Month: October 2009

Stimulus money goes to research on ethnic old people

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Your tax dollars:

What happened to repairs on roads and bridges?  What happened to shovel-ready projects to put people to work?   It seems to me that the only people put to work here are government-funded scientists who shouldn’t have much trouble finding work.   Now, if this were a nurses training program for nurses who are going to take care of millions of old people (including the minority elders), that would make some sense, but researchers?

Here is a story from New America Media (an ethnic news outfit)* entitled “Stimulus Boosts Research on Minority Elders” that caught my eye.   Some interesting bits of information in this article:

Green is part of a community-health pipeline at six major universities across the United States that just received a boost from stimulus grants. The National Institutes on Aging (NIA) created the program in 1997 to fill the void in health research needed to bring better care to ethnic elders – and the supply of scientists to do it.

The program — called the Resource Centers for Minority Elders Research (RCMAR) — recently received a $179,000 federal stimulus grant that will help revive a national effort placed on hold because of stagnant federal funding in recent years.

[…..]

“Stimulus money will help fund more research projects that can potentially improve the health of older ethnic populations, while at the same time creating more jobs in health research,” said Wallace, who also co-directs UCLA’s Center for Health Improvement for Minority Elders, one of the six RCMARs.

[…..]

Concern about meeting the unique needs of multicultural seniors grew as NIA scientists realized that the populations of ethnic elders will grow by more than 180 percent in the next two decades, more than double the rate of whites 65-plus.

[…..]

According to a 2008 NIA evaluation, RCMAR trained nearly 200 new researchers in aging, in its first decade, and 95 percent of the new gerontologists were from ethnic groups…

* It always amuses me when a publication (or any organization) brags about how it is geared to this or that ethnic group.  Imagine the outcry if a major on-line publication billed itself as a publication for news about white people.  Or how about an organization that applied for a federal grant as a minority white group in certain cities in the US!

How refugees get stuff: houses, businesses, education and cars

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Your tax dollars:

Yesterday a reader asked about special deals for refugees and I was reminded of the Individual Development Accounts—a special savings plan for refugees that provides matching taxpayer money—which I haven’t mentioned for a long time.  I see now there is new information at the site—a list of the 22 organizations and agencies in the country where this sweet deal is available to refugees this past fiscal year.

Here are the objectives right from the ORR website:

The objectives of the IDA Program are to increase the ability of low-income refugees to save; promote their participation in the financial institutions of this country; assist refugees in advancing their education; increase home ownership; and assist refugees in gaining access to capital.

Program description:

Individual development accounts are matched savings accounts available for the purchase of specific assets. Under the IDA program, the matching funds, together with the refugee’s own savings from their employment, are available for purchasing one (or more) of four savings goals: home purchase; microenterprise capitalization; post secondary education or training; and in some cases, purchase of an automobile if necessary to maintain or upgrade employment.

IDA grantees provide matched savings accounts to refugees whose annual income is less than 200 percent of the poverty level and whose assets, exclusive of a personal residence and one vehicle, are less than $10,000. Grantees provide matches [using your tax dollars] of up to $1 for every $1 deposited by a refugee in a savings account. The total match amount provided may not exceed $2,000 for individuals or $4,000 for households. Upon enrolling in an IDA program, a refugee signs a savings plan agreement which specifies the savings goal, the match rate, and the amount the refugee will save each month.

In addition, the IDA grantees provide basic financial training which is intended to assist refugees in understanding the American financial system, budgeting, saving, and credit. The IDA grantees also provide training focused on the specific savings goals. The specialized training ensures that refugees receive appropriate information on purchasing and managing their asset purchases.

Here are the 22 organizations and agencies that received money in FY09 (we have already begun FY10):

1 Alliance for Multicultural Community Service Inc. Houston TX

2 Cambodian Mutual Assistance Assoc of Greater Lowell Lowell MA

3 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County San Jose CA

4 Catholic Charities, Diocese of Camden Camden NJ

5 Catholic Charities, Diocese of St. Petersburg, Inc. St. Petersburg FL

6 Diocese of Olympia Seattle WA

7 ECDC Enterprise Development Group Arlington VA

8 Economic & Community Development Institute Columbus OH

9 International Rescue Committee New York NY

10 Maine Department of Health & Human Services Augusta ME

11 Mountain States Group, Inc. Boise ID

12 Neighborhood Assets Spokane WA

13 United Way, Inc. Los Angeles CA

14 Western Kentucky Refugee Mutual Assistance Society Bowling Green KY

15 Lao Family Community Development, Inc. Oakland CA

16 World Relief DuPage Wheaton IL

17 Women’s Opportunities Resource Center Philadelphia PA

18 ISED Ventures Des Moines IA

19 Business Center for New Americans New York NY

20 International Institute of Metropolitan St. Louis St. Louis MO

21 Jewish Family & Vocational Services, Inc. Louisville KY

22 Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Inc. Nashville TN

I wonder how much of the money went for administering the program.

By the way, note near the end of the ORR web page there is a link to a document that summarizes how much of your money has been redistributed with the help of 54 grantees since 1999.

Reforms needed:   I can’t tell you the number of times I hear from annoyed citizens about how refugees get stuff that other Americans don’t get and it is creating tension in some “welcoming” cities—-mostly because the citizens don’t know how the refugees are getting the stuff.

This program is a prime example of the point I have made from the beginning of writing this blog.  If the government, through our elected officials, thinks this is such an important initiative it should be discussed in public forums (in the local paper, etc.)  in those cities and states where the program is available.    All the facts about refugee resettlement must be made public, it shouldn’t be left to citizens to dig around on obscure websites for information.    

I suspect that a large part of the reason for the secrecy is that government officials know that there will be anger, if the program were thoroughly discussed.

If I’m wrong and the program is well-publicized, I welcome anyone sending me links to news clippings where this program has been made public and I will post those links.

Melanie Phillips: Labour plotted to transform Britain. Sound familiar?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Melanie Phillips, courageous chronicler of the rise of Islam and anti-Semitism in the UK and the author of Londonistan, has a stunning piece in the Daily Mail. She writes:

For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.

Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

Since 2001, Britain has gained some 2.3 million immigrants. The total population is about 61 million. The U.S. population is about 308 million, or five times as many. So this would be equivalent to the U.S.  gaining about 11.5 million immigrants during the last nine years. And Britain’s immigrants include far more Muslims than ours.

Why was this done?

But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s ‘driving political purpose’, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’. 

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

This reminds me of the change in refugee policy during the Clinton years. Instead of bringing refugees into gateway cities like New York and Los Angeles, which are used to immigrants and usually have existing communities of those nationalities, the State Department decided to settle refugees in small cities all across America. They usually did this without the foreknowledge, agreement, or preparation of those cities and towns. I have no damning quote about their motivation, but when I heard this policy I immediately thought, “They want to rub ordinary Americans’ noses in multiculturalism and diversity, and show them up for the narrow-minded bigots they are.” And here’s another parallel:

But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.

A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.

It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.

That is a parallel to the Democrats’ wish to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens living here, and to open our borders to further immigration from third-world countries. I don’t know the motivation of Republicans — I guess they’re just suicidal.  Poor immigrants here vote overwhelmingly Democrat. That’s the party that takes money from the productive citizens and gives it to the unproductive. Not that all poor immigrants are unproductive, but they are vastly undereducated for decent jobs and often require government support of one kind or another (like food stamps and Medicaid) during their entire lives. But the left apparently believes that bringing them here is worth it if in the process our unique culture and qualities can be destroyed, and the evil conservatives can be vanquished forever.

LOL! Europe wishes to emulate Australian immigration policy

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Oh my gosh, where has this author been?  Hasn’t he (or those European leaders) been reading the Australian press lately about all the controversy over immigration policy, Muslims, terrorist arrests, boat people and so forth downunder.   Dear Mr. Becks, just check out our Australia category here.

According to European polls and many EU officials, the issue of uncontrolled Muslim immigration into Europe has been a policy maker’s disaster. It is a controversial if patriotic standpoint but one which could benefit from the study of how Australia handles the question.

Australia is held in high regard by many European lawmakers for the apparent success and sustainability of its immigration policy.

The most admired principles are those that see Australia effectively select its immigrants, based on family and government cohesion, skill levels and that there is, in general, public support for the policy.

Australia has had well documented instances of ‘boat people’ arriving from Asia but the numbers are miniscule when compared to the migrant levels seen across Europe. Australia has maintained a consistent approach to protecting its borders which is something which most European countries aspire to but ongoing conflict about a common policy agreement has made the task all the more difficult. Muslim immigration continues to polarise public opinion in most European theatres.

Read on.

Australia might not be as bad as Europe yet, but someone is in dreamland if they think Australia has a solution to the Muslim immigration problem!

Columbus Somalis complain that anti-terror laws hinder remittance business

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Columbus, Ohio has the second largest Somali refugee population* in the US, but banks there have halted remittance programs that allow Somalis to send money ‘home’  fearing the money will end up in the hands of terrorists.  From the Columbus Dispatch:

For months, Somalis living in Columbus have complained that it has become increasingly difficult to send money home to family members because of banking-industry fears that the funds could end up with terrorists.

Huntington, JPMorgan Chase and Charter One are among the banks that have closed accounts set up by remittance companies, said Omar Tarazi, a local lawyer who has worked with the Somali American Chamber of Commerce and several remittance companies.

Somali leaders said remittances that refugees send home are a lifeline to families and friends struggling in the war-torn African nation. It has few banks, so remittance companies are crucial to sending money home.

The leaders say banks fear being held liable if authorities discover that the money is funding extremists. The Patriot Act requires due diligence of banks in making sure that funds are tracked.

According to the U.S. State Department’s Web site, remittances totaling $1 billion were sent to Somalia from around the world in 2008.

Wow!  That’s a lot of money.

*For new readers:

The US State Department has admitted over 80,000 Somali refugees to the US in the last 25 years and then last year had to suspend family reunification because widespread immigration fraud was revealed through DNA testing.