islamist forces there. What the media has neglected to investigate is how Islamist members of the Somali-American community have formed organizations to advocate their agenda here in the United States. These organizations, which claim to represent the larger Somali community, silence moderate Muslim voices and impede the integration of Somalis into American society.

There are approximately 200,000 Somalis living in the United States, the largest community of 70,000 people residing in Minneapolis-St. Paul (population statistics for Somalis in America are rough estimates because many Somalis are here as refugees and therefore are not counted in official surveys). According to Andrew Liepman, the deputy director of intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center, Somali-Americans face “greater insularity compared to other, more integrated Muslim immigrant communities, [which] has aggravated the challenge of assimilation for their children.”

Islamists have taken advantage of this insularity to disseminate their ideology within the community. The Islamists’ dogma ascribes no value to American cultural norms and has therefore led to clashes between Somalis and their host communities.

In one such incident, Hassan Mohamud, a prominent Somali-American imam, recently encouraged his congregants to give to Islamist causes in order to ameliorate “the hell of living in America.”

Read the rest of the article which is pretty much a summary of cases we have chronicled at RRW of Somalis unwilling to assimilate.

Then there is this Minnesota Public Radio story yesterday that tells us it might have been the speech of a radical London-based Somali,* who gave a fiery talk in Minnesota in 2007 attempting to arouse patriotic fervor for the war in Africa with the Ethiopian forces that is responsible for the youths’ departure.

Local Somalis, including Abdirizak Bihi (who we heard from here and who is trying to be a good American citizen), say that one speech was not enough, it was years of indoctrination at mosques that caused these young men to go to fight holy war in Somalia.

Even Somalis in Minnesota who were sympathetic to the fighting a year ago have now distanced themselves from one of the main resistance groups, Al-Shabaab, which has emerged as the Somali government’s top enemy and has claimed responsibility for a number of suicide bombings. The U.S. has declared Al-Shabaab as a terrorist group.

Burhan Hassan, a 17-year-old high school senior from Minneapolis whose family believes he joined the fighting in Somalia last year, was recently killed in a homeland he hardly knew. His uncle, Abdirizak Bihi, finds Zakaria Abdi’s speech disturbing, but not compelling enough to motivate his nephew and others to war.

“These kids don’t speak Somali,” Bihi said. “They don’t understand Somali issues.”

Bihi still blames a handful of religious leaders in Minnesota for radicalizing the young men with extremist ideology.

“It’s not the work that was done by one speech,” he said. “It’s not the work that was done in a couple days or months. It’s the work of years and years and years.”

After wading through many paragraphs we arrive at the end of the MPR story to find the two sentence answer to what I believe motivated Somali-Americans (former refugees) to give up the good life here.

In the interview, Maruf (one of those who left to fight) implies that his participation in the fighting was motivated by religion, not patriotism. Maruf said he and his friends heard the call of Allah, and they accepted it.

* I thought it was funny that this radical Muslim lives and presumably gives his incendiary speeches in England but Dutch Parlimentarian Geert Wilders has been denied entry into the UK as has American radio host Michael Savage because their speech might rile up the Muslims.   Funny huh?

Comment worth noting: Mine!

There is a good discussion going on in yesterday’s “comment worth noting” which was originally about federal refugee contractors lining up private sponsors for each refugee family, something they do not do now to any large degree.  It further evolved into a discussion of how refugees are free to move anywhere after their original resettlement. 

I then contended that the Refugee Resettlement Program is run secretively.  Frequent critic of RRW, Iamevloved, responded that it wasn’t secretive if you were willing to do a little work researching it.  This is my response and a reform idea I have been advocating for some time.

Come to think of it, in this era of  transparancy, maybe the Obama Administration might like my idea!

Iamevloved, I guess you wouldn’t object then to one of my reform suggestions. That is, when a city is being considered as a refugee receiving city or when a city is to receive additional refugees from the point of passage of my reform legislation, there would be a federal requirement for a Social and Economic Impact Study completed for that city or county.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that any major federal action (including spending money) impacting the human environment triggers an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As part of that EIS process and my recommended process for a Social and Economic Impact Study there would be (and is for the EIS) a requirement for public hearings.

I propose public hearings in each refugee-receiving city. The hearings would help determine such things as housing availability, job availability, social compatibility of the refugees to the area and so forth. Most city and even state officials have no clue how the refugee program works now, and citizens as we learned here where I live have even less of an understanding.

If the program is a good one, it will stand on its merits. I stand by my original statement that this is all done in a sneaky and secretive fashion for new cities that are targeted to receive refugees.

And, damn it! It is not the responsibility of average citizens to spend years trying to figure out what is going on in their communities with a federal program slipped in and administered by contractors!

Can we find someone in Congress to draft my bill?

It is confirmed: 1350 Iraqi Palestinians coming to the US

Update July 30th:  More here at Forbes magazine.

Update July 17th:  The Wall Street Journal has more information on the story, here.

Update July 11th:  American Thinker had an opinion piece on the Iraqi Palestinian refugees yesterday with a lot of interesting comments posted as well, here.

Update later on July 10th:   Advocates for open borders (people who have apparently no concern with the numbers or where immigrants come from), call Mark Krikorian a “nativist” and “racist” for his comments in this Christian Science Monitor story,  once again demonstrating that they, none of them apparently, can have a discussion/disagreement on immigration without demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.  That is classic Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals.”   See the aptly named “Wonk Room” Progressive blog here to see what I’m talking about.

It continues to amaze me that these commenters (calling Krikorian a nativist) can’t see that the refugees we bring here are virtually turned over to big businesses in order to keep wages low.   They are largely being exploited, and at times live in terrible conditions here when government resettlement contractors leave them in a lurch.  I bet in the last two years we have nearly a hundred posts about refugees living in the US in squalid conditions, and we have written extensively about Iraqi refugees returning home to Iraq or the Middle East where they are culturally comfortable after being here for a few months.  So it’s not so easy to tell who are the good guys, as the Progressives would have you believe, in this discussion and who are the bad guys.  Are the open borders folks really the good guys they like to portray themselves to be? 

More information from Jerry Gordon writing at  New English Review yesterday, here.

 Original post starts here:

It really is no surprise to hear, we have reported on many occasions* about the lobbying/public relations effort that groups like Refugees International**  have been waging ,  that it has been confirmed by the US State Department—-Palestinians, who were in Iraq at Saddam Hussein’s invitation, would be coming to the US.   About ten days ago we speculated that this might be in the works, here.

From the Christian Science Monitor (hat tip: three of our readers!):

Atlanta – The State Department confirmed today that as many as 1,350 Iraqi Palestinians – once the well-treated guests of Saddam Hussein and now at outs with much of Iraqi society – will be resettled in the US, mostly in southern California, starting this fall.

It will be the largest-ever resettlement of Palestinian refugees into the US – and welcome news to the Palestinians who fled to Iraq after 1948 but who have had a tough time since Mr. Hussein was deposed in 2003. Targeted by Iraqi Shiites, the mostly-Sunni Palestinians have spent recent years in one of the region’s roughest refugee camps, Al Waleed, near Iraq’s border with Syria.

“Really for the first time, the United States is recognizing a Palestinian refugee population that could be admitted to the US as part of a resettlement program,” says Bill Frelick, refugee policy director at Human Rights Watch in Washington.

Given the US’s past reluctance to resettle Palestinians – it accepted just seven Palestinians in 2007 and nine in 2008 – the effort could ruffle some diplomatic feathers.

I must say, if the State Department is sending them to California, they must be in on bringing down the economy of arguably the most financially-beleaguered state in the US.   Maybe the Obama/Clinton State Department is following the Cloward-Piven principle on how one brings down a government by overwhelming the welfare system!  (To learn more about the Cloward-Piven strategy start with Judy’s post, here. To those of us who cannot understand the idiocy of  the Left’s drive to import more poverty, it is the explanation!)

Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies charged that the State Department is dropping off its problems in a town near you, and not necessarily a California town.

But some critics say the State Department is sloughing off its problems onto American cities, especially since in this case the Palestinians were sympathizers of Hussein, who was deposed by the US.

“This is politically a real hot potato,” says Mark Krikorian, director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, adding, “[A]merica has become a dumping ground for the State Department’s problems – they’re tossing their problems over their head into Harrisburg, Pa., or Omaha, Neb.”

To further illuminate Mr. Krikorian’s point, why didn’t the UNHCR and the US State Department put pressure on rich Arab countries like Saudi Arabia to take their Muslim brethren?  To their credit these camp-dwelling Palestinians caught at the Iraq-Syria border themselves called their co-religionists in Arab-run countries hypocrites for not taking them in—where is the much ballyhooed Muslim charity?  We know why they don’t take them—Islamists must keep the refugee thorn in the side of the Israeli government.  They must keep the hate going.

And, by the way, these Palestinians will come to the US in the Iraqi refugee quota, so besides residents of the resettlement cities not really knowing who their neighbors are, presumably they will take 1350 places from possibly Christian or other minority refugees from Iraq.   I hope the State Department at least takes care not to resettle them in the midst of Shia Muslims in your town, thus bringing the problems of the Middle East closer to home.

While the US generally doesn’t accept Palestinians, Todd Pierce, a spokesman for the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, says that the Iraqi population of Palestinians falls under a different category from those in Gaza and the West Bank. Each applicant will be carefully scrutinized for terrorist ties, he adds.

The US reluctance to accept Palestinians is because it “doesn’t want the refugee program to become an issue in its relationship with Israel,” says a diplomat in the region, who requested anonymity because he is not cleared to talk to the press. But these Palestinians, he says, will be processed as refugees from Iraq.

Mr. Krikorian says the US should be the last refuge for those fleeing persecution. Only Jordan of all the Arab countries routinely grants citizenship to Palestinian refugees, he notes. More recently, says Mr. Frelick, Jordan has also shut its borders to Palestinians coming from Iraq.

* For those readers wanting to know more, I just used our search function for ‘Iraqi Palestinians’ and realized we have mentioned this group of refugees in nearly 40 posts.

** Review these posts to start with on Refugees International, the lobbying arm of the refugee industry.  Here I point out the lobbying campaign of RI for the Palestinians but no mention of the persecuted Christians.  Then in this post I told you that RI Chairman of the Board, Farooq Kathwari, has been criticized for his alleged connection to radical Islamists.